Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I AM NOT A CROOK!"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

runespoor7 ([info]runespoor7) wrote in [info]scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-07 17:53:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:char: batman/bruce wayne, char: jim gordon, char: robin/red hood/jason todd, creator: dick giordano, creator: jim aparo, creator: jim starlin, creator: mark bright, publisher: dc comics, title: batman

Women in Dumpsters: Batman and Jason as Robin
Batman #414, #421, #422; 7 scans from each issue, plus the cover.

These three issues form a bigger story arc. The basic plot is such: there's been a series of killings of young women in Gotham, and Batman is searching the murderer. There are a few headdesky plot points, but don't let that drive you away: it's a very good story. #422 especially is wonderfully constructed, but the rest is nonetheless interesting on its own.

I'm posting it because it's an arc than ran during Jason's period as Robin, and though Jason only appears in #422, the story deals with some themes that are inherently linked to his character. Emotional involvement, anger issues, the difference between what is “just” and what is legal, attitude toward women-as-victims, all of which are expanded upon. My comments regarding how the action relates to Jason's character are in italics.

Batman #422 is Jason's last appearance before Garzonas, in Batman #424.

Batman 414:

The story opens with Batman researching a series of murders. All young women, all with their bodies found in dumpsters, all cut up. He's interrupted in his investigation by a fire nearby; he arrives in time to save a young woman who'd returned to the building to save a child. Her name is Kate, she's a social worker with the same sort of money background as Bruce Wayne. She and Batman butt heads over the subject of safety; he tells her that with the dumpster killer around, it's unsafe for a young woman to be walking alone in the streets at nights, she retorts that she's been doing so for years and is in no need of protection.
The whole thing teeters on the edge of skanky class issues. You could argue that there are also gender issues at work, but I'm especially sensitive to the class aspect due to their gratuitousness. When Kate and Bruce meet again later at a party, she explains that her father wants her to marry and raise a family, but she finds it more satisfying to help the poor. Mentions of Jason are entirely lacking.


Later, an abduction is reported by a witness, who saw the victim being dragged into a blue van. Batman and the police look for the van the whole night, but in the end they only find another body in a dumpster. It's Kate.

Bruce, unsurprisingly, takes it personally. It's dangerous, because Robin's not around to act as a check.
Batman acknowledges the fact that “Cutter”'s nickname comes from his habit of “cutting” the dope, and not from the weapons he uses, but still. He was at the fire. It's a connection. So Batman spends several weeks investigating on Cutter; looking for him, interrogating his known associates, etc. There's no trace of him, and Batman starts thinking maybe he left town. Batman doesn't like that idea. And then, one day at the police station, he hears the cops talking about a bust on Cutter. Of course he offers a hand.

On the way to the bust, he crosses the path of a red van three times. At first he thinks nothing of it, but when he decides to follow it to check anyway – after all,it's only a paint job from a blue van to a red one – he has to stop two losers from knocking a liquor store, and by the time it's done, the red van is nowhere in sight and it's rendez-vous time for the bust.
Meeting the red van is a coincidence. I'm noting this for later.

Batman finds Cutter and the rest of his gang, and listens to them away from sight. The rest of the gang is nervous, because with the dumpster killings, the streets are roaming with cops, and think they should put the job back. Cutter disagrees, and assures them that the cops won't hear about it. And he pulls out a knife.

Batman takes out the rest of the gang, quickly and with broken bones involved for the thugs.

Several parallels to be drawn with Jason taking in Garzonas here, I think; Batman is impulsive and really, really wants to have an excuse to beat on Cutter.
Moreover, the theme of “he deserves it” often comes back in Jason's mouth. In one of the flashbacks of “Under the Hood”, Jason uses the phrase to justify breaking a man's clavicle.


There's been another dumpster killing. Forensics say it happened while Cutter was in custody. More than that, there've been reports of a red van parked in that selfsame alley only twenty minutes before the body was found.

Taking things personally or getting close to someone = people getting killed. I wonder how many times Bruce is supposed to have learned that lesson by now, but given that taking a liking to Jason and making him Robin was what got him killed, it's interesting if only in terms of retroactive foreshadowing.


Batman 421:

Summary: Batman looks for clues. His search leads him to a homeless man, a gang, and a dirty cop. I really like how the plot moves through different aspects of illegality in Gotham and how it shows Batman interacting with each of the factions.

Batman's “I want this one” is mirrored later in Batman #424 when Jason tells Batman the same about Garzonas. At that time, Batman retorts, “well, you can't have him. Not for what he did to that girl, at least.

Batman stumbles onto a homeless old man getting beaten up by two losers, and rescues him.

Elmore tells Batman he met his wife when she was in the dumpster; Batman inspects the dumpster and finds traces of dried blood, so he tells Elmore that he'd really like to meet Elmore's wife. He follows Elmore home – Elmore's home being an abandoned spur of the Gotham metro railroad.

Elmore tells Batman he found his “wife” as she was tossed into a dumpster. He didn't see the men who did it, but he can describe their van: red, with a dragon and a fist. Batman knows that van. So, after alerting the cops and getting ambulances to get Elmore and the body, he continues on his investigation.
This is the second helpful coincidence in this arc. I'm not sure whether to blame the writer or the character, but the fact is: second time he finds a lead due to chance.

It's the van of a gang. First Batman tries to reason with them, telling them he just want a look at their van, but they'll have none of it and attack him. That goes about as well as you can expect. (These two pages are not necessary to the story, but it's a bleak story and any comic relief to be found should be treasured, to there you are. Yay.) [Edited because I suck.]


Batman discovers that it's a cop – always the same – who's been making the vans disappear when their owners were in custody. He follows that lead, full of righteous anger at a cop gone bad, but when he arrives at the cop's flat he finds building burning and the cop dead with a knife sticking out of his back. So, Batman was wrong.
Batman being wrong is a recurrent theme in this story. Part of it is because when this was written, he was more fallible than today. The other part is because Batman is really not making a very good job. When he's not wrong, he finds the next step because of coincidence.

Luckily the cop was able, before he died, to write the word “cugino” with his blood. The whole thing is pure I am not making this up territory. It's better not to think about it, really. Anyway, “cugino” means “male cousin” in Italian, so Batman finds the address of the cop's cousin and drops it to search the flat, is interrupted by a man going at him with a knife, stops him, and starts asking a few questions.

I don't know if criminals make a habit of threatening Batman with lawsuits nowadays, but here it's an interesting issue, particularly with regards to Jason. Maybe the claims of BftC's Jason that 'working with Gordon was Batman's mistake' make more sense if you remember that at the time this kind of thing happened and Batman was forced to deal with it.

For reference, the bigger man's name is Branneck.


Batman 422:

I'm info-dumping because the pages I want to post are all located toward the end of the issue, and the rest is both relevant and really, really effective storytelling. There's a handful of pages I'm not posting that are beautifully constructed, so if you have the opportunity to check this out IRL, I strongly advise you to.

The issue starts with two groups planning: Branneck and his associate on one side, and Batman, Gordon, and Robin on the other. Branneck's associate is scared because they have the Batman after them, Branneck tells him that everything will be all right. In case you are wondering about the killers' motivation, they're raping and killing women because 'those damn broads are acting all above themselves these days'.
Relevant theme: mistreatment of women.

Meanwhile, Batman exposes his plan; he and Robin will tail the murderers until they can catch them at something illegal. Jim is worried about Batman's emotional involvement in the case and warns him about the methods he might use; he thinks he's never seen Batman so strung out about a case.
Jason doesn't talk during that scene; he's leaning against Jim's desk with his arms crossed. I'm saying because it's a stance he takes a lot and I like to take notes about characters' quirks when I can.
If Bruce wanted to show Jason that one always had to be in control and keep one's emotions under lock, he gets one big fail.


Unfortunately, Branneck and his associate manage to lose them; Branneck dispose of his associate by knifing him and pushing the corpse under a train, so the cops and Batman will have to conclude to an accidental death.
Then the stupid goes home and hides the knife under a loose floorboard. Then he goes out and drinks. I told you there was a lot of ohnohedidn't in that plot. Of course Batman finds the weapon and brings Branneck to justice.

Cut to three months later. Branneck's trial. His lawyer points out that the evidence was illegally acquired, since it was the Batman that handed over the knife to the police, and the judge has to let Branneck walk. When Branneck gets out, he sees Batman and Robin watching him from a nearby rooftop.
The more you think of it, the more you see why Jason might have started thinking that playing by the rules stank, a lot. In Batman #424, Jason killed/let Garzonas fall after Garzonas walked away free, twice. The trend of criminals walking away from crimes committed against women started earlier than that, as you may see, and makes it a little more understandable that Jason would have lost it against Garzonas.

Anyway, Branneck decides it's time to leave Gotham. But before he does, he decides to kill one last woman. It's a woman he's been seeing everywhere, every time he turns his head she's there staring at him. She never speaks, she never does anything, she just looks at him. He'll wait until the radio tells him Batman and Robin are busy elsewhere, and then he'll strike.


Jason: leaning against a convenient something with his arms crossed again.

Batman stopping Jason mirrors Gordon stopping Batman in #414. Robin acting out of control means that Batman has to be in control of himself. It's a different mechanism from the one generally associated with Batman and Robin (Robin stopping Batman when he becomes too violent), but the end result is the same: Batman has control over himself again.

All the same, this doesn't deal with the question of where was Batman when Jason started? Was he someplace else? Was he looking on and waited to intervene until he thought Jason was crossing the limit? I tend to think it's the latter, due to a couple of other occurrences of Jason beating up people and Batman looking on that I can remember from the top of my mind; Jason going at Garzonas in Batman #424 and a quick flashback in Batman Annual #25, which deals with Jason's resurrection and was thus written 18 years later.

Observe as Batman lets Jason get away with it the moment Jason smiles and diverts the issue. Bruce, you're really not helping the kid there.



The woman kills him, then lets herself be arrested without struggling. She tells the cop she's the sister of Branneck's second victim; she's been tracking the killers since before Batman got on the case.


Three things: - Batman is not being convincing.
- I love how no-one remarks that if that woman had, oh, maybe
told the cops about her suspicions, there'd have been 9 dead women less.
- This is Jason's last appearance before the Garzonas issue. Is it any wonder the kid killed (or as good as) Garzonas with the extremely skewed justice that's been displayed here?


And... that's it. Any thoughts?



(Post a new comment)


[info]unknownscribler
2009-05-07 11:58 am UTC (link)
That's not manslaughter, it's murder 1. But yes, despite my having no problem at all with her killing the guy, and finding Batman's little justification of not killing to be somewhat weasley, by not bringing his identity to the attention of people who could do something about it I agree with you that she's culpable in all the deaths that took place after she consciously decided not to tell the police.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]daningram
2009-05-07 12:10 pm UTC (link)
No, it's self defense, even if she created the opportunity for him to attack her and knew the risks. The guy had a hundred pounds on her and placed her in a reasonable fear of her life.

Other than that, yeah, major screw up. She'd certainly be civilly liable for those other deaths.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]kitty_tc_69
2009-05-07 03:34 pm UTC (link)
How so? Batman already suspected Branneck. He'd already clued in the cops, and they were hamstrung by their inability to prove it. In addition, they'd already caught the guy and let him go, on a technicality. Her "failing to inform" the cops of what they already knew and were unable to act on did nothing to make the situation any worse. And her action was the only thing that stopped the guy. The cops had their chance. Batman had his chance. They failed, because they followed the rules instead of doing what it took to keep more women from ending up dead.

That's why the whole "never kill" rule is a load of shite. Every time the Joker goes out and kills more, it's Batman's failure to end him that is responsible. Every woman this guy killed after Batman knew it was him, that blood is also on his hands.

Frank Castle is right.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 03:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 04:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-07 04:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 04:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 09:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 09:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 09:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 12:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-08 12:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 01:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 01:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-08 10:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 12:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-08 01:02 pm UTC
mottotastic - [info]pervymax, 2009-05-08 09:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 06:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-08 10:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-08 01:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-08 04:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-08 05:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 12:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-08 01:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 08:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-08 10:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 12:30 pm UTC

[info]unknownscribler
2009-05-07 06:04 pm UTC (link)
I'd agree except for her admission to deliberately provoking him into a situation where she'd be compelled to defend herself with lethal force. The days, if not weeks, that entailed definitely makes it a premeditated killing. If she'd just been observing him, then it would have been self-defence

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 06:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 08:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 08:25 pm UTC
I don't know
[info]pervymax
2009-05-07 09:11 pm UTC (link)
I always assumed that she found out *after* the Trial.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: I don't know
[info]runespoor7
2009-05-07 09:26 pm UTC (link)
He's been seeing her longer than in the few hours since he was released. There's a page I didn't post where he sees her as he's being tailed by Batman, and he thinks that's he's been seeing her everywhere for a while now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: I don't know - [info]pervymax, 2009-05-08 05:08 am UTC
Re: I don't know - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-08 01:35 pm UTC

[info]hybrid2
2009-05-07 12:05 pm UTC (link)
I agree with her. she put down a mad animal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vignettelante
2009-05-07 12:19 pm UTC (link)
The Batman dilemma isn't, necessarily, that it's wrong to put down mad animals, but that it's not the prerogative of those on the street to decide who the "mad animals" are. For all that Batman is one of the smartest people on the planet, he's too close to decide. The machinery of the state is the proper avenue for punishment.

(Of course, the whole "cardboard prison" issue kind of ruins the point; it's an editorial decision that breaks the moral issues Batman explores just for the sake of making sure the characters are around for more stories, which always pisses me off.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]starwolf_oakley
2009-05-07 12:34 pm UTC (link)
Issue #3 of the Batman miniseries "Turning Points" covered part of the "cardboard prison" issue. Depressed over Jason's death and Barbara's crippling, Batman is secretive about tracking down a killer called "The Garbage Man." He's worried if he catches the killer, the killer will develop an "unhealthy fixations" on him, like most of the Arkham inmates.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]unknownscribler
2009-05-07 06:34 pm UTC (link)
Which is a fundamentally flawed argument. By becoming a vigilante, you've already implicitly admitted that the machinery of the state doesn't work be it due to incompetence, inadequacy or corruption.

The prmary problem is this fetish for Batman being Judge Dredd and being all "I am the Law!!". I'd be much more tolerant of his no kill rule if he'd just admit to a personal aversion to killing instead of continually desperately trying to justify it legalistically when his very existence as a vigilante crimefighter shatters any sort of moral or ethical authority that could possibly extend to him.

Even his once offered aside that "We don't kill because that would make life difficult for us with the police" is a preferable justification to "we don't kill because the law says it's wrong so we must obey the law".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think you're missing the point - [info]pervymax, 2009-05-07 09:41 pm UTC
Re: I think you're missing the point - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-08 02:28 am UTC
Again, I don't think so - [info]pervymax, 2009-05-08 06:11 am UTC
Re: Again, I don't think so - [info]ladymirth, 2009-05-09 10:02 am UTC

[info]daningram
2009-05-07 12:07 pm UTC (link)
Ugh, someone smack Jim Starlin with a law book. Might actually knock some sense into him.

(Reply to this)

"It was a murder, but not a crime!"
[info]starwolf_oakley
2009-05-07 12:26 pm UTC (link)
Page 9 of BATMAN #414 was reprinted in black and white in "Tales of the Dark Knight" a special 50th Anniversary book from 1989. It was used to show that each victim of Gotham violence is more than a crime statistic to Batman.

I've said that various flashbacks over the years show Jason Todd's "mean streak" to make Tim Drake look better by comparison. I'm starting to see that Jim Starlin gave Jason the "mean streak" in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: "It was a murder, but not a crime!"
[info]kagome654
2009-05-07 01:15 pm UTC (link)
Jim Starlin never liked Robin, he pretty much admitted he went out of his way to make the character unlikable, since he wanted to kill him off as soon as he started writing Batman.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman."
[info]runespoor7
2009-05-07 01:24 pm UTC (link)
You beat me to that answer, I was looking for a link to that interview. (last question on the page.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]kagome654, 2009-05-07 01:26 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 01:28 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 03:44 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 03:45 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 04:23 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]cricharddavies, 2009-05-07 04:48 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 05:49 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]starwolf_oakley, 2009-05-08 02:37 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 05:51 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 05:56 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 06:00 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-07 04:42 pm UTC
Re: "I wanted to kill off Robin as soon as I started writing Batman." - [info]cat_13145, 2009-05-08 03:40 am UTC
Re: "It was a murder, but not a crime!"
[info]jlbarnett
2009-05-15 07:24 pm UTC (link)
then he never should have been allowed to write the book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sistermagpie
2009-05-07 01:58 pm UTC (link)
Isn't it self-defense what that woman did? She didn't touch the guy until he tried to attack her. She's right that there's probably no jury that would confict her.

For all the weird editorial stuff no doubt driving this, it's still fascinating for me to think of how the revolving Robins are supposed to work. Jason frankly comes across here not as Batman's lighter balance but as some sort of receptical for Batman's own rage issues. Whcih is why yes, it does totally seem like Bruce always lets Jason go at the guy until he (Bruce) is satisfied. It's not really that Jason is unlikable--he's not. He's just a mirror of Bruce to give Bruce something to argue again. But Bruce's arguments are so weak...it's like you get the sense that in the Jason-era Bruce was even more alone with himself than he is at times when he's really alone. His darker impulses have a voice that Dick could have argued with with some conviction but Bruce can't.

I almost wind up feeling like Jason just went to where he inevitably would (killing a criminal) and Batman finally had to kill him off to have any sort of control. The next Robin was chosen by Dick.

Now if only they'd figure out something that sensible to do with Jason now...(I don't mean killing him, I mean figuring out what he represents in a way that makes him coherent and human.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]filthysize.livejournal.com
2009-05-07 02:16 pm UTC (link)
Um, that defense might fly if she didn't tell the cops that she purposely stalked and taunted the guy into provoking her, thus allowing her to get close enough to commit a premeditated murder.

Kind of dumb. This story sucks.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 02:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 06:11 pm UTC
Nope - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 06:29 pm UTC
Re: Nope - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 08:05 pm UTC
Re: Nope - [info]daningram, 2009-05-07 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 04:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]unknownscribler, 2009-05-07 06:22 pm UTC

[info]mysteryfan
2009-05-07 03:25 pm UTC (link)
Interesting take on the way Robin and Batman are being written here. I tend to chalk most of it up to one writer and a lot of DC-wide Jason hate, which I still don't get. I find the editorial stuff pretty fascinating, and wonder who it was that decided we needed Jason 2. Because it doesn't seem like (from reading say, Starlin's interview, last question) that anybody at DC liked him. Weird.

Now if only they'd figure out something that sensible to do with Jason now...(I don't mean killing him, I mean figuring out what he represents in a way that makes him coherent and human.)

Very much agreed. I am losing faith in their overall ability to ... care for, maybe is the word I want.. quite of few of their characters.

And still, we get Damian. They can't seem to figure out what to do with the ones they already have, and yet we get Damian./fussing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mysteryfan
2009-05-07 03:15 pm UTC (link)
This kind of um... just depresses the heck out of me. I just don't like Starlin's work on Batman. I read him writing a Nick Fury voice that I really, really liked, but I don't like this. I think he made Batman extra creepy at times, and I just... *sigh*. A Batman writer coming in hating Robin, to write Batman and Robin...

On second thought, I wonder how things don't change all that much, really, and who's currently writing a Batperson they don't like.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kitty_tc_69
2009-05-07 03:43 pm UTC (link)
*sigh*. A Batman writer coming in hating Robin, to write Batman and Robin...

It's not "Batman and Robin" unless someone decides it is. Burton and Nolan's films are Robin-less. Plenty of the comics have been as well, and his name is almost never on the covers. Much of the better period of B:tAS was Robin-less until the network decided that he had to be added in to kid-friendly and lighten up the show for a younger audience. Which is what Robin ALWAYS does. That's the purpose of his character. And it's just bad.

Sidekicks in general are a bad artifact of a silly time in comics, which have been almost entirely phased out with the notable exception of Robin. People wanting a darker and more serious and mature Batman keep writing him out, and others keep digging the concept out of the trash pile and putting it back. It's long overdue to let it die.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 03:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kitty_tc_69, 2009-05-07 05:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kagome654, 2009-05-07 06:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-07 06:41 pm UTC
I like this. - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-08 06:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-09 11:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sistermagpie, 2009-05-09 02:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mysteryfan, 2009-05-07 06:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]merseybeatler, 2009-05-07 07:57 pm UTC

[info]janegray
2009-05-07 03:51 pm UTC (link)
It's the van of a Chinese gang

Wearing a Japanese flag?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]runespoor7
2009-05-07 04:23 pm UTC (link)
*facepalm* ...just kill me now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sistermagpie
2009-05-07 04:27 pm UTC (link)
That's very tricky of him!

Also, that character is drawn to look like a really offensive stereotype, isn't he? Or am I imagining it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Hopefully someone can explain this to me
[info]cat_13145
2009-05-08 03:54 am UTC (link)
This looks like a good story, so why has it never been released in a trade paper back?
That I admit is something I don't get about DC, they seem to court controversy in their comics, but never publish them in trade paper back.
I mean think about it. Jason is the most controversial of the Robins and invites huge debate. But as Robin he only appears in three trade paperbacks, and dies in one! The extremely controversial Nightwing 93 (which if anyone has and would post, I would be grateful), just basically vanishes in the trade paperbacks, we go straight from 60 to 106, and we start Mobbed up with the bare minimum of an explanation for what he's doing there.
This along with Garzona would make a great trade paperback, if for nothing else it would get people talking and debating. Look at Marvel, one of it's most controversial story lines of recent years was the decision to kill off Captain America (sorry to anyone who didn't know that). Less than 6 months after that, it was published in a trade paperback.
It's controversial it still creates debate about whether it was a good idea, whether Bucky makes a good Cap or not and so on. And therefore more people buy the books to find out what people are talking about and Marvel makes more money. Only story I've ever seen vaguely along those lines in DC was Speedy's heroin problem (and poss Death of Superman).
Sorry for the rant, but I'm a UK reader with limited access to comics, so if it isn't in trade paperback, the chances I'll get to read it are fairly small.
Also Come On DC Acknowledge and Respect for the Jason Fans. We do exist and we're sick and tired of the way you treat our character.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Hopefully someone can explain this to me
[info]unknownscribler
2009-05-08 01:02 pm UTC (link)
It wasn't a good guy that whacked Steve though, was it?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Hopefully someone can explain this to me - [info]runespoor7, 2009-05-08 01:39 pm UTC
Re: Hopefully someone can explain this to me - [info]cat_13145, 2009-05-09 01:56 am UTC
Re: Hopefully someone can explain this to me - [info]cat_13145, 2009-05-09 01:58 am UTC



Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs