Support NeoGAF

[Shamrock7r]

I like it. Even setting aside cases like Knightfall where we see that a Batman without a no kill rule generally does more harm than good, I like my heroes to be... heroic. Kill-happy heroes have a pronounced tendency to just murder all day erry day. It gets tough to root for them.

But you are making the assumption it has to be an extreme one way or the other. I liken it to Superman. He too has a no kill rule, to an extent, but he has shown a willingness to forgo that rule in certain situations. the 3 Kryptonians, Doomsday, Imperiex?. In the most extreme of circumstances, I don't see it as a bad thing for Batman, Superman, or others to make a difficult decision to kill the bad guy.

 

[Wiktor]

It was a nice movie, but Dear God, I wish they would cut out that shitty sequence with cyborg ninjas. Felt like something straight out of G.I. Joe cartoon. Really clashed the tone of the rest of the movie.

That said, I wish I would hear more Greenwood as Batman and most of all more John DiMaggio as Joker. THat Joker sounded so fresh.

 

[PsychBat!]

Sure I do.

I really liked the ending of The Dark Knight. Guess what happens? Harvey Dent shoots Batman in the chest and he falls down.

So you only watch Batman movies?

 

[GringoSuave89]

But you are making the assumption it has to be an extreme one way or the other. I liken it to Superman. He too has a no kill rule, to an extent, but he has shown a willingness to forgo that rule in certain situations. the 3 Kryptonians, Doomsday, Imperiex?. In the most extreme of circumstances, I don't see it as a bad thing for Batman, Superman, or others to make a difficult decision to kill the bad guy.

Meh. DC tends to rationalize the no - kill rule as only applying to humans. Batman has "killed" plenty of Apokalypse grunts and the undead.

The one major villain death at the hands of a hero that I can recall was Wonder Woman killing

Spoiler

Maxwell Lord

and that arguably caused more harm than good.

 

[ffejeromdiks]

Sure I do.

I really liked the ending of The Dark Knight. Guess what happens? Harvey Dent shoots Batman in the chest and he falls down.

Must hate Rises

Or wait...I guess he is "moving in evasive patterns" right?

 

[munchie64]

Our hero.

 

[Delta Assault]

So you only watch Batman movies?

No?

 

[GringoSuave89]

It was a nice movie, but Dear God, I wish they would cut out that shitty sequence with cyborg ninjas. Felt like something straight out of G.I. Joe cartoon. Really clashed the tone of the rest of the movie.

That said, I wish I would hear more Greenwood as Batman and most of all more John DiMaggio as Joker. THat Joker sounded so fresh.

Read the comic. Instead of cyborg ninjas it's Captain Nazi and the Hyena. The ninjas were a better compromise.

And next to Conroy, Greenwood was the best Batman VA.

 

[MartyStu]

But you are making the assumption it has to be an extreme one way or the other. I liken it to Superman. He too has a no kill rule, to an extent, but he has shown a willingness to forgo that rule in certain situations. the 3 Kryptonians, Doomsday, Imperiex?. In the most extreme of circumstances, I don't see it as a bad thing for Batman, Superman, or others to make a difficult decision to kill the bad guy.

Notice how none of those guys are human?

And even if writers were to go through with such a storyline, it would never be a major villain.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

Just tank it

 

[ffejeromdiks]

It was a nice movie, but Dear God, I wish they would cut out that shitty sequence with cyborg ninjas. Felt like something straight out of G.I. Joe cartoon. Really clashed the tone of the rest of the movie.

That said, I wish I would hear more Greenwood as Batman and most of all more John DiMaggio as Joker. THat Joker sounded so fresh.

Greenwood voices bats in Young Justice if you've never seen it. Criminally underrated show.

 

[RE_Player]

Why are people debating the whole bullet dodging aspect? That's like the least important part of the scene.

 

[Poodlestrike]

But you are making the assumption it has to be an extreme one way or the other. I liken it to Superman. He too has a no kill rule, to an extent, but he has shown a willingness to forgo that rule in certain situations. the 3 Kryptonians, Doomsday, Imperiex?. In the most extreme of circumstances, I don't see it as a bad thing for Batman, Superman, or others to make a difficult decision to kill the bad guy.

Ah, that's fair.

I think that the difference in this particular case, though, is that Batman's a cowl, and Superman's a cape. If a cape kills, it's a difficult decision, and it'll always be a difficult decision, every time, because that's part of the archetype. If a cowl kills, it's generally step 1 to becoming an "edgy" 90's anti-"hero."

So I guess I should say that I like the no-kill rule for Batman, not that I'm always rigid about it.

Why are people debating the whole bullet dodging aspect? That's like the least important part of the scene.

Because thread derails are even harder to dodge than bullets.

 

[Shamrock7r]

Notice how none of those guys are human?

And even if writers were to go through with such a storyline, it would never be a major villain.

I feel like I should have spoiler tagged just in case. I apologize.
Well those are examples from Superman, whose top level villains, aside from Luthor, are typically not human, which as I said, killing is fine when it's done under the most extreme of circumstances. If you want a human example from Superman, the only one I can think of is

Spoiler

Hank Henshaw, aka Cyborg Superman, in Return of Superman.

Although he ended up surviving, and although you can make the argument that he was

Spoiler

AI more than human by that point

, Superman still clearly thought he killed him at the end.

 

[Pau]

Well, I wouldn't mind if they still kept the Joker around because of a better excuse. It's just that this particular excuse should not fly anymore and it feels like a cop out to avoid answering the big question. "I'm actually nuts and will probably go around murdering everyone" does not feel profound anymore, especially when it doesn't have to be by Batman's hand. This sort of thing works in The Dark Knight for example when not nearly as many people have died and the Joker is still new and they never bring him back, but in the comics with all the years of history? You've gotta give me something better than this.

I don't think it's so much that Bruce would actually go around and murder everyone. I think it's an irrational fear on his part. I think Bruce ultimately views himself as a bad person who will do bad things unless he follows these strict rules. It's not true (at least, I definitely prefer a reading of him as a character who is flawed and who has mental heatlh isssues but is ultimately compassionate and heroic.) But yeah, I think the writers giving that as an excuse is the easier way to go about it and fits with the super-shitty "Bruce is as crazy as his villains!" theme that some folks lap up.

I thought the thing with Darkseid could have been some character growth in which Bruce becomes okay with playing a part in killing. I think as far as The Joker goes in particular, it's kind of being arrogant and stubborn and he's said so many times that he won't kill him that he can't go back now. His other villains tend to be more easily redeemable (and before the reboot most of the traditional ones were heading that way: Harley, Ivy, the Riddler, Bane.)

 

[GringoSuave89]

Ah, that's fair.

I think that the difference in this particular case, though, is that Batman's a cowl, and Superman's a cape. If a cape kills, it's a difficult decision, and it'll always be a difficult decision, every time, because that's part of the archetype. If a cowl kills, it's generally step 1 to becoming an "edgy" 90's anti-"hero."

So I guess I should say that I like the no-kill rule for Batman, not that I'm always rigid about it.



Because thread derails are even harder to dodge than bullets.

Again, I'll refer you to my previous post:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151112678&postcount=54

DC breaks most characters' no-kill rule in cases of non humans. Blackest Night had everyone killing the undead, most "mindless drone" alien forces are killed on a regular basis by everyone (including Batman), and sentient computers are pretty much a Wackamole arcade game with legs. Outside of Batman stories with the JLA or team ups outside of Gotham, Batman cannot and should not kill.

 

[GringoSuave89]

I thought the thing with Darkseid could have been some character growth in which Bruce becomes okay with playing a part in killing.

Uh... haha read The Return of Bruce Wayne. Aside from it being a typical Morrison mindfuck, it's also considered Batman's penance for using the gun on Darkseid.

Also a REALLY damn good read.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Again, I'll refer you to my previous post:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=151112678&postcount=54

DC breaks most characters' no-kill rule in cases of non humans. Blackest Night had everyone killing the undead, most "mindless drone" alien forces are killed on a regular basis by everyone (including Batman), and sentient computers are pretty much a Wackamole arcade game with legs. Outside of Batman stories with the JLA or team ups outside of Gotham, Batman cannot and should not kill.

The nonhuman double standard is definitely a thing, yeah, but I'm thinking more about killing other humans, since otherwise I don't think anybody in the DCU has any sort of claim to not killing.

 

[Pau]

Uh... haha read The Return of Bruce Wayne. Aside from it being a typical Morrison mindfuck, it's also considered Batman's penance for using the gun on Darkseid.

Also a REALLY damn good read.

I read it, but I guess I didn't read it as penance exactly. I mean, a consequence sure, but I don't think Bruce would go back and not do it if the choice was between saving the multiverse by using a gun and letting the multiverse die.

 

[MartyStu]

I don't think it's so much that Bruce would actually go around and murder everyone. I think it's an irrational fear on his part. I think Bruce ultimately views himself as a bad person who will do bad things unless he follows these strict rules. It's not true (at least, I definitely prefer a reading of him as a character who is flawed and who has mental heatlh isssues but is ultimately compassionate and heroic.) But yeah, I think the writers giving that as an excuse is the easier way to go about it and fits with the super-shitty "Bruce is as crazy as his villains!" theme that some folks lap up.

I thought the thing with Darkseid could have been some character growth in which Bruce becomes okay with playing a part in killing. I think as far as The Joker goes in particular, it's kind of being arrogant and stubborn and he's said so many times that he won't kill him that he can't go back now. His other villains tend to be more easily redeemable (and before the reboot most of the traditional ones were heading that way: Harley, Ivy, the Riddler, Bane.)

That scene was effective entirely because the reader knows that it is unique.

 

[GringoSuave89]

The nonhuman double standard is definitely a thing, yeah, but I'm thinking more about killing other humans, since otherwise I don't think anybody in the DCU has any sort of claim to not killing.

Meh, it's kind of a non issues with other superheroes in DC comics. Again, the last major human villain killing I can recall was

Spoiler

Maxwell Lord

, and there was MAJOR repercussions for Wonder Woman when it happened (she retires for a while because of it, if I remember right).

I think with the Big Two, they know they're a major product for kids, so while they'll still deal with adult themes, they tend to be pretty careful about not having the good guys kill. Honestly, Marvel heroes seem to kill more than DC ones (x-23 and Wolverine make up the bulk of it).

 

[Kraftwerk]

"this is the best day of my life"

 

[Mandius]

It sucks that the DCAU turned to such shit after Flashpoint.

 

[MartyStu]

Meh, it's kind of a non issues with other superheroes in DC comics. Again, the last major human villain killing I can recall was

Spoiler

Maxwell Lord

, and there was MAJOR repercussions for Wonder Woman when it happened (she retires for a while because of it, if I remember right).

I think with the Big Two, they know they're a major product for kids, so while they'll still deal with adult themes, they tend to be pretty careful about not having the good guys kill. Honestly, Marvel heroes seem to kill more than DC ones (x-23 and Wolverine make up the bulk of it).

Same thing with Green Arrow and

Spoiler

Prometheus.

It sucks that the DCAU turned to such shit after Flashpoint.

Attack on Arkham was genuinely good.

Other than that...yeah...

 

[GringoSuave89]

I read it, but I guess I didn't read it as penance exactly. I mean, a consequence sure, but I don't think Bruce would go back and not do it if the choice was between saving the multiverse by using a gun and letting the multiverse die.

Wonder Woman even has a line about "He struck down Darkseid. Such hubris on the part of morals has always had a price. Batman must die!" (I had to dig out my issue to get the line verbatim). Though WW is pretty flowery in her speech, it's pretty standard for Morrison. If a character deviates from the archetype established in their universe, events happen that punishes/course corrects the action. Morrison loves his meta crap.

Multiversity is exactly that, cranked up to 11.

 

[Frozenprince]

I'v always liked Bruce's relationship with Jason. It's clear every time there was a Red Hood story that he regretted making Jason into the next Robin because it was clear he couldn't emotionally handle it. That he wasn't composed enough, wasn't calm enough. And yes physically he's probably 1a with Dick as the best successor potentially to Batman. But unlike Dick he never experienced the true tragedy at his childhood that soured him on the ideal of killing.

I HATE how the late comics/new 52 stuff make him clinically insane. The point of the Red Hood stuff and early post return things were that he WASN'T insane. Just broken by thinking that his father abandoned him. But the whole "being punched back into existence made him nuts" thing was dumb. Him traversing the multiverse and seeing how he would have made a great Batman had he been able to do differently was a pathos moment. Something that was meant to redeem his character and the comics have just ruined him IMO.

Then again I think new 52 has ruined basically all of DC.

 

[munchie64]

Same thing with Green Arrow and

Spoiler

Prometheus.

I think people can be excused for forgetting that

 

[Pau]

That scene was effective entirely because the reader knows that it is unique.

I wouldn't say it's the only (or first) time Bruce has played a very, very active role in killing someone without dealing finishing blow. Morrison also has Bruce torture Joe Chill and hand him the gun. I think it's a parallel although I dunno (or particularly care) if Morrison considers it one.

But in any case, yeah, it's effective because the stakes are the highest they've ever been in the DC and so Bruce surprises us and makes the choice. But from there the writers can either: 1) never raise the stakes to that point or higher and put Bruce in a similar position so that it stays unique or 2) have Bruce be okay with doing stuff like that when appropriate. Considering how the comics industry feels the need to one-up its own stories every year, I think the first is unlikely. But I'd be okay if that was the biggest threat that Bruce ever had to deal with and if he never killed again.

Wonder Woman even has a line about "He struck down Darkseid. Such hubris on the part of morals has always had a price. Batman must die!" (I had to dig out my issue to get the line verbatim). Though WW is pretty flowery in her speech, it's pretty standard for Morrison. If a character deviates from the archetype established in their universe, events happen that punishes/course corrects the action. Morrison loves his meta crap.

Multiversity is exactly that, cranked up to 11.

My take away from Morrison's Batman run is that Bruce (and humanity by extension) is a god himself (or the next stage in the evolution of gods with Earth as the Fifth (Sixth?) world). I mean yeah, it's a punishment, but one that is not limited to mortals. I think Diana forgets that.

 

[Frozenprince]

Also the "no kill rule" is based on the idea that well, all these costumed vigilantes and the wacko's they fight need one another to stay sane. That yeah a few thousand people might die by not killing X guy, but the disruption of the status quo resulting from his/her death would be far more catastrophic.

 

[MartyStu]

I'v always liked Bruce's relationship with Jason. It's clear every time there was a Red Hood story that he regretted making Jason into the next Robin because it was clear he couldn't emotionally handle it. That he wasn't composed enough, wasn't calm enough. And yes physically he's probably 1a with Dick as the best successor potentially to Batman. But unlike Dick he never experienced the true tragedy at his childhood that soured him on the ideal of killing.

I HATE how the late comics/new 52 stuff make him clinically insane. The point of the Red Hood stuff and early post return things were that he WASN'T insane. Just broken by thinking that his father abandoned him. But the whole "being punched back into existence made him nuts" thing was dumb. Him traversing the multiverse and seeing how he would have made a great Batman had he been able to do differently was a pathos moment. Something that was meant to redeem his character and the comics have just ruined him IMO.

Then again I think new 52 has ruined basically all of DC.

The nu52 actually fixed most of the bullshit of the later books. Loebdel is writing him, so it is not great, but it is much better now.

I think people can be excused for forgetting that

I wish I could forget that arc too. And the arc before and after it. And Identity Crisis.

And One more day.

Aside: I re-read OMD earlier this week, and it actually made me angrier this time around.

 

[Frozenprince]

The nu52 actually fixed most of the bullshit of the later books. Loebdel is writing him, so it is not great, but it is much better now.

Eh I disagree, I think they replaced one convoluted mess with another.

Plus I really, really hate what they've done to Tim Drake.

Plus letting Scott Lobdell run ANYTHING is a bad idea. His new 52 Supes was awful.

 

[GringoSuave89]

I'v always liked Bruce's relationship with Jason. It's clear every time there was a Red Hood story that he regretted making Jason into the next Robin because it was clear he couldn't emotionally handle it. That he wasn't composed enough, wasn't calm enough. And yes physically he's probably 1a with Dick as the best successor potentially to Batman. But unlike Dick he never experienced the true tragedy at his childhood that soured him on the ideal of killing.

I HATE how the late comics/new 52 stuff make him clinically insane. The point of the Red Hood stuff and early post return things were that he WASN'T insane. Just broken by thinking that his father abandoned him. But the whole "being punched back into existence made him nuts" thing was dumb. Him traversing the multiverse and seeing how he would have made a great Batman had he been able to do differently was a pathos moment. Something that was meant to redeem his character and the comics have just ruined him IMO.

Then again I think new 52 has ruined basically all of DC.

It all depends on the writer. Lobdell can go fuck himself right out of comics as far as I'm concerned, but Tomasi wrote him incredibly well. Honestly, New 52 Jason hasn't been all that bad, when you ignore his solo series. Plus, New 52 or not, I don't think the Superboy Prime punch thing is canon anymore. I think the Red Hood Lost Years retconned that out?

tl;dr - Lobdell and Tony Daniel are the worst possible writers for Jason, and Morrison is too obsessed with Silver and Bronze Age to write a solid Jason (drop the red hair thing, he's never a red head).

I think people can be excused for forgetting that

Shit, I forgot all about that, and the entirety of the Cry for Justice miniseries Final Crisis kind of eclipsed that.

I wouldn't say it's the only (or first) time Bruce has played a very, very active role in killing someone without dealing finishing blow. Morrison also has Bruce torture Joe Chill and hand him the gun. I think it's a parallel although I dunno (or particularly care) if Morrison considers it one.

That entire issue was a hallucination.

My take away from Morrison's Batman run is that Bruce (and humanity by extension) is a god himself (or the next stage in the evolution of gods with Earth as the Fifth world). I mean yeah, it's a punishment, but one that is not limited to mortals. I think Diana forgets that.

You could argue that the whole Morrison run is a time loop.

Batman wounds/kills Darkseid > Darkseid's... essence I guess? is in the form of a Bat > Simon Hurt/Thomas Wayne (not his dad) sees this, becomes infected with the Anti-Life Equation, and is more or less a reincarnation of Darkseid > the events of Return of Bruce Wayne > time machine that the essence was trapped in is sent back to the past to see Simon Hurt > repeat. All of this happens cause Batman used a gun (at least that's what Morrison is saying.

Apparently a book was written about Morrison's run that goes into everything in depth, I just haven't read it yet.

 

[Frozenprince]

Yeah Morrison can write a good Dick Grayson batman but his regular stuff and branching Batverse stuff (Batman R.I.P. so baaaaad) are a mess. I agree on Daniel and Lobdell, it seems like DC is trying to bring back the 90's and, why would you do that?

I know the new Red Hood stuff is different but I think he's still technically nuts right? I stopped reading Red Hood and the Outlaws at like #4 because it was so smarmy.

Marvel reboot means no more OMD right?

Right?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Yeah Morrison can write a good Dick Grayson batman but his regular stuff and branching Batverse stuff (Batman R.I.P. so baaaaad) are a mess. I agree on Daniel and Lobdell, it seems like DC is trying to bring back the 90's and, why would you do that?

I know the new Red Hood stuff is different but I think he's still technically nuts right? I stopped reading Red Hood and the Outlaws at like #4 because it was so smarmy.

Marvel reboot means no more OMD right?

Right?

Nah, he's not nuts. Fairly emotionally disturbed, but that's par for the course. Despite the New 52's crimes (Jaime whyyyyyy), they've done alright by Jason, generally.

 

[Frozenprince]

Nah, he's not nuts. Fairly emotionally disturbed, but that's par for the course. Despite the New 52's crimes (Jaime whyyyyyy), they've done alright by Jason, generally.

I'v been too PO'ed by the Tim Drake stuff to really read more Jason stuff.

I also stopped reading DC for the most part, their events are getting worse and I just don't find any of their current stuff interesting. Wish I did, I LOVE DC I just don't find any of it interesting.

 

[Doctor Ironic]

Did the Dark Knight Returns movies turn out any good?

 

[Pau]

I'v always liked Bruce's relationship with Jason. It's clear every time there was a Red Hood story that he regretted making Jason into the next Robin because it was clear he couldn't emotionally handle it. That he wasn't composed enough, wasn't calm enough. And yes physically he's probably 1a with Dick as the best successor potentially to Batman. But unlike Dick he never experienced the true tragedy at his childhood that soured him on the ideal of killing.

I HATE how the late comics/new 52 stuff make him clinically insane. The point of the Red Hood stuff and early post return things were that he WASN'T insane. Just broken by thinking that his father abandoned him. But the whole "being punched back into existence made him nuts" thing was dumb. Him traversing the multiverse and seeing how he would have made a great Batman had he been able to do differently was a pathos moment. Something that was meant to redeem his character and the comics have just ruined him IMO.

Yeah, I think Jason is redeemable and kind of boring if he isn't. Where else can he go as a character?

I do think Jason would have been able to emotionally handle being Robin if Bruce had basically done a better job. As much as I love Bruce, I'd rather lay the part of the blame on him than on Jason just inherently not being emotionally stable. I think that's pretty against the general theme of Batman.

 

[MartyStu]

Eh I disagree, I think they replaced one convoluted mess with another.

Plus I really, really hate what they've done to Tim Drake.

Plus letting Scott Lobdell run ANYTHING is a bad idea. His new 52 Supes was awful.

You think? Because I remember how bloody wretched Red Hood was in the twilight of the pre-nu52 universe.

Yeah, the nu52 ruined everything good about the old universe and offered pretty much nothing good in return.

Still, most things have long since normalized. And Red Hood is actually in a place where he can be rescued and used by a good writer. A solid 'Anti-Hero' instead of murderous sociopath.

And yeah, Lobdell needs to stop getting work. His Superman turned me off Superman for quite some time (and Romita Jr is keeping me away).

 

[Bar_bar12]

Did the Dark Knight Returns movies turn out any good?

They were awesome.

 

[Delta Assault]

Did the Dark Knight Returns movies turn out any good?

...Not really. They're pretty poor compared to the source material.

 

[munchie64]

Yeah, I think Jason is redeemable and kind of boring if he isn't. Where else can he go as a character?

I do think Jason would have been able to emotionally handle being Robin if Bruce had basically done a better job. As much as I love Bruce, I'd rather lay the part of the blame on him than on Jason just inherently not being emotionally stable. I think that's pretty against the general theme of Batman.

I always liked the idea of Bruce treating Jason too much like Dick instead of adapting to change.

 

[GringoSuave89]

Yeah Morrison can write a good Dick Grayson batman but his regular stuff and branching Batverse stuff (Batman R.I.P. so baaaaad) are a mess. I agree on Daniel and Lobdell, it seems like DC is trying to bring back the 90's and, why would you do that?

I know the new Red Hood stuff is different but I think he's still technically nuts right? I stopped reading Red Hood and the Outlaws at like #4 because it was so smarmy.

Marvel reboot means no more OMD right?

Right?

Morrsion has his own little world to run amok in his run, confusing as hell as it may be, was really damn good. RIP was the weakest, and that's just because he was basically killing time until Final Crisis. DC really needs to compile the Morrison run in chronological order so all the "filler" issues that fill in the gaps between RIP and Final Crisis are known. That's the other issue with his run, it's all over the damn place, and almost 5 years long.

Nah, they play up his anger with Bruce and his training with Talia/League of Assassins these days. Despite the New 52 reboot, I think they still consider his mini, Red Hood Lost Years, as canon.

Shit, no clue, but they better. Worst comic story I've read to this day, and I read the Damien mini

 

[munchie64]

Did the Dark Knight Returns movies turn out any good?

I loved them. Some line readings don't have as much power as the book, and the internal monologue is missed, but they're awesome movies. Great for anyone who doesn't want to read the book.

 

[Frozenprince]

I completely forgot JRJ still gets work in comics. Ugh.

I love Morrison's Batman/Robin run, wasn't the biggest fan of his pre-crisis Bat stuff but I really do genuinely love his Grayson Batman and the way he had him and Damien interact.

 

[Pau]

That entire issue was a hallucination.

I thought it was a bit more ambiguous than that, and found it appropriate enough to consider it at face-value.

You could argue that the whole Morrison run is a time loop.

Batman wounds/kills Darkseid > Darkseid's... essence I guess? is in the form of a Bat > Simon Hurt/Thomas Wayne (not his dad) sees this, becomes infected with the Anti-Life Equation, and is more or less a reincarnation of Darkseid > the events of Return of Bruce Wayne > time machine that the essence was trapped in is sent back to the past to see Simon Hurt > repeat. All of this happens cause Batman used a gun (at least that's what Morrison is saying.

Apparently a book was written about Morrison's run that goes into everything in depth, I just haven't read it yet.

I'm not arguing that all that stuff wasn't a consequence of killing Darkseid with a gun, but that if the alternative is letting the multiverse die, Bruce is okay with taking whatever shit is gonna be dealt to him for doing what needs to be done.

 

[The Mule]

Awful. It's awful.

How the hell does Batman dodge a bullet, while he's facing the other direction? What, does he have superpowers now? We see the bullet in slow motion, corkscrewing through the air towards Batman's exposed back. But somehow, magically... Batman, who now has telepathy, is about to sense the bullet, even though he's facing the complete opposite direction, and pivots out of the way, moving many times faster then a speeding bullet. Now... WTF? What happened? How did Batman suddenly get superspeed? Is he Neo, able to dodge bullets in bullet time? That's basically what he did right there, ain't it? He was able to detect the bullet and dodge it, even though it was fired from a short distance away and his back was turned. I just can't fathom what the hell they were thinking with this scene, it makes no sense. It's not at all what Batman is in my mind, he's not supposed to be magical or possess these kinds of superpowers, it's ridiculous, and it utterly broke the film for me.

It's one of the worst moments in DC animation history.

Batman is played by Christian Bale and he knows gun kata.

 

[Frozenprince]

I loved them. Some line readings don't have as much power as the book, and the internal monologue is missed, but they're awesome movies. Great for anyone who doesn't want to read the book.

Yeah if you never got the book (the original not Millers "help I need money" sequel) the movie is great. Missing some key elements but overall really enjoyable.

 

[SlyQuaker]

Bruce Greenwood should still be the voice of Batman if Kevin Conroy isn't. Jason O'Mara just doesn't do it for me in the new movies.

 

[Pau]

I always liked the idea of Bruce treating Jason too much like Dick instead of adapting to change.

I don't think it should be taken to the extreme like Morrison does (like having Bruce dye Jason's hair; that's just... eh), but I do think it's something a lot of parents have problems with when it comes to the second (usually middle child). You can tell that Bruce has learned to adapt with Cass, Tim, and Damian. I think Jason resents the three younger siblings because of that.

 

[Doctor Ironic]

They were awesome.

...Not really. They're pretty poor compared to the source material.

Well, fuck!

I'll give it a Netflix rental or something.