Because whenever he is shown with a love interest in a comic book, is the love interest not INVARIABLY shown as a visual stunner?

So in the film they added a little depth to the character?

By showing he preferred a woman with brains and a strong sense of justice to a supermodel?

The bastards!

You were right all along – what a terrible film.

(Of course, this operates on the assumption that Maggie Gyllenhaal isn’t a looker – which she is search her name or watch Secretary – it wasn’t the best looking she’s been in a film, but she’s still a looker).

Of course, the mistake was in ever allowing Dick Grayson to age at all. But at the time it was an amazingly cool idea, and I loved 1970s “teen wonder” Robin and later, Nightwing, and now the new Grayson Batman. But the math doesn’t really work.

I am of two minds about this. The progression of Dick Grayson and Wally West were two of my great pleasures as comic reader. However, the aging of both has made the DC Universe less accessible both to new and casual readers.

As it stands, my preference would be that they just attached dates to all the major events of the DCU. Start Batman’s career in 1939, or 1984, whenever. Lay down twenty absolute sign-posts with dates. Then, just set the individual stories in whatever period that interests the writer. It would be sort of like what they’ve done with the “Year One” era in allowing Matt Wagner and Loeb & Sale takes on that period.

Instead, what I’ve seen over the first two issues of Batman and Robin is some of the best straight-up superhero comics I’ve run across in years.

My toddler grabbed “Batman and Robin” and sits down to “read” it on a daily basis. He is interested in superhero action figures and is totally obsessed with the Fleisher Superman cartoons, but has never shown the slightest interest in any other comic. I am pretty sure that is the ultimate “jumping on point”.

“He looks creepy but he doesn’t blatantly look like a psychopathic killer.”

He looks a hell of a lot like a blatant psychopathic killer to me.

“Better question: Did YOU ever stop to consider that Batman MIGHT be as shallow as me? Because whenever he is shown with a love interest in a comic book, is the love interest not INVARIABLY shown as a visual stunner?”

You don’t get it. You said it was a PLOT HOLE because Batman COULD NOT (not just MIGHT NOT) be attracted to someone who wasn’t a stunner. You said they wrote it WRONG because it COULD NOT happen.

“I guess the Batman character is as shallow as me since in every medium he’s appeared his love interests have been attractive until now.”

YES up until now he has been shallow. BUT IT WAS CHANGED FOR THE MOVIE. They didn’t write it WRONG they just wrote it DIFFERENTLY so long as it POSSIBLE within normal human behaviour. It isn’t wrong just because you didn’t LIKE it.

“Moral arguments do not automatically equal political arguments.”

NAME ONE. Taxation = moral. Law and order = moral. National defence = moral. Civil rights = moral. Health care = moral. Education = moral. I can’t think of any more but I’m sure I can justify them all.

Or is this just some conservative excuse to vote for immoral policies.

“He actually looks like he’s bordering between creepy and harmless.” Bullshit. Joker’s never looked harmless. Joker was based on this guy: http://anyeventuality.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/themanwholaughs.png He sure looks harmless.

He looks creepy but he doesn’t blatantly look like a psychopathic killer. I’ve actually seen the silent movie, I know. The beauty of Batman and the Joker is the clash of the demonic looking dark guy being the force for good and the smiling bright guy being the force of evil. When they both look and sound like dark demonic people it’s just relentlessly grim and depressing.

Batman killed Two-face because someone life was DIRECTLY in danger and Batman had no choice. To kill the Joker would just be gratuitous. While I’m sure you would like to make Batman’s life easy, Dark Knight was willing to challenge Batman’s morality.

It was shown that Batman could save people from falling with ease whenever he wanted. He could jump out a window and contort himself to break Maggie Gyllenhaal’s fall from a window. He could shoot a Batline without effort and catch the Joker’s leg when he fell from a building. I just didn’t buy that he absolutely HAD to kill Dent based on the feats he was doing elsewhere in the movie. Just like the rest of the movie, the plot simply REQUIRED him to kill Dent so it had it happen regardless of whether it made sense or was inconsistent with the rest of the movie. That was another problem I had with the movie, things just happened simply because the writers needed them to happen, regardless of how illogically set up they were.

C: Gyllenhaal was SO ugly you couldn’t believe that Batman couldn’t be interested in her? Did you stop to consider Batman mightn’t be as shallow as you?

Better question: Did YOU ever stop to consider that Batman MIGHT be as shallow as me? Because whenever he is shown with a love interest in a comic book, is the love interest not INVARIABLY shown as a visual stunner? If that makes me shallow, then I guess every writer and artist who ever created a Batman love interest in the history of the character’s existence is shallow as well. And I guess the Batman character is as shallow as me since in every medium he’s appeared his love interests have been attractive until now.

D: So you didn’t like the morality in Dark Knight. And as morality = politics, you didn’t like the politics in Dark Knight. So you didn’t like Dark Knight because it wasn’t politically correct.

Strained syllogism. Moral arguments do not automatically equal political arguments. Faulty premise.

A: Batman killed Two-face because someone life was DIRECTLY in danger and Batman had no choice. To kill the Joker would just be gratuitous. While I’m sure you would like to make Batman’s life easy, Dark Knight was willing to challenge Batman’s morality.

B: “He actually looks like he’s bordering between creepy and harmless.” Bullshit. Joker’s never looked harmless. Joker was based on this guy: http://anyeventuality.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/themanwholaughs.png He sure looks harmless.

C: Gyllenhaal was SO ugly you couldn’t believe that Batman couldn’t be interested in her? Did you stop to consider Batman mightn’t be as shallow as you?

D: So you didn’t like the morality in Dark Knight. And as morality = politics, you didn’t like the politics in Dark Knight. So you didn’t like Dark Knight because it wasn’t politically correct.

Wow T, politically correctness gone mad! You disliking something because of its politics, that’s a little hypocritical isn’t it?

He’ll argue it till he’s blue in the face, but it comes down to that it’s not ‘his’ Batman.

Wrong. That’s not my argument. Don’t listen to FGJ, despite what he says I list tons of valid reasons as to why it’s not just a bad Batman movie, it’s just a bad movie period. It’s 80% plot hole and 20% plot for starters.

If you’re really interested, you can read my views on the movie here:
http://therawness.com/why-i-hated-the-dark-knight/

…I’m honestly curious as to what exactly was so “horrible” about “Batman Begins” or “Dark Knight”, which I’m assuming considering the discussion those are the movies you’re referring to?

He’ll argue it till he’s blue in the face, but it comes down to that it’s not ‘his’ Batman.

Also, I know people’s opinions are what they are…I really am wondering, T., why those films turned you off so much…

…I’m honestly curious as to what exactly was so “horrible” about “Batman Begins” or “Dark Knight”, which I’m assuming considering the discussion those are the movies you’re referring to?

They may not be the most PERFECT renditions of the Batman mythos ever, but as far as on the big screen? As close as we’re gonna get. I just don’t see how anything in those movies could be classified as “horrible” by any Batman fan’s standards. A few things wrong here and there? Sure. But I don’t think a movie can become the 2nd highest grossing film of all-time by being “horrible”.

Not if it’s a red herring and Tim became the main bad guy ala Matches Malone in order to make Dick become the Batman that Gotham needs.

No offense but you trying to explain the idea makes the idea sound even worse. Sounds like something that would come out of a Christopher Nolan movie.

Not if it’s a red herring and Tim became the main bad guy ala Matches Malone in order to make Dick become the Batman that Gotham needs. Tim’s a smart guy. You don’t think he could take over the villain game on his own with the hidden motive of making sure the legacy he personally got involved in didn’t crumble? Better than turning him from 2nd banana to the apple in the bottom of the bowl.

Your Father owns a huge, highly-successful business. You’re born into the business, you grow-up hearing everything about it, and as soon as you’re old enough, you start working at the Family Business right alongside your Father, who is also your Boss.

After years and years of working alongside your Father, doing many of the same things (But not EVERYTHING; I’m sure even with everything Dick’s been through in his years, Bruce could still out-do him in telling horror stories, just when you think you’ve got everything down 100% and could do the job in your sleep, BAM!!! Your Father suddenly dies, no warning, and because you’re the Boss’ Son and have basically been primed since your birth to take-over your Father’s Business, everyone is looking at you to pick-up the ball, no hesitation, and keep the Business going. And not just going, but going STRONG, and going the way your employees/co-workers and customers EXPECT things to go. Suddenly, Mr. Know-It-All doesn’t know everything, and is faced with all kinds of new responsibilities, things you never even thought of, to make sure your Father’s Business doesn’t tank.

Dick Grayson is the Son who has suddenly and without warning more-or-less been forced to take-over his Father’s Business. Sure, he did the job alongside his Father for years, and even left town and hung-out with some kids his own age for awhile and did a few jobs on his own to prove he could. But while he was gone, Father still did the job back home; you mean to tell me Dick knows EVERYTHING that happened during those years? Every little note, trick, and secret Bruce learned while being Batman by himself, and with numerous different sidekicks? Rules changed, the game changed, the job changed. Things change.

Dick isn’t suddenly going to step into his Father’s shoes and just make it work, and be a confidant, cocky dude while doing it. Know why? Because THAT would be foolish. THAT would be unreal. Because not only does he have to prove to himself he’s good enough to be Batman, permanently or otherwise, but now he’s got his “employees/co-workers” to both watch and prove himself to (Robin, Batwoman, Tim, Alfred, Barbara, Commish Gordon, etc.), PLUS he has his fellow Superheroes to show that yes, Bruce is dead, but also yes, Dick Grayson can handle it. You just can’t tell me the first time Dick shows-up to a JLA meeting wearing the cape-n-cowl, he’s not feeling the raised eyebrows, the murmurs, the whispering, the unsureness of it all. When you have might-as-well-be-Gods like Superman and Wonder Woman not too sure you’re capable of the B.S. Batman has to put up with, not saying that’s the case but it sure COULD be, that’s gotta make you sweat a little.

Hope this maybe helped bring a different kind of perspective to the issue. Thanks for the article, as well as everyone’s comments! All awesome and engaging! PEACE!!!

Big Money

…this is the first time in my 24 years of comic collecting that I have finally consented to buying BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS.

I hope Bruce Wayne never comes back.

Considering they’re on record saying Bruce isn’t really dead and will be back soon you aren’t taking much of a risk here are you?

They showed he’s not dead in Final Crisis, but Greg’s just saying it’s still enjoyable because despite that, they are playing it for keeps.

Or do you not read the articles you snark about?

Considering they’re on record saying Bruce isn’t really dead and will be back soon you aren’t taking much of a risk here are you?

Or do you not read the industry you cover?

Glad to see Tony Daniel’s coming back with a six-issue run soon, too!