If it's crap ... We'll tell you
I haven't read Batman: Incorporated number 8 yet, but I did look into it and found out the death of a major character occurs.
Surprisingly, none other than Damian Wayne (The son of Bruce and Talia) was killed off. As massive as the Batman family currently is, I was shocked they didn't kill off a more secondary character. But nope.
Damian Wayne died in the Leviathan story arc fighting a new villain called Heretic (an adult clone of Damian). He apparently died sacrificing himself while saving many. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know how well written the story is, but I just don't know how I feel about this.
On one hand, if he truly did die a hero in an epic way, then what's so negative about this? And it'll be interesting to see how Batman reacts to this and how he will get over this loss. But on the other hand, this seems really soon. Damian has only been Robin for four or five years. This just sounds too soon for me, I would have liked to have seen more development of the relationship between Bruce and Damian. I wish we could have had more father son conflict with them. Then again, Helena Wayne is back as Huntress, so we will still have a child of Batman in the comics.
In the end, I don't necessarily mind the death of Damian (but seriously, why is it always a Robin that dies?) but my biggest problem is that it's just too soon. Strong writing with a character like Damian could have easily lasted a few more years, this idea seems rushed. And if they really just wanted to kill off a character in the Batman family this year, why a character with so much story opportunity like Damian? A question would be will they keep the character dead (and just use alternate world versions if they really want to) or will they just resurrect the character in a year or two? Only time will tell.
So what are your guys' thoughts on this? Happy? Sad? Or conflicted like me? If there are any big Batman comic fans here, feel free to comment and let me know what you guys think about this. What's your opinion?
Sad, even if it was a well written death, of all the batfamily he had the most potential for growth. He had been only been robin for five years, compared to Tim's twenty and Dicks forty-four years. The cycling through of robins really bends suspension of disbelief (a recurring problem I'm having with the batman titles). Plus, DC wouldn't allow Dick to remain as the second batman but we're ready for a sixth robin?
In the current New 52 continuity, Tim Drake technically never was Robin. He immediately became Red Robin. My theory is they are going to make Tim the regular Robin now.
The only other character I could see being a new Robin is Stephanie Brown, who was briefly Robin in the 90s (that continuity doesn't exist anymore). Maybe this is when they are going to finally introduce her in the New 52 continuity.
But like I said, only time will tell. For all we know they might just resurrect the character in one or two years :/
Harper Row is pretty much confirmed for sixth robin, and even if DC says Tim now wasn't robin, he was robin in every way that matters. Point is it was a cheap stunt to kill Jason Todd and it's getting cheaper and cheaper with every robin's death
Excuse, me? Damien had several arrows sticking out of him, was broken in half, impaled, and still got some serious licks in. If that isn't going out like a man in your book, then you need to stop kidding yourself.
Yeah, he was able to "man up" in HOW he died physically. The problem is WHY he died. Grant Morrison's own words on the matter "He saves the world. He does his job as Robin. He dies an absolute hero."
Damien = Does it for some "noble reason", knowing full well that he's doing it in order to save others. (Kind of always hated the sacrifice yourself concept because it seems to be weak as a character "exit" plan because you don't want to upset anyone, but cause all the readers/followers to become endeared to a character)
Jason = Gets killed just in order to fuck with Batman's head as MORE events continue after his death. (Which kind of makes his death even harder to take because the character is CEMENTED into what he has been presented as. There is no redemption, there is not honor, there is no nobility, there is no closure. The character dies, shit continues to pile on. So this makes it more of a "out like a man" moment for the character because the writers aren't trying to re-write how you feel about the character at his time of death. Todd is as he was, like it or not.... we (the writers) aren't trying to influence how you feel about the character just because we are going to kill him).
While we're on the subject, can we talk about how finding new ways for Joker to murder the fuck out of people is considered good writing? Honestly while charismatic people have played the joker that I enjoy, I see him as the most overrated villain in comics
I don't know if I would call him overrated as he has shown that he is capable of being both a mental challenge as well as a physical danger. While not a danger by fighting Batman, the fact that the Joker DOES kill on a regular basis, has no hangups about using bombs/guns/gases to kill, and even kind of relishes in killing in general... Well, these aspects do kind of make him a good character in general.
However, I think that the USE of Joker as your killing villain has been a little overplayed over the last 10-15 years or so. I guess my feelings on the matter is that it's a good character that seems to be the generic "fallback" character a little too much. They should start letting the Riddler, Penguin, Catwoman, or basically any of the "other villains" do a little killing spree here and there without trying to bring in new characters that generally get killed/stopped with only a single story line. It's something that I've found kind of weak with the writers of Batman lately. They are willing to have villains killing, but not really willing to have those characters return for a good string of stories. I mean, when was the last time that you heard of 2-3 stories about Riddler in a year?
The problem is that they (the DC staff) have kind of shoe-boxed the characters that Batman faces on a regular basis. Penquin has been changed so much over the years that he's almost unrecognizable from his origins, Riddler has been kind of put away for the most part. But when it comes to the "villain that kills", the staff have kind of hand-tied themselves with only being able to use the Joker..... unless they just cheat by making up a "new" character that shows up for 1 story line a year and gets pushed aside when done.
I feel murder on the level it's used for the Joker is a cheap way to make a villain threatening. It's no small wonder I like BTAS version of the Joker, the restraints of a cartoon aimed at kids made the writers have to work at making the character menacing and interesting. It also bends my suspension of disbelief that a man can commit what is equivalent to one-man genocide and no one's put a bullet in his head
I do too. They have used it a little "too much" to the point where it's annoying. The Joker no longer seems to have a PLAN anymore, but just to see what the bodycount can get to. Making it even worse is the fact that with everything that the Joker HAS done in the Batman Universe, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a standing order to "Shoot on Sight" from the Police, Military..... and the general population of Gotham (both civilians and other criminals).
They made a very MEMORABLE version with the animated series because of how much they did "step back" from the character. There are some times where restrictions actually improves your character. Sadly, the comic books seem to have forgotten about that and always try to "up the ante", loosing focus on who they are dealing with and what that character's true motivations should be.
Picture this...what if it was The Mad Hatter that killed Daiman? Or Riddler? Or worse, The Ventriliquist? Jesus, Black Mask made a man eat his wife's cut off fingers once.