#but i think the parallels this creates with Bruce -did NOT have to do that shit ur life is WORSE bc ur doing that shit- are fun

[starlooove]

Genuine answer tho kindaaaa because my entire point with the tim wealth thing is that even if the point about it not having much basis in canon was true (which. Lmao) it’s still gonna impact how he’s written by the writers and viewed by the fans; when it comes to writing stories a lot of people see middle class as the Relatable class which is precisely why I think those hardcore Tim Stans are pushing it so much

[gffa]

I never tired of this kind of parallel when done right--from Bruce's point of view specifically, not from Dick's. This is from a different continuity, so who knows how things played out there, but it didn't escape me that Bruce is in the middle of having to work with the Court of Owls to go stop an alternate universe Batman from coming over to their world, and they historically have an interest in Dick Grayson. Dick, who is ready to help, even after Clayface almost killed him tonight. Dick, who is ready to leap into whatever Batman's in the middle of, because he'll do anything for Bruce, even if it means tangling Dick up with the Court of Owls, too. Of course Bruce thinks about how affected all the rogue's gallery are, how Wesker didn't even want that Scarface doll, he wanted a Bobo Bear instead in this universe, but his older sister handed him that one because she needed him to focus his anger after what happened--and so Bruce thinks he's done the same thing, that he gave young Dick the Robin outfit to focus his anger because that's what his crusade demanded. And here's Dick, who almost died tonight once already, offering up more of himself and Bruce sees it in the worst possible light. Not even a true one, a fundamental truth of the universe is that Bruce couldn't tell those kids a single thing to do that they weren't already ready to do themselves, but one that he fears. He fears that he created these rogues, because they showed up and got worse as he kept going. He started fighting mobsters and now he's fighting supervillains--did he do this? And he fears the same with the Robins, that he created them by giving them this path. And it's such delicious angst! Because Bruce does tend to make all of this about himself, that everything is his fault, because he has trouble recognizing that sometimes people make decisions and it's not really about him. Nobody could have stopped Bruce at that age, but he still has trouble recognizing that he couldn't stop others at their own age, either. It's all tied up in how he worries about them, fears losing these people he loves, the guilt he has for not being able to "perfectly" save them, that they're still driven by the things that happened to them instead of completely letting it all go. It's tied up in how he wants to pile all the guilt onto himself because if it was his fault then he can control it next time. If he was the one that set them on this path, then he can take them off it, keep them safe, and not have to worry about losing them anymore.

[allovesthings]

I think Nightwing really kinda has a villain problem, I was thinking adaptations and which of his villains would make a good one in a movie and I got a few but not a lot actually that are just his.

Blockbuster is the first one that comes to mind that is his completely.

You could also take Deathstroke, he is a Titan's villain with a special interest for Dick and he has been an antagonist in his solo before.

He has other villains but they are not great, And would need to be remade for the movie to have more substance (Raptor could be a good one actually).

There are other options though: like take a Batman villain who he has a lot of history with and adapt that coughTwo-Facecough but I feel like Nightwing needs to be established and have that history with the world and the villain before they do that.

They could take one of the batman Rogue created during the DickBats period like Professor Pig or Flamengo. They did it in the comics when Damian came.

The suggestion I am going to make next is a controversial one...They could make the court of Owls... His instead of Batman ? I don't know how I feel about this one,I'm kinda torn because on one hand, I don't really like the Court of Owls in general as villains for reasons but I don't know, maybe it could be interesting in live-action and Dick is extremely important to the Court of Owl storyline in the comics and they are kinda as much his villains as Batman in the comics.

Maybe Owlman could be a Nightwing villain ? Considering the relationship he has with his Earth's Dick Grayson in the comics, the weird attachment he has to our Dick because of that and the parallel/contrast between Bruce and Thomas ?

[trekkele]

How would you have liked Dick to go from Robin to Nightwing? Being fired, intentionally driven away (to become his own man but Bruce didn't comunicate that) or a peaceful seperation and Dick leaves for college? Maybe I missed some but you get what I mean.

I personally love the pre-crisis storyline where Dick goes to college and graduates from Robin on his own terms - and then passes it on as a legacy to Jason as a gift.

I think it creates this nice parallel between Batman (never meant to be a legacy, created so no one has to suffer the way Bruce did, end goal is to not be necessary) and Robin (Dick deciding that what helped him could help others, created specifically to help one person grow and move on, end goal is spread hope) where Bruce hope Batman dies with him while Dick realizes his family legacy doesn't have to die with him.

I think there should be some conflict between Dick and Bruce about his future, because they're in that transition phase from siblings-mentors-nephews to a more parental relationship, and kids going off to college or to choose a career is a very complicated part of life on both sides. I just think a team like Batman and Robin would have, by necessity, figured out communication by the time Dick is 17-18. It doesn't have to be good or even effective communication, but I do think Bruce is capable of it - and here's the important part to me

Bruce also left home to figure himself out at 18-20. He knows exactly what Dick could be getting into, and exactly what he wanted to hear at that age. He has a precedent Alfred did not, and while I don't think he would successfully talk Dick out of setting out on his own (and he might not even try! We forget the Wayne Legacy (tm) is as heavy as it is, so he definitely Gets It) I do think he would understand what Dick needs to hear and why.

So I guess my answer is a little bit of 2 mostly 3, where Bruce wants Dick to be his own man but very intentionally doesn't drive him away to do it,

[distort-opia]

Do you think giving rise to the Joker would ruin his character?Honestly, in my opinion, it would completely ruin his character. I think the Joker not having a definitive origin is what makes me love the villain. The aspect of him being mysterious, and an unstoppable chaos is absolutely amazing. I honestly lose all desire to read any Joker comics when they create a definitive origin for him. And honestly, I hated that the three jokers were canon.

Myeah, I feel you. There's a reason I haven't kept up with comics recently (besides real life sucking out my soul with the amount of work I have to do). I just don't like what they're doing with Joker, ever since the idea of multiple Jokers resurfaced. Zdarsky and Rosenberg are good writers, but not even them could overcome my utter dislike at the idea of multiple canonical Jokers... I mean it's not their fault, it's fucking Geoff Johns' fault, but still.

I do agree that delving into Joker's backstory so much takes away from his character, although I can't say I am entirely opposed to stories hinting at it or exploring it. It's such an interesting aspect of him, the way he rebuilds himself and his past and his whole personality-- so I don't think this should be left untouched. It should just be done well. The thing about Joker is that he's Batman's narrative foil and parallel; if Batman is human, Joker is human. They both want to be more than that, but at the end of the day they're two human beings, and that's the appeal. If Joker is honestly depicted as an almost supernaturally evil monster whom Bruce cannot defeat... it completely undermines the dynamic. What's interesting is to have Bruce believe these things, and even Joker himself desperately try to leave humanity behind, but then have the story point out that it's just not possible (like Snyder did, God bless). That Joker is still a person, who despite the mystery and the subterfuge, does have a past. But turning that past into a certainty traps the character into a box, when versatility is one of his core traits. Not to mention how badly it fucks him up to imply he never had agency in his becoming as Joker (like in the Multiverse arc with Darwin Halliday).

To sum up, I don't think stories touching on Joker's past entirely ruin him as a villain. I think it very much depends on the capacity of the writer, to handle a character of Joker's complexity.

[oducchan-ofthelowercourt]

Some OFA Previous Users thoughts I need to get out of my system otherwise I won't be able to properly function anymore

We know now that Kudou (2nd user) and Bruce (3rd user) notice that Kudou has a second quirk only after Yoichi's death. This means that Yoichi didn't pass OFA before that, but he did it while he was dying -Bruce asks if Kudou had contact with AFO, they they had no idea that Yoichi could pass the quirk. We also know that OFA can't be transferred without the holder's consent, so as AFO was pulverizing him Yoichi must have thought something like "i want to stay with Kudou" or something along that line and as he bleed all over Kudou's face, including his eyes, he unconsciously transferred OFA. So Kudou's tears are not only for the pain of Yoichi's death, it's Yoichi's quirk and will passing and creating the chain that brings OFA for the future.

Kudou says that the only thing that can help bring back Izuku from the dark spiraling he's gone into is "those who will with the same intent, at the same pace, continue to run alongside him". He says this like he speaks from experience, and I can totally see it happening to him too: losing Yoichi, inheriting OFA, having to lead the rebellion, deciding to shoulder everything by himself. But he had someone who was on the same page as him who kept him sane and helped him every step of the way. Who? Bruce. The third user -and probably the whole rebellion group- definitely is a mirror to the relationship Izuku has to 1A. We all know of the parallelism between Yoichi and Izuku and Kudou and Bakugou, so Bruce has a parallelism to 1A as a whole -and, at least in my eyes, to specific people of 1A (such as Shoto, Tenya and Ochako).

As Yoichi died, Kudou and Bruce had no idea of how OFA worked and how could be passed down. They definitely spent time to figure things out, and I do wonder if they had any type of conversation with Yoichi's vestige while doing it. I do believe they swapped blood instead of hair to pass OFA, and that it was Hikage that went with hair (since he was convinced he was dying for a illness and probably didn't want to pass it to Banjo)

Speaking of Hikage and Banjo, the fact that Hikage was in isolation for 18 years (or more. Was he already an hermit when Bruce gave him OFA?) and then decided to pass the quirk to a loud and brash man is very interesting on his own. How do they met? What was their relationship?

Banjo is bald. So what did he use to pass OFA to En? I hope it was his beard.

Izuku believes he will be the last holder of OFA since quirkless people are very rare to find nowadays, but we do know at least three people that are "supposedly" quirkless RN. One is Aoyama (born quirkless, got a quirk by AFO. We don't know if AFO's eventual death will cause his acquired quirk to vanish, but if he receive a quirk like OFA he may be probably able to hold it). The others are Hawks and Ragdoll (who got their quirk stolen by AFO, so their bodies are currently "empty"). I don't think he's gonna pass it to neither of them, but the Aoyama option would work great as a means to complete his redemption arc, so to speak. [There is also All Might, but I don't think he can get it back]

[roobylavender]

considering what you have spoken about regarding selina do you also get frustrated with like…i cant quite explain it but sometimes especially in more recent years shes been posed or positioned like some sort of damsel that needs a big strong man to save her and like im not saying she should be portrayed with the “hollywood level feminism” for lack of a better term im just think about how old versions of selina would have hated that. like im just thinking of anytime in the reeves movie where bruce grabs her or forces her mouth shut or even when he didnt allow her to kill falcone and im just thinking she should claw the fuck out of him for that. i just miss a version of selina who wouldnt allow anyone to walk all over her personal autonomy like that

oh absolutely! in fact this is specifically why i can't stand loeb's take on her character lol (and as we both know that was a significant point of reference for the reeves film). it's really jarring to transition from her volume one and two canon to the long halloween / dark victory / when in rome. i think a lot of people tend to latch onto these books because tim sale's art is to die for and it's obv hard not to enjoy a good murder mystery. in that aspect they're still books i can enjoy in isolation. but i find it very difficult to enjoy them as a selina fan specifically because in every single one it's like she's looking for solace and security in a man and i'm not sure why. like what was so bad about her original backstory of having a deadbeat dad (whether you ascribe to the volume one or volume two version of him) and why did she need to go looking for her "real" father in carmine falcone. why did she need to seek out temporary boytoy relief in italy. why did she dream about being saved by bruce. none of it really has a reason other than to create a "lack" in her for the sake of it being there, because she'd never needed a man like that before in her post-crisis narrative. as you mentioned it was quite to the contrary and she was fiercely independent and protective of her own peace, esp from men. when she felt empty or without a connection or lifeline to someone real, it was mostly about people like maggie or holly or arizona. her people

what i think it ultimately comes down to are two things: the first thing is the diminishment of her post-crisis origins. after all, it's convenient to ignore how distrustful selina is of people, and of men with power at their leisure to abuse specifically, when her post-crisis origins are no longer relevant to her personal characterization. although selina's status as a sex worker is more prominent now, it was more or less completely swept under the rug for the bulk of volume two. loeb also refused to engage with it in any capacity. it only really resurfaced with the conclusion to volume two because it drew direct parallels to how we initially found her in volume one, and then brubaker expanded on it once again in his take on the character, which was notably juxtaposed against a pre-existing romance with bruce and brings me to the second thing. i've already waxed about this at length so this may very well be recap but i really don't think selina's lack of control over her personal autonomy can be divorced of the modern portrayal of the romance. when selina looking for security and understanding and comfort in bruce is what drives the romance forward there's not much room to maintain her original values and guarded demeanor, if not her outright defensiveness and hostility. a lot of people look at the extensive trauma selina has experienced and argue that she deserves to be in a relationship with someone who allows her to let those walls down. this isn't incorrect in theory. but it does repeatedly ignore who she is. it's kind of like the point i was making about bruce yesterday. exploring the inherently abusive nature of robin or of bruce's right to his children in light of that fact is interesting to do, but the actual execution has rarely managed to take into account who bruce actually is

for however nice it might be for selina to let her walls down romantically and look for solace in bruce—and i say this mostly for the sake of argument, personally i would argue against its necessity—it's realistically not something she's actually going to do. at least not as willfully as she's been portrayed to. realistically she's going to make it extremely hard, which if anything is precisely the appeal. i love it when selina gives bruce a hard time. i love that it's not supposed to be easy or maybe even a possibility for him to win her over bc there's so much about his own ideological stances that's flawed and in opposition to her own. she doesn't have to be any less unrelenting in her principles and worldview for that romance between them to be compelling bc at the end of the day the entire crux of it is that against all odds bruce cares. for however wrong he thinks she might be in a given moment or in her stance against the government, he knows who she is and how hard she's fought and what she's survived and it makes him sympathetic to her because she's real. she's a wonderful character through which to explore the logical limits of bruce's self-righteousness and categorization of crime, as well as a wonderful mirror to hold up to his face as he starts to ask himself whether what he's doing is really the only means of keeping the city safe. and the novelty of it all is that you don't have to sacrifice her character for any of that to be true. writers have simply deluded themselves into believing that they have to and that's why we are where we are today

[boyfridged]

I've been seeing quite a lot of people say Jason's characterization/personality/motives/background to just be a copy of characters like Helena Bertillini & Mia Dearden and I wonder how true it is or if people are just looking at him at surface value (cause idk much about these two to come up with a conclusion of my own)? This is a take I occasionally see surrounding Jason and I can't help but feel like this is a result of character never being given a proper place in the universe (like even with the Red Hood identity half the time DC doesn't even know what to do with him). Idk if it's just me being sensitive or defensive cause I like him but the narrative and some fans' sentiment sometimes gives off the vibe that he doesn't belong here and that he has no place/relationships that he can really call his own, like he's only being given hand-me-downs or borrowing from other characters. I guess it also has something to do with the mess that came with his robin run before. Due to external interference Jason did not find a solid footing, what with the inconsistent writing that was influenced more by bias rather than a natural narrative progression. But I'd like to think there are certain elements to his character that he can call his own and it's sad to think that even that could just be another borrowed idea. Although considering the amount of characters DC has released, an overlap is inevitable, so I'm really curious as to what extent this could be when it comes to Jason in comparison to Helena and Mia.

no, you are 100% right when it comes to it being only a surface-level comparison. and i think it's not even just a surface-level comparison, it's a terrible stretch that has its origins in fanon and modern retcons. 80s jay is not similar to mia at all, for example, and it's rewriting willis to be abusive that creates that parallel. it's also the fact that a lot of fanfic writers insist on jason being a victim of sa despite nothing in canon suggesting it outright. then with helena, the similarities start only when you consider his career as the red hood, but even then it's a completely different story.

of course, there are some alike themes and streaks in their storylines that make it plausible to claim that if you like one of these characters, you will enjoy the others. still, it's the differences that truly make them interesting.

jason's post-crisis intro and even the conflict that arises later on post-res are unique in many ways (despite the editorial doing their best to erase it.) i have talked about it plenty on here, so just to list a few; the way he was introduced and the place in the narrative it put him in (the crime alley meeting with bruce); his background (loving but neglectful due to circumstances working-class parents, homelessness etc), his grief, how he was first introduced into vigilantism, his relationship with the legacy of robin, how he sees (or doesn't see) civilian/vigilante identity, his internal conflicts... they are all so particular to his experiences. and they are often written badly, yeah, but the creative value of all these elements remains so clear in the context of wider comics.

there is def something to the fact that jay's character has always been a mess in terms of writing. + when combined with the amount of exposure that he gets nowadays, people get frustrated with him easily. but i think these comparisons do the same thing fanon does; they press all characters mentioned into stereotypes. it's probably just something that someone said once and people started repeating, that's it.

[adamsvanrhijn]

@euphonetic my criticism is that portraying the opening night at the academy as an utter failure resulted in ahistorical melodrama that undermines the narrative.

i perceive the narrative goals of the resolution of the opera war as:

reposition bertha as socially parallel and/or with superior influence to mrs. astor, playing into a larger narrative objective of upsetting the power structure of the first two seasons for more variety in the third season.

demonstrate the lengths bertha is willing to go to for social status.

set the groundwork for arranging gladys with the duke.

put a bow on mrs. fish's tendency and desire to do what is most interesting, even if it is to the left of old money expectations.

give borden and mrs bruce something cute to do, and highlight that bertha is just as willing to do her servants favors as agnes across the street. i have no criticism of any of this, 11/10 no notes!

something something the wintertons, 8/10 but those notes are for another post.

create a milestone in the overall transition of societal and social power from the old people to new money.

they achieved these goals because:

the academy of music has extremely low turnout in both boxes and floor seating, with people leaving before the opera even starts, including mrs. fish. 1, 4, and 7 ✅

the difference in demographic between high society attendees of the academy vs those at the met: those at the academy are old, even outdated, on the verge of if not already irrelevant; the met has the future. 1 and 7 ✅

the duke shows up at the met because the met is equal or superior to the academy in prominence, 1 and 7 ✅, and because bertha bribed him with gladys, 2 and 3 ✅. then he makes chitchat with the russells, 3 ✅

borden and mrs. bruce go on a cute opera date because bertha ~finds last minute tickets because another couple dropped out~. bertha, as mrs. george russell, is literally the largest donor and could have reserved orchestra seats at any previous time, and they leave it open to inference as to whether that's actually the explanation or if she just bought them tickets. 5 ✅

mrs. winterton is displaced from the box she thinks she has at the academy — and mr. winterton can scheme right along with her. 6 ✅

setting aside 4 & 5 which on the whole i am quite happy with, Thanks I Hate It. the root of why i hate it is because:

it's ahistorical. the academy of music did not have low attendance on opening night of the 1883 season, let alone as sparse as shown in tga. that did not happen in real life. (still ahistorical: this was far from the nail in the coffin on mrs. astor's social influence, which regardless of what happens in a third season is how tga's audience is interpreting what happened. but that was a goal of the narrative so i am going to set this aside for now.)

and not only did they did not have to be completely ahistorical to make their point, they could have enhanced their point by following history a little more closely and being more realistic.

for example, they could have:

at the academy, shown an almost or mostly full floor, with fewer full boxes

at the academy, shown that the boxes that are occupied are occupied mainly by an older demographic

had the duke show up at the met exactly as shown

which would have:

demonstrated bertha's rise in social influence and expanded possibility for social connections based on her material wealth

further illustrated the collapse of the old money vs new money dichotomy — it doesn't matter who is at the academy, the Right People are not at the academy, and not only that, but the Right People is changing from the old guard, who are attending the academy which we as the audience know fails and becomes irrelevant, to the new, but that new money and young old society are much more willing to mingle than old.

lay the groundwork for the show to later capitalize on the historical future of the academy as a no longer prestigious venue for vaudeville

not shot themselves in the foot for any future conflict between bertha and mrs. astor or bertha and old society, because old society still has some allegiance to mrs. astor.

allowed mrs. astor to follow through on her threat to have met box holders give up their boxes at the academy, which went nowhere on screen and so may as well have been empty

bertha wins the opera war, but with a catch: there are still relevant people aligned with mrs. astor, and if bertha wants to win them over she will have to have the duke on her side permanently

bertha wins the opera war, but for what, and at what cost: she still is not fully accepted by old society, she still has reason to want to be fully accepted by old society, and selling her daughter to the duke won her a battle but clearly not the war.

which brings me to the problem, i think, of resolving goal #1 above all the way in one scene.

in presenting bertha winning the opera war as also winning the society war, they have undermined future motivation for bertha to still work toward acceptance and for that vehicle of acceptance to be marrying gladys to the duke. that, historically, is what actually won the society war for the individual families the russells are based on (such as but not limited to the vanderbilts).

because what's the point now? either they walk back the conclusion of the season finale where it is said outright that bertha won (my money is on this one), or they erode any shred of sympathy the audience has for bertha in marrying gladys off because bertha already won—if bertha's s1 goal of gaining acceptance to society through the acceptance of mrs. astor is made irrelevant because mrs. astor is irrelevant, why is bertha still doing what she's doing, and why does the audience want to keep watching it? (i think "you've already won" will be george's position anyway.)

i know me and my tolerance for suspension of disbelief, i'll probably end up being fine when we actually get a season 3, but until then i'm gonna be grumpy about it.

[murderbirds]

It is really baffling to me that DC made one of the potentially most dangerous enemy imaginable in the form of the court of owls and they just don't know what to do with it. The concept of the elite group of a city as dangerous as Gotham City forcing Gotham to remain what it is and always has been for the sake of their own never ending greed and cheap work makes so much sense and works so well as a parallel to Bruce who is all about how to use his fortune to try and 'fix' the city, but instead people will dumb it down to just 'oh, we are so scary, we have this maze, you see.' The court of owls shouldn't be just another enemy. They should be the very essence of what Batman fights against because their reach is so great that every single one of the rogues and batman's villains were created by them, directly and indirectly. They are the ones who refuse to allow Gotham to change. You can't have all of this potential and just throw it as "villain of the week!" C'mon!

Gotham almost did it well. In season 2, we are introduced to the Court as this entity that controls all of Gotham, from Wayne Enterprises to Arkham. At this point, Strange is our main antagonist in the season, and even he is terrified of them. Season 2 of Gotham is the Court at its best. You witness how little they care about human lives and just how powerful they are, but of course, in comes season 3 and ruins everything.

Not only does the court of owls become a bunch of idiots in season 3, but they also make no sense. I understand that the big reveal is that 'oh, they are actually just being controlled by the league of shadows', which, mind you, makes no sense. The court of owls is the definition of everything that Ra's hates about humanity, but pop off, I guess. And it is funny because Ra's is probably the most effective antagonist in this show besides maybe Sofia and Strange. Ra's is an actual threat, he feels imposing, he feels powerful and it is gratifying to see him go down. He is a man led by his desire to die and to create a better world though Bruce and I could go on a whole tangent about how powerful of a narrative this can be, but I won't. This is about the Court. Not Ra's. The Court is a representation of greed from those on top and how their actions perpetuate this cycle of hate and destruction. The court is about capitalism. The league of shadows is about nihilism and trying to force the next generation to do what you wish you had. They don't work together. They are opposite extremes.

Now, let's get back on track. In season 3, the court decides that they want to 'start over' by killing off most of Gotham's population through the Tetch virus, but they never really explained why besides 'oh everything has gone wrong so we will now start over' and I just want to understand what exactly is it that has gone wrong. At this point, the court is still almost unanimously the one on top. The one who was actually the biggest threat to them, Galavan, is dead. Bruce is still a kid, so even if you do need to do something about him eventually, wouldn't it be easier and more practical to just get rid of him? Wayne manor has basically no defenses. One almost immortal guy nearly killed Bruce, Alfred and Jim, and you have an entire army of those available. Oswald isn't a threat either, at this point, he is more interested in his own greed than anything else. Hell, if they had offered him to join them, chances were, he would have accepted it. Would he be a problem in the future? Possibly, but if you are willing to try to get Jim "golden boy" joy your organization, the guy who wins a medal for not following rules, I think letting Oswald in is fine as long as you make him think he is on top. That leads us to the only remaining threat, Jim. James Gordon, at this point, isn't a part of the police anymore. He is just a private investigator. He has little to no power. Kill him, arrest him, threaten to destroy everything he loves if he doesn't stop. It doesn't matter, but don't invite him to join you. He has no power at this point, why do you even want him? Because he sorta promised Bruce to help save his parents? What? It just makes no sense that they would want Jim in their organization, who doesn't even have a place of his own at this point in the story, but not Oswald or Barbara or Butch or any actual major player in the city. And the most mind boggling thing of all is the fact that the court would go out of their way to subdue both the Riddler and the Penguin and throw them both into cages and do nothing about it. Why? What was the point of that? Weren't you going to destroy the city anyway? Why not just place them in the blast of a bomb or get rid of them? Or better yet, just kill them and get rid of their bodies! Why do you want them alive?! You didn't give two shits about Edward in season 2, why are you keeping him locked up now?! If you want something from them, why don't you talk to them?! What are you trying to accomplish?!

In any case, what I'm trying to say is, the Court of Owls makes no sense in season 3 and is just there to do what the plot requires them to do, and that is true for most other Batman media I have seen with them. They are there just to fill a role instead of being an actual threat, and this goes all the way back to their introduction, when, once again, they are treated as just a villain of the week with no further development.

[yvtro]

It’s me again. (The anon that just asked you a billion questions about Jason’s death.) Also wondering: what do you think of the Killing Joke and Babs’s role as Oracle, and how do you think her and Jason’s “rebirths” can be compared? (Sorry for all the English class ass questions. I’m just so interested by your post. I never thought about the classicism behind Jason’s return as Red Hood but now all the wheels are turning.)

it's so immensely curious to me, because there's this parallel of both babs and jason being essentially fridged (well. jason got boyfridged. sidekick-fridged. sonfridged. i'm aware this term is usually used in relation to women.) but barbara's trauma stops being a plot device for other characters. it becomes a set off for her own storyline about healing and reclaiming her life instead. and the thing is, she succeeds! her life might have been altered by the joker, sure; but she refuses to believe that he made her in any way that matters. she refuses to let her whole life be dictated by it, and she recognises that she's so much more. she lives up to her potential, no matter the constraints.

and then you have jason. jason who is relentlessly victim blamed through decades after his death. jason's death never stops being vital for how other characters are written. this creates a sort of tension in which jason's voice as a victim cannot be central to the story. he has to remain a ghost, even alive; bruce's reminder of his "biggest failure".

and so, jason's act of assuming the red hood identity might be intended as a reclamation of what he fears, but it ironically reduces him to his trauma. let's be honest; this is not some neat bruce being afraid of bats -> taking batman as his name parallel. and you see, maybe jason's action of reclamation could work if it was used for catharsis; if he could later abandon it and go on, reinvent himself, as barbara did. but it's been years and it doesn't happen (even with countdown attempting to kick this off). he never gets to really learn that he is more than what happened to him; he's stuck in a vicious cycle of trying to free himself from his trauma, failing to understand that what he's actually doing is centring his whole life around it.

the reason for which this is how it plays out is def influenced by classism. the whole 'rebirth' (as you called it) itself is already affected by it; to go back to our comparison, for barbara to make a comeback, there was no need to retcon and rewrite her whole character. for jason, some "fatal flaw" was needed – and winick did not even care to make any of his original personality traits into it (like his love. kindness. sensitivity. it would work, goddamit, jason crossing the line because he cares too much and can't stop caring and has to do everything in his power to try to fix the world, no matter the cost, no matter the blood on his hands). instead, we get jason being overly aggressive and quick to anger; something very conveniently consistent with framing poor people as inherently likely to become criminal and somehow evil.

so i'd say, barbara's invention of oracle is a rebirth, while jason's invention of red hood is more of a reburial.

[silverwolf1249]

recently read an incomplete fic with injustice! Superman and arkham city! Batman after the joker venom got to him and that's definitely two people I never even thought of interacting with each other, and now lives in my head rent free. Like, I've read great stories with injustice and earth 1, but holy shit injustice and arkham knight?? jksdkjdsk the many parallels between injustice! Superman and arkham! Batman, and yet how their paths differed, my worm brain is obsessed. Just think about it:

A Superman who got tricked by the Joker by inhaling kryptonite infused fear toxin and ended up killing Lois, whose death then destroyed Metropolis. A Superman who then proceeded to kill off the Joker and began eliminating crime by creating a world of his own vision using force.

A Superman who let the Joker's influence rule his every action even after his death. A Superman who stopped being Clark Kent and became the ruthless tyrant Kal-El of the Regime. A Superman who kills anyone who's against him or gets in his way, in the name of protecting peace on earth.

vs

A Batman who got infected by the Joker and slowly lost his grip on reality as he went through a fear toxin riddled Gotham City. A Batman who despite everything, refused to kill to the very end, trying his best to save everyone, including the Joker.

A Batman who managed to defeat the Joker's influence in the end and locked him up. A Batman who also killed off Bruce Wayne like Superman did Clark Kent, but unlike Kal, Batman receded to the shadows, to once again become a myth, a nightmare. A Batman who now utilizes fear toxin to subdue criminals.

Admittedly the last bit is kind of a conjecture based off the ending of Arkham City, but seeing a fear toxin wielding Batman vs a Superman who knows so intimately what fear toxin can do sounds so so interesting. Especially since apparently injustice! Bruce used it on Zod after he killed Tim, but said he would never use it against Kal after what he had done under its influence.

Of course, they also have some major differences, Bruce never killed his family, even if for a good second he thought bringing Barbara into his crusade was the reason she died (except that was a hallucination thank god). He never destroyed Gotham, he helped make the city better, and continues to do so. Kal-El killed Lois and their unborn child with his bare hands, and right after Metropolis got nuked.

I can only imagine Kal-El's jealousy that despite their similarities, Bruce essentially still had everything, all his loved ones and his city. Also his confusion and rage when he learns that Bruce still tried to save the Joker even after the Joker had caused him so much grief and suffering. He just can't understand how Bruce could keep his no killing rule even after basically spiraling into the Joker's madness. He has so many whys he doesn't even know where to begin.

And if arkham! Batman manages to also interact with injustice! Batman somehow ohohoho that's also so many possibilities with that considering again that arkham! Batman still has all his children alive and thriving while injustice! Bruce very much does not. Among other things of course, but that's definitely a big one. The other big thing being of course the Joker infection thing.

I sadly don't know enough about injustice to see how the rest of the Regime or Insurgency would react to arkham! Batman but man I would love to see their reactions to a Batman who might have a few screws loose, still doesn't kill, and is even scarier than ever with his fear toxin and he himself with an absolute lack of fear.

[lurkinglurkerwholurks]

Caring For His Boy

First posted: December 17, 2018

Focuses on: Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce Wayne

Favorite bookmark: None worth noting

Tier: In the bottom 3rd for most metrics; in the bottom 10 for comments

This is my “behind the scenes” series where I indulge myself horribly by annotating my fics. Link to the fic itself above. Thoughts below the cut.

Another BatFam Christmas stocking fic, another attempt at a dual meaning title. They just make me happy, okay.

This one was for @renecdote: "Created to fill renecdote's BatFam Christmas Stocking prompt "Bruce worrying over sick or injured kids." I don't know that this is quite what you had in mind, but hopefully it's okay."

It was my first time writing Alfred POV, which made me nervous, but also it was fun—though I hadn't yet befriended Audrey to be my Brit speak check. Alas.

It was 8 AM in Sheffield, a glorious, soft morning with a whisper of a breeze and birdsongs that filtered in through the open window.

Why Sheffield? We don't know. That's just how the opening line popped into my head, so then I had to scramble to figure out what was going on and why.

Bruce had never been one to show emotion, even as a boy. Animation was doled out purposefully, as a tool, as a distraction, as a lever. Alfred had more practice reading him than most, and he didn’t think he was imagining the quiver of tension in Bruce’s voice.

This is one of those bits that I work myself into a frustration over, because do I think that Bruce was a generally reserved child? Yes. Was that heightened further after the death of his parents? Also yes. Would stiff-upper-lip British reserve Alfred note Bruce's own emotional reticence as something exceptional? I'm not sure. Whether a thing is true or not is irrelevant when the question is whether the POV would note it.

What did sick mean? A reaction to fear toxin? A new horror from Ms. Isley?

Alfred is so exceedingly British.

It had certainly been a learning experience, one filled with more than a little uncertainty on everyone’s part, but Alfred had yet to hear Bruce sound so shaken.

Ah, the true terror of help, I need an adult... what do you mean I am the adult???

He wondered how Bruce was dealing with the vomit. The boy had always been a bit of a sympathetic puker.

Alfred would not say puker. This is a from-real-life trait I pulled from the males in my family. Weak stomachs, all of them.

“Master Dick will need to stay hydrated. I recommend alternating ginger ale for the nausea and one of those obnoxious sports drinks you so enjoy for the electrolytes. If he continues to complain of aches, you may give him the paracetamol in the upstairs medicine cabinet, but mind the dosage.”

I did the googling for this and then years later had to do the googling again for my first fic in the Mutual Aid series. Ah, parallels. At least I remembered to have Alf call it paracetamol. Also, when I was a kid, I only associated Gatorade with vomiting for this very reason and couldn't drink it for years. Same with Sprite. (Don't drink Sprite, the sugar will make your nausea worse.)

Alfred had several fond memories of sitting next to the bedside of one sweaty-haired boy, a hand pinning open a book, and the other resting atop small fingers. He also had other memories, dimmer but no less visceral, of being a relatively young man himself, faced with the enormous responsibility of caring for a vulnerable life. Of keeping a brave face while internally despairing of the task before him. He was glad that one set of these memories had stuck with Bruce, while the other had not.

Ah, adulthood. It's scary to look back and realize how much your own parents were likely panicking over things you trusted them to handle. 😅

Alfred fics always get some of the lowest engagement and it's such a pity.

[thevindicativevordan]

How do you think, what's the secret of creating a successful legacy character in Big Two comics? Over the past fifteen years we've seen, how characters like Damian Wayne, Miles Morales or Kamala Khan became insanely popular among fanbase, and at the same time, characters like Jace Fox, Yara Flor or even aged-up Jon Kent (even though he's doing better) seemingly failed to grab audience's attention, despite the involement of writers like John Ridley and Tom Taylor. What's the reason of that?

It's always a mix of luck and circumstance, but running through the three you mentioned as successes:

Damian Wayne - Robin is the Son of Batman equals an easy hook, same reason why Jon is still popular. Damian is unique amongst the Robins because he was Batman's biological son who Bruce was forced to take in, rather than an adopted son Bruce chose to take in. Also he's an abrasive and arrogant little shit, which makes him entertaining because of how he plays off of his fellow Batfamily members as well as other heroes. Jace meanwhile is a late addition to a mantle that already has several popular successors to Bruce in Dick, Damian, and Terry.

Miles Morales - He grabbed a ton of headlines via being the first black Spider-Man, he succeeded a version of Peter who was hugely popular in his own right, letting Miles build off of that fanbase, and Bendis used to be one of the hottest creators in comics which helped Miles keep getting pushed. ITSV did save Miles somewhat, after years of mediocre stories from Bendis, Marvel was apparently considering taking the mantle away from him, and the movie put a stop to that while also doing more than Bendis ever did to differentiate Miles from Peter. Plus it's Spider-Man, the most popular superhero ever, that brand alone is worth a lot when you don't have to compete with a huge "Spider-Family". Up until recently it was just Peter and Miles as the main two, with Kaine and Miguel on the periphery. That let Miles get established so when we reach our current state of boatloads of Spiders, Miles still gets to be at the center.

Kamala Khan - She debuted right as MCU fandom was hitting it's peak, and I don't think it's a coincidence that her decline in popularity parallels a similar decline in popularity for the MCU as a whole. When you're a young teenager getting swept up in Marvelmania, Kamala is an appealing entry point since she's a fangirl of all the same heroes you are. Now that people are no longer as obsessed with Marvel, Kamala isn't doing as well.

[distort-opia]

Always thought about TKJ whenever I picked up on the Joker's childhood implications across different comics. You know when Bruce said something like " Maybe ordinary people don't always crack… maybe it is just you". And man that STINGS in this context. Of course not excusing Joker's actions or blaming Bruce for his words there. As comics progress and new writers meta analyse previous adaptations of his character, we will surely get a deeper dive into his childhood and parallels with Bruce's upbringing. 'Tis the way comics tend to go. I don't think we will ever get a full picture and if we do it will soon be chucked back to the " Oh this? This is not canon, just a little thing on the side" pile.

Joker burning his home, killing his parents, never coming back, not having a support system, being abused. Bruce preserving his home, losing his parents, staying, having someone, being loved. And somehow both are as tragic. That's art right there.

Yes to all of this, basically.

Them being inversions and mirrors of each other is eternally fascinating to me. Bruce and Joker having opposite lives at every turn, but a very similar way of coping with powerful trauma -- the death of their family -- simply fits too well, and I prefer to read it like that no matter what new writers and new continuities bring. They've started from a similar event on the same axis, but their choices situated them at opposing extremes. In many ways they represent two broad roads any person can take when faced with the cruelty of the world, and the kind of trauma that shatters your trust in humanity; choosing to believe you can create meaning, vs. choosing to believe there's no meaning at all. 'I'll make sure this will not happen to anyone else' vs. 'I'll make sure everyone else goes through the same pain I did'. The conflict between Batman and Joker is, in the end, an essential human conflict (what do we do when nothing makes sense?), and that's why they've endured for so long and became such a staple of modern culture.

[roobylavender]

do you also disagree with murderer/fugitive’s assertion that batman is the mask and “bruce” is the true humanity? me personally i feel like they are intrinsically connected and you cannot have created batman without bruce’s ideals, morals, love and compassion first. i also feel like comics like this that portray the divide in this way also paved way for an interpretation of bruce that inadvertently (or purposefully) paints the batman as a negative, dark, dominant figure “his darker side” (this is also a problem with the new failsafe thing i feel) that i really dont like seeing anymore because writers always take it way too far to the point whete it makes audiences almost question batmans rep as a hero. which is never something that should be a debate.

i’m sort of in the middle on it. batman is an extension of bruce’s own person but at the same time i think you could argue batman is a mask in that bruce does not necessarily need it to effect change. i think that’s something earlier comics actually understood better bc of the parallel emphasis on the work bruce did in his civilian life, and that’s why certain conversations criticizing vigilantism as a whole—like the ones bruce had with leslie where he contemplated a day he would no longer have to be batman—were actually possible. so i somewhat agree with murderer/fugitive’s assertion on its face but disagree in context of how it’s ultimately used (which is exactly what leads to the kind of storytelling you mentioned wherein the focus is on a mental bruce-batman dichotomy, rather than any big picture questions that go beyond the mask as a mental entity and recognize it as a material one). batman shouldn’t be criticized for its function as a mask to mete out some “right” way to be batman instead. the criticisms of self-isolation, martyrdom, and secrecy should be aimed at bruce bc regardless of whether or not he wears the mask those tendencies will always be there. what batman and the mask should be criticized for are their futility as long-term solutions to crime. at some point the mask can only function within very specific parameters which threaten to ignore everything else wrong with gotham or any other city. and these are things bruce almost started to recognize in the 90s, but now no longer even addresses bc continued sales are more important than narrative integrity. hence the focus on a fantastical, latent batman personality to drum up drama, rather than any acknowledgment of batman as a symbol of an inherently stagnant methodology that may draw bruce further and further away from the real changes he can help create