>>14470 Robin isn't controversial. Sure now with the gift of hindsight it seems weird for a man to adopt a boy into being his sidekick wearing short shorts. But back then it was just a normal sidekick thing. Not meant to be weird. Frankly, if I were to recreate Robin along with Batman, I would maybe keep Dick as Nightwing once he grows up & starts a rift between himself & Bruce. Have Jason take his place & only later make him Red Hood if it means he'll actually kill real villains. I'd keep Tim as more of a tech role with Oracle rather than a Robin. Damien as a character could work but he needs to actually grow as a person. Not be corrupted by his mother & grandpa's teachings. Nor an arrogant brat forever. Robin as a mantle isn't a bad idea. The problem is like with every good idea in comics. The execution doesn't work in the state comics are run.

I've always seen the Robins as not distinct enough to be interesting characters to me, with the exception of Damian. His conception, upbringing, and awful personality made him much more interesting to me. His roughness and initial bloodthirstyness, from his training from his grandfather, made him more of a difficult ward for Bruce. Damian being Bruce's actual son made it different too. Then by the time he was was teamed up with Jon Kent for Super Sons, which I loved, he was still abrasive, but had learned to be less of a little shit, and his brusque personality clashed with Jon's innocence and naivety, and put Damian in a mentor role. Seeing him stick up for Jon in Teen Titans (forgot which issue) showed how far he'd come as a person and hero from his inception. Damian was the first time I actually cared about a Robin. But then DC let Bendis fuck up Superman, Jon, and Super Sons, and I haven't read a DC comic since. And of course, DC as a whole has gone down the woke sewer.

>>14470 I despise nearly every Robin, but Robin the Third is based and all future canon depict him as exceeding Bruce in the cowl. I hear they may be attempting a faggening upon Tim Drake (ludicrous; Damien is far more likely with his childhood of abuse), and if that happens, I'm officially freezing the current canon as Tim is straight and was replaced with a faggot shape-shifter who will eventually die from the AIDS.

>>14502 >tim >straight In the comics certainly but Tim was made for dick.

>>14475 Addendum: Damian is a weeb. Canonically he wouldn't read his own comic. Considering the sales of cape comics compared to manga lately, this amuses me greatly.

Controversial is a weird way to put it, considering that he's one of the elements that made Batman popular in the first place. Most writers and fans just have a hard time acknowledging and appreciating that without irony, hence the retcons and adaptations reinterpreting. I do think Damien is a bad Robin, on a conceptual level at least. Being the son of both Batman and the daughter of Ra's al Ghul is too on-the-nose and outranks every other Bat-character by default. Not hard to see why Grant Morrison created and killed him off.

Robin is one of the most interesting concepts in superhero comics, and the four major Robins are all among the most interesting and most well fleshed out characters. However, a great deal of this is through decades of development and reams and reams of comics, making it difficult for adaptations to do it justice, and difficult for casuals to really get it. Robin sounds like a dumb concept with the way that many modern Batman adaptations work, but with the specific tones that comics have used when each Robin was introduced and developed, they all fit well into the universe. Dick Grayson is especially interesting, since he actually aged in a noticeable way, and successfully adopted a new identity, and even had successful runs as the second generation Batman. The later Robins and his relationships with them are also interesting, with him taking on a mentor role that is different from Batman's, but still interesting. This is most obvious with Damian, and the fact that those DC animated movies didn't adapt the fact that Dick was Batman when Damian first became Robin significantly detracts from both of their characters. But then if you want to adapt that well, you have to have Batman be dead, and it has to actually be a cool death for a good reason, and before that, you need to make sure that Dick is well established not just as Robin but as Nightwing. And if you don't also adapt Jason and Tim, then that will also detract from how mature and well established Dick is, so it won't be as cool when he becomes Batman. But in the original comics, it works. The DCAU did a decent job, but significantly underused Nightwing, and the lack of him in Batman Beyond is particularly notable. I do think it deserves to be noted how Return of the Joker shares a lot of parallels with Under the Hood, though with the character called Tim Drake really being Jason Todd (which was the case since he was introduced in The New Batman Adventures). However, even there, with the many tv series and episodes, and the long form storytelling they could do, it's nothing compared to the thousands of issues of development that Robin had in the comics.

>>14525 >decades of development Doesn't matter. The universe & the characters get rebooted constantly. Framework is the same but the histories are completely different. Leaving the past irrelevant. It's why New 52/Rebirth is the current basis for all "adaptations" now.

>>14470 It's not so much as it's controversial, inasmuch as it's satisfying the whiny cunts moaning about lack of female diversity. Why else did they start pushing Batgirl and Catwoman? The latter might as well be Batman's official anti-hero sidekick. But in all honesty, I think they should have promoted Robin(Drake) more. >>14517 He may be made for Dick. But only the Joker knows how to draw Bruce from his cave. If this came out back in the 90s, they would've no doubt had Robin(Drake) in the background about to puke.

>>14530 I can never take that panel seriously. Someone actually thought that was a good idea.

>>14532 That "panel" is fan art.

>>14539 I know, I made it. I meant the original

>>14470 Filthy causalfag' two cents; Robin usually helps to prevent from Batman becoming edgelord and Batgod so I do see him as a good addition. I liked Tim in TNBA a lot, much more than Dick, maybe due to the fact that Tim was less naive (haven't watched both BTAS and TNBA in years so my memory isn't the best). >and made the mantle irrelevant in Beyond Terry could've a Robin under him when grows older and Bruce kicked the bucket, which most likely never going to happen. >>14525 >The DCAU did a decent job, but significantly underused Nightwing, and the lack of him in Batman Beyond is particularly notable. I agree about Nightwing being barely used I get the feeling Timm and Dini hate him and it didn't help that TNBA was cancelled after one season. As for Batman Beyond, I'm glad they didn't add Tim and Drake (Bruce and Barbara are enough), Batman Beyond should become its own thing (which they don't let it happen), there's no need to drown it with old Bat crew which they did in the comics, sigh. In the shitty Batman Beyond comics, Dick was used as competing mentor to Bruce and Tim replaced Terry for a while (both are terrible and dumb ideas as expected from BB crappy comics). >I do think it deserves to be noted how Return of the Joker shares a lot of parallels with Under the Hood, though with the character called Tim Drake really being Jason Todd (which was the case since he was introduced in The New Batman Adventures) I've been hearing it a lot, what's weird is in the Adventures Continue, they added Jason/Red Hood and if ROTJ still counts then it undermines ROTJ trauma, the heavy feeling of it just like they did when they resurrected Grundy in JLU dumpsterfire and make Bruce stupid as he repeated the same mistake twice. >>14523 >I do think Damien is a bad Robin, on a conceptual level at least. Being the son of both Batman and the daughter of Ra's al Ghul is too on-the-nose and outranks every other Bat-character by default I think Damien would've worked if Bruce found about his existence when he's older and it's too late, thus Damien would've been a villain and could also work as contrast to Bruce' adopted sons. Bruce needs to pay for screwing around with female villains for a change. Damien ending up as good is a bad idea since Bruce once again gets away from consequences of his actions and even more obnoxious over the top Batgod is being created. You may disregard my opinion as I'm filthy casualfag, but this is my conclusion from Damien' concept.

>>14543 >Robin usually helps to prevent from Batman becoming edgelord and Batgod so I do see him as a good addition. A valid point, which is how Tim Drake got the job, but it does lead to an unfortunate implication: are the Robins his therapy pets?

>>14543 >Terry could've a Robin under him when grows older and Bruce kicked the bucket I figured it would eventually be Terry's little brother or (more likely) his brownish best friend with the magenta hair. >which most likely never going to happen. They're rebooting everything else. Never say never. Mind you, they'll fuck it up just like that tub of shit, Kevin Smith.

Robin is a relic they never got rid of. He's detrimental to any batman story with a serious tone, though those stories were bad to begin with. See, after the wacky period in comics they tried to bring batman back to what he was originally but they over did it, resulting it stories that seemed like they were written by angsty teenagers. Batman has rarely had good comics.

>>14526 This is only believed by the comic book equivalent of midwits. People who think they know a lot, but actually only know just enough to make them think they know a lot. Most stories going back to New Fun Comics #1 are still canon. Details have been changed, but if you want to follow the full story (not that you need to), you need to read all of it, and when things are changed, it's not that it throws out everything. When a Crisis happens, the general rule is that everything is still canon except for the things that are directly contradicted. And even then, those things still happened on some level, sometimes a more directly important level than others. Now, for some characters, this does result in effectively full reboots. For Robin, it has not. Batman in general has been changed quite little by every reboot, including the retconned in reboot that happened when they established Earth-Two as a concept. The biggest Crisis change I can really think of in regards to Robin, and Batman in general, is changing Jason Todd's backstory after the Crisis on Infinite Earths to make it so he wasn't just a full on copy of Dick Grayson. But even then, almost all of his actual published stories remained unaffected. Did you ever notice how after all the Crisis events, the "present" of the DCU is always still years after the origin of most superheroes? They always leave time to say that that time is when all the old stories happened, except for the ones that are directly contradicted. Batman in particular, along with Green Lantern, pretty much ignored Flashpoint and just kept telling their long and well-selling stories. Even things that sometimes feel like they might be reboots aren't if you read the stories that came out right before. New 52 Swamp Thing begins with Alec Holland becoming the Swamp Thing. Except there are references to him being dead and coming back to life, which happened immediately before Flashpoint. Then they eventually start showing the previous Swamp Thing, from pre-Flashpoint, who is the same guy from pre-Infinite Crisis, who is the same guy from pre-Zero Hour, who is the same guy from Earth-One. If you want to see how Robin became Nightwing, that still happened on Earth-One. If you want to see how Jason Todd died, that still happened on New Earth. If you want to see how Damian became Robin, that still happened in a story that began before Infinite Crisis and then continued after Infinite Crisis, and ended after Flashpoint. It's all one story, and anyone who actually reads the relevant stories knows this. Saying it's all just rebooted all the time is the sign of a casual who might read wikipedia or something but doesn't actually read the stories he talks about. >>14539 >third pic, panel 5 Is that a version of that Last of Us II scene that everyone was making variants of last year? >>14543 >Filthy causalfag' two cents; Robin usually helps to prevent from Batman becoming edgelord and Batgod so I do see him as a good addition. While they made this explicit when Tim Drake was introduced, I also like how they retroactively established that it was actually Dick who came up with all the "Bat-Names" for things, like Bruce just called it "the car," but Dick started calling it the Batmobile. It's a clever idea that adds a nice characterization to both of them. You mention Robin in relation to Batman Beyond, and I do think that's a significant difference between the comics and the DCAU that makes it hard to adapt Batman Beyond properly to the comics. The idea that Bruce's tenure as Batman will be immediately followed by someone other than a Robin, particularly Dick, is stupid in the context of the comics. It works in the DCAU where the characters have significant differences, like how we never see Nightwing and Batman make up and become friends again, but in the comics, it's just so obvious that Dick should be the next Batman. Meanwhile, if Bruce isn't the one to train Terry, it also sucks. There are comics where Damian is the one to train Terry, and that's fucking stupid. Damian is not Bruce, he doesn't have the history and the gravitas that comes with that history. And even Dick, while I'm saying he makes sense as the second Batman, does not make sense as the guy who trains Terry, not if you want the story to have the same weight. I think this is a basic reason why Batman Beyond can't just ever fit in the DCAU properly. Reconciling these issues is harder than reconciling the different versions of Post-Crisis Hawkman. Maybe the only way to do it would be to just have the entire DCAU die, since the series ended many years ago anyway, and have Terry be the only survivor, who goes to the mainstream universe, maybe in the present, or maybe in the future, but in an era where there happens to be no active Batman (though presumably Dick and maybe others have already been Batman by that point). Of course note that this is only an idea for getting him into the mainstream universe. If they wanted to do just regular comics that continue in the DCAU, that would be simple. But they keep fucking that up too. >>14547 >I figured it would eventually be Terry's little brother or (more likely) his brownish best friend with the magenta hair. They establish that she is more like Alfred. >>14558 >See, after the wacky period in comics they tried to bring batman back to what he was originally Robin was introduced only eleven months after Batman, and it did not significantly change the tone. Not right away at least. In that first year, the character just wasn't very well established yet, especially since his first story is a full on plagiarism of a story from The Shadow, so it almost doesn't count. Robin does work in many stories with serious tones. That said, I do think that the stories that introduce him require particular tones that are generally more lighthearted. After his introduction, however, he can and has been used in more serious toned stories.

>>14559 >This is only believed by the comic book equivalent of midwits No it's basic fact. The original Dick Grayson, Dick Grayson pre-New 52, & New 52/Rebirth Dick Grayson are all different people. They are not one linear fucking history you absolute baboon. The whole fucking point is the history doesn't matter. The ideas may stick but the history doesn't. None on these characters stay as the same iterations. They just keep getting rebooted.

>>14560 >The original Dick Grayson, Dick Grayson pre-New 52, & New 52/Rebirth Dick Grayson are all different people. Technically the original Dick Grayson is a different person. He lived on Earth-Two, continued acting as Robin well into adulthood, even after Batman retired and died, and eventually he also died in the Crisis on Infinite Earths. However, Robin of Earth-One, the current Robin, has a history that is near identical to that of Robin of Earth-Two before the point where the two were established as separate characters, since the entire Earth-Two concept really only existed for characters who were rebooted after the '40s, like The Flash, or Green Lantern, and was, as a secondary measure, also used to explain away differences between the early versions of characters and the versions that would become the solidified versions, once the "early installment weirdness" was ironed out. However, Robin never really suffered from this early installment weirdness, or at least not much, so it barely effected him at all, and you can basically count all his pre-Earth-One appearances as canon to Earth-One as well. The biggest differences are probably just that Earth-One Robin was never in the Justice Society (I don't think he ever actually appeared in Golden Age Justice Society stories anyway, though he was mentioned), and I think Earth-One Alfred is considered to have known Bruce before Robin was around (since Bruce was a kid), while there is an actual comic, now considered Earth-Two, where Alfred gets hired, well after Robin is around. Well actually technically, Earth-Two is not the real golden age universe, but an idealized version of it that doesn't mesh perfectly with the actual golden age comics, because the changes that differentiate Earth-Two from Earth-One appeared gradually, meaning that most golden age comics take place in a world that is mostly like Earth-Two but has Earth-One elements, and this earth is technically called Earth-Two-A. But this is never relevant to any actual story, and for all intents and purposes, Earth-Two is the Golden Age universe. But while I'm being this autistic, I might as well make sure I'm not technically incorrect. But judging from how you only say >The original Dick Grayson, Dick Grayson pre-New 52, & New 52/Rebirth Dick Grayson are all different people when you said "the original," you probably just meant the version immediately before Flashpoint, and not the Earth-Two (or technically, Earth-Two-A) version, which only shows what a filthy casual you are. If you're gonna divide things along every time history was changed, then you should at least mention Earth-One, COIE-Zero Hour New Earth, Zero Hour-Infinite Crisis New Earth, Earth-0 (the last version of "pre-New 52" history) and then Post-Flashpoint. Rebirth is also a different thing that happened five years after Flashpoint, and technically didn't even change history, it was just revealing stuff didn't change as much as people thought, such as Wally West not actually being rebooted, but lost in the speedforce after Abra Kadabra erased everyone's memories of him. Superman: Reborn, which was separate from DC Rebirth but happened shortly after, did change history, but it's barely mentioned outside of Superman titles. Though it does provide much more time between the dawn of modern superheroes and "the present," so it technically changes the timeline to make it less cramped, but it doesn't really change any stories. >They are not one linear fucking history you absolute baboon. They are, though. Read the actual books. The same way you seem to understand that Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis didn't make Dick a different character than he was before those events, it's the same thing with the Crisis on Infinite Earths and Flashpoint (and especially Rebirth, since that didn't actually change history at all and was just a marketing thing). Have you ever read the Crisis on Infinite Earths? The universes merge and the New Earth starts several issues before the end of the story. They make very clear that things are a continuation of before, but some things are different. Many stories in other series published around this time and in the next few years would also revolve around that fact. The exact same thing happens after Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, and Flashpoint. Hell, Identity Crisis, one of the key stories that leads into Infinite Crisis, is all about flashing back to a JLA story from the '70s and looking at it from a different point of view, because anyone who actually reads the stories knows the old stuff is still canon. It seems from your complaints like maybe you read some stuff from between Infinite Crisis and Flashpoint, and you like that era best, but if you did read anything from that era, you should know that stuff from before Infinite Crisis is still canon, just sometimes with some differences, but even then, the original versions are still canon as well. (The JSA, for example, remember they were originally from Earth-Two but also remember the Post-Zero Hour New Earth versions of their histories.) You probably also noticed that Batman pretty much wasn't changed by that event. It just so happens he and all the Robins were barely changed by any of the Crisis events. Go read the books and you'll see. >They just keep getting rebooted. They don't, though, and Dick Grayson is one of the worst examples one could try to use to prove your point. Some characters have been rebooted, but he hasn't. Also, while I'm at it, I'll mention that sometimes the "reboots" aren't as simple as just history changing due to a Crisis event. For example, after the Crisis on Infinite Earths, Wonder Woman rebooted, but in that case it was a direct result of The Anti-Monitor shooting her with eye lasers or something and turning time backwards for her so she turned into clay again and then started over. So technically there's a story reason and technically the old stuff still happened. Also after Superboy-Prime punched reality, things changed so that that never happened and her Earth-One stuff was remembered again and just lead directly into her New Earth stuff. So they basically de-booted her. Another one is Hawkman, Katar Hol, infamously the most fucked up continuity in comics. This is because technically he wasn't rebooted. Technically, post-Crisis, they revealed that the Katar Hol we'd been following the entire time, since the early '60s, wasn't the real Katar Hol, but an impersonator spy, and the real one showed up and then we followed him from then on. Until they just killed him off eventually because shit just got too complicated. But it's not like he was just rebooted Post-Crisis. It's more complicated than that. Also after Zero Hour it got even more complicated as they tried to fix it but only made things worse, but I digress. Read the books and you'll see you're very misinformed about the actual events that take place. Did you notice that things like Man of Steel and Justice League Origin take place in the past? Maybe you saw Justice League Origin and missed the fact that it takes place "Five Years Ago." The next arc takes place in the present, and the five years in between are there because that's the time when all (or almost all) the old stories happened, except for the ones that are directly contradicted. Same with Man of Steel. It tells stories over the span of ten years, or rather, it tells a series of stories interspersed between previous stories. The first one is ten years ago, and establishes that Superman first appeared ten years ago. Another one is a couple years later, and tells the new version of his first fight with Luthor, but we're supposed to think that the stories that took place between his first appearance and the first fight with Luthor still happened. Man of Steel is specifically about the things that changed, but it's written specifically so that (almost) everything else still happens in between its issues.

>>14559 >They establish that she is more like Alfred. Every superhero should have a black servant.

>>14546 I was thinking more in lines of how usually the writing lent itself into, comparing different Batman works rather than Batman own personality which is depend on the writing and you see how it goes back to what I just initially said here. In other words, if writers add Robin, it's less likely they'll write Batman as edgleord or Batgod. >>14547 >>14559 >>14594 >I figured it would eventually be Terry's little brother No, that's a stupid idea as Terry having normal family is part of differentiation between him and previous Bat Crew including Bruce and Matt isn't a kid living on the streets with a deadbeat dad like Tim. And of course because it is such a stupid idea it was later included in the shitty BB comics while also killing Terry's mom. >or (more likely) his brownish best friend with the magenta hair >They establish that she is more like Alfred The executiveniggers were pushing for her to become Robin and the writers were trying to avoid it at all costs. Should've been Lucius Fox/Oracle 2.0. >They're rebooting everything else So they'll just start again with Terry being a teenager under Bruce' guidance. So again, not going to happen. >Mind you, they'll fuck it up just like that tub of shit, Kevin Smith I really don't see how they can rape Batman Beyond any more than Epilogue and the shitty comics already did, but Batman Beyond is cursed so who knows. >>14559 >There are comics where Damian is the one to train Terry, and that's fucking stupid It was one short comic, I think it was "what if" in the main Batman comic. Yeah, it's completely retarded, if they are going to make Batman hereditary (which is also fucking stupid on its own since Batman has no special powers) then he should always be like that. >Damian is not Bruce, he doesn't have the history and the gravitas that comes with that history. And even Dick, while I'm saying he makes sense as the second Batman, does not make sense as the guy who trains Terry, not if you want the story to have the same weight Indeed. >I think this is a basic reason why Batman Beyond can't just ever fit in the DCAU properly I think you got mixed up with that sentence, because BB does fit DCAU and you said it yourself. >Maybe the only way to do it would be to just have the entire DCAU die, since the series ended many years ago anyway I'm still mad that DCAU is just Batwank Animated Universe. I wish they made DCAU shows for other characters, but then again seeing how much of dumpsterfire JLU was, maybe it's not such a great loss but they didn't fuck up Flash and Captain Marvel so they could have a good series. >and have Terry be the only survivor, who goes to the mainstream universe, maybe in the present, or maybe in the future, but in an era where there happens to be no active Batman (though presumably Dick and maybe others have already been Batman by that point). Of course note that this is only an idea for getting him into the mainstream universe. No, Batman Beyond setting should always be futuristic cyberpunk Neo-Gotham (preferably futuristic version of the 2000's when Terry is a teenager and so on) and be under Bruce guidance. The whole point of BB is alternative future, no need to shoehorn it into the mainstream universe. In fact, BB is in another alternate earth/timeline in the regular DC comics. >If they wanted to do just regular comics that continue in the DCAU, that would be simple. But they keep fucking that up too As I've said before, 99.9% of BB comics are shit (only issue 14 of the animated series is good) and BB is cursed. But also, current comic writers and artists are talentless hacks. >>14530 >satisfying the whiny cunts moaning about lack of female diversity Dykes and their whiteknights. If DC had brains, they would've made a 3DPD movie and series of Nightwing (while also not including Starfire since women can't self-insert as her) getting that sweet normalfag women cash which would mostly be concluded by only consuming the movie and series and maybe some few keychains and Funko Pops here and there.

>>14602 >In other words, if writers add Robin, it's less likely they'll write Batman as edgleord or Batgod. Yes, to a degree. But that also has implications in-universe. And these implications are pretty directly stated, like with Tim Drake's entire motivation for becoming Robin being that he noticed Batman becomes too edgy when he doesn't have a Robin. >I really don't see how they can rape Batman Beyond any more than Epilogue and the shitty comics already did Epilogue is fine, but they can always make things worse than the comics just by putting them in a medium that people actually care about. But no, it would be even worse, because at least the comics make a half assed effort to pretend they're sequels to the show (even though they always fuck it up in major ways). An adaptation or reboot would just start over and therefore feel free to change more major things, and you can bet they wouldn't be for the better. >Yeah, it's completely retarded, if they are going to make Batman hereditary (which is also fucking stupid on its own since Batman has no special powers) then he should always be like that. I don't think Damian was Batman because he's Bruce's son, but because he was Robin. It makes sense in that way, but still, even if you say he becomes Robin in the future (after Dick, probably), that really prevents Terry from ever becoming Batman, because even if a character with his name did become Batman, the fact that he isn't being trained by Bruce would change the dynamic so much that it really wouldn't feel like the same character or concept. >I think you got mixed up with that sentence, because BB does fit DCAU and you said it yourself. Yes, I made a typo and did meant to say "DCU," not "DCAU." >I wish they made DCAU shows for other characters, but then again seeing how much of dumpsterfire JLU was, maybe it's not such a great loss but they didn't fuck up Flash and Captain Marvel so they could have a good series. They fucked up Flash hard in terms of adaptation. The version they made was fine, especially as part of an ensemble cast, but he's so different from the comics version of any Flash, it would make it hard to adapt many stories. They'd be working largely from scratch. And JLU was awesome, but I know you already have a whole thread for your unpopular opinion, so I guess this thread isn't the place to argue about it. >No, Batman Beyond setting should always be futuristic cyberpunk Neo-Gotham (preferably futuristic version of the 2000's when Terry is a teenager and so on) and be under Bruce guidance. The whole point of BB is alternative future, no need to shoehorn it into the mainstream universe. I'm not saying there's a need to try to fit it into the mainstream universe, but they keep trying, so I'm just trying to think of the least bad way they could do that. And yes, I did say a way to set him in the future, but he would not naturally fit in the future of the DCU, because of the differences in Robins, as discussed. I don't think he needs to always be being trained by Bruce, but having it so that he was trained by Bruce is important. There could be a point where Bruce finally dies, though. I don't think that would make it impossible to tell more Batman Beyond stories after that point. So maybe Bruce could die and then Terry moves to the same time period but in the future of the DCU instead of the future of the DCAU, so it could look the same and everything, but the latest Batman was Damian. But instead of having Terry trained by Damian, he could still keep his DCAU history, even if nobody in this new (to him) universe remembers it. But at least he would keep his character development. I know Batman Beyond, and the DCAU in general, is already considered part of the regular DC Multiverse, but even though they act like it's the DCAU, they keep fucking it up, particularly with their Batman Beyond comics (some of the old Batman Adventures and Superman Adventures comics are good. Never read the Justice League ones). So yeah, they could just keep telling stories in the DCAU but in comic form, but they've consistently been too incompetent to do that. Not that they'd be competent enough to do my retarded idea either. I'm just trying to give an idea of how to make the best of a bad situation.

>>14614 <Epilogue is fine Vice versa, it's complete butchering of Terry and his series just to elevate Bruce! And as you shown in your opinion regarding Robin in BB, you clearly lack proper understanding of the series. >they can always make things worse than the comics just by putting them in a medium that people actually care about Don't mean medium people don't care about? <because at least the comics make a half assed effort to pretend they're sequels They don't, despite claiming it to be. >An adaptation or reboot would just start over and therefore feel free to change more major things, and you can bet they wouldn't be for the better Again, I can't see how is it going to be worse than Epilogue and the comics, they pretty much ran all the worst ideas they could possibly come up with. <I don't think Damian was Batman because he's Bruce's son Epilogue apologist logic. <Being Batman has nothing to do with being Batman' son! >but he's so different from the comics version of any Flash, it would make it hard to adapt many stories. They'd be working largely from scratch. Huh?! His personality maybe different but it's well-defined and he still has the same villains, you make it way more complicated than it needs to be. And by fucking up, I meant turning them into retarded assholes like they did to most characters in JLU. <JLU was awesome I almost finished watching that pile of shit, and when I do finish it, I'm going to completely disprove this statement (not in this thread). In the meantime, I'll just post some of its animation "gems". <a whole thread for your unpopular opinion No, I don't and just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good unless you think Rick and Morty is great. >but they keep trying Souce? I rather let it die in that case. <I don't think he needs to always be being trained by Bruce He does, it's completely different story otherwise as you said yourself: >the fact that he isn't being trained by Bruce would change the dynamic so much that it really wouldn't feel like the same character or concept >There could be a point where Bruce finally dies, though They never let it happen because of Batwank (aka, Brucewank). >So maybe Bruce could die and then Terry moves to the same time period but in the future of the DCU instead of the future of the DCAU, so it could look the same and everything, Huh?! How it can make sense if in that world Bruce didn't died alone and has Dick and Damian or whatever? >even if nobody in this new (to him) universe remembers it So just make him move to a different universe he has no connection to? Nope, that still dumb. Batman Beyond is an alternate future and should stay that way or just die. >my retarded idea So you admit that's stupid? Fair enough. >I'm just trying to give an idea of how to make the best of a bad situation No, it's all just different tastes of shit. The only good option is death. >but even though they act like it's the DCAU, they keep fucking it up, particularly with their Batman Beyond comics (some of the old Batman Adventures and Superman Adventures comics are good. It's because Batman Beyond is cursed and also Dini never bothered to do a comic for it like he did with STAS and BTAS probably because he doesn't like BB as it was forced concept by executivesniggers and he's huge Batwanker (aka Brucewanker).

Who do you think actually ranks as the most controversial Bat-character nowadays? I'd say Barbara Gordon.is a good contender, due to DC trying to have its cake and eat it when it comes to her being Batgirl and Oracle in the comics post-Flashpoint.

>>14694 Stephanie Brown was best Batgirl. There, I said it. Who wants some?

>>14675 >Don't mean medium people don't care about? No, I mean it's worse if it's in any other medium other than comics because nobody reads comics anymore. If a tree falls in the forst and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a shitty Batman Beyond comic comes out and no one is there to read it, does it fucking matter? >They don't, despite claiming it to be. That's why I said "half assed." >Again, I can't see how is it going to be worse than Epilogue and the comics, they pretty much ran all the worst ideas they could possibly come up with. You are very naive. Take a look at any recent theatrical released films (or films intended for theatrical release) or any recent tv shows. Things can get much worse than Batman Beyond comics. You think Max is bad in the cartoon? Wait until you see Hollywood get their hands on her. >Epilogue apologist logic. <Being Batman has nothing to do with being Batman' son! In that instance, no, I don't think it did. Damian was the current Robin when that comic came out. Also, Epilogue goes to lengths to say it isn't the genes that made Terry Batman. He considers that it was, and it gives him his existential crisis in the episode, but the episode's point is to point out that the genes were no more important than the suit. Next you'll tell me you missed the point that the suit isn't what makes Terry Batman either. >Huh?! His personality maybe different but it's well-defined and he still has the same villains, you make it way more complicated than it needs to be. A good adaptation would require a character who actually has the same... character. The lack of this is part of the reason the CW Flash series fails at adapting many stories well. >In the meantime, I'll just post some of its animation "gems". I seriously don't see what's wrong about the pic you posted. I doubt anyone else will either. Granted, everything after Batman: The Animated Series doesn't look as cool as that show did, since they simplified the designs and style, but it still looks pretty good, including your example. >No, I don't and just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good unless you think Rick and Morty is great. I didn't mean to imply that you being unpopular means you're wrong. But I saw there were already a lot of people arguing with you there and decided to not jump into the fight. And I shouldn't here either. Don't want to get off topic. I just like talking about Robin. >He does, it's completely different story otherwise as you said yourself: Learn verb tenses. I said >I don't think he needs to always be being trained by Bruce My point is that having Terry's mentor be someone other than Bruce would change things too much to make it feel like the same character. However, I do think it would be possible to tell stories where Terry is no longer being trained at all. Stories where he was trained by Bruce, but isn't training anymore. There could be Batman Beyond stories after Bruce is dead, even. I think those could still feel like they're about the same character (Terry), however, if you change him to be trained by someone else, like Dick or Damian, then he won't be Terry anymore in anything but name. Like how the DCAU's Tim Drake is really Jason Todd in all but name. >Huh?! How it can make sense if in that world Bruce didn't died alone and has Dick and Damian or whatever? I was just spitballing an idea where, if you wanted to try to have your cake and eat it too, you could have Terry from the DCAU move to the future of the regular DCU. In the regular DCU, it would be stupid to have it so Dick doesn't take after Bruce, and Damian doesn't take after Dick. But maybe after that, there's a period where there is no Batman, and it happens to be the period that would line up with the era that Terry is from, so he can go to a world roughly like the world he left and keep his own continuity, but be operating in the mainstream DCU. It would add the element of being from a different universe, which would be weird, but then he could interact with future versions of mainstream DCU characters, which is the point of trying to mash Batman Beyond into the mainstream DCU in the first place. I'm not saying it's a good idea. It's better to just let him be in the DCAU and treat it as entirely separate from Prime Earth, but if I were a writer and tasked by DC with coming up with a way to put Batman Beyond in the mainstream DCU, then maybe that's how I'd do it. >>14694 Did they ever say exactly how she fixed her spine? I can accept that she just happened to get her spine fixed right around the time that Flashpoint happened (it's stupid from a story point, but I can accept it as possible), but I hope they at least dedicated a story at some point about exactly how she got fixed. Of course, every Batgirl comic I've tried to look at in the last ten years was absolutely awful, so I'm not about to dedicate the autism necessary to keeping up with her continuity, but I hope they at least put that tiny bit of effort. Anyway remember that Killing Joke movie where Bruce Timm had Barbara rape Bruce? And then she got raped by The Joker? Everyone gets mad about those two things separately, but maybe Joker was just giving Barbara a taste of her own medicine. The problem is that Batgirl has always been a fucking stupid character with very few good stories, but she's famous due to being in the live action show, even though she helped to kill it, so they keep trying to push her. It's like if Hanna Barbera kept trying to sell The Great Gazoo, which I guess they sorta did when they put him in Viva Rock Vegas, but that isn't exactly a move anyone should want to emulate. And while Oracle was cool, Barbara was the Batgirl in the tv show, and the only one the casuals who they're trying to market Batgirl to would like. The other Batgirls work well as supporting characters, but couldn't carry their own series as well. Or actually they probably could, because the people who pretend to like Barbara as Batgirl don't buy comics anyway, but DC will continue trying to sell to them regardless.

>>14710 >Did they ever say exactly how she fixed her spine? Probably Waynetech or some other handwaved shit. I never understood the point of bringing Barbara back. She was far more badass as Oracle.

>>14710 >That's why I said "half assed." No, they're fully assed. <You are very naive. Take a look at any recent theatrical released films (or films intended for theatrical release) or any recent tv shows. Things can get much worse than Batman Beyond comics. You think Max is bad in the cartoon? Wait until you see Hollywood get their hands on her So? Live-action is expected to be shit anyway. Max being extra cunty pales in comparison to the absolute retardation of Epilogue or truly dumb ideas from the shitty comics like killing Terry' mom and turning Matt into Robin. Again, you clearly lack the proper understanding of the series. <In that instance, no, I don't think it did. Damian was the current Robin when that comic came out And how is that makes the fact that he is Batman just like his daddy less valid?! You can't deny the bloodline connection. <Also, Epilogue goes to lengths to say it isn't the genes that made Terry Batman No, it doesn't. Waller the cunt just quotes the bible and say one sentence about free will. She fails to make any connections to the case in question and prove her point, instead she is doing the opposite, proving that blood is thicker than water. <He considers that it was, and it gives him his existential crisis in the episode It completely ruined his relationship with Bruce; they used to have mentor-disciple relationship and only sometimes relate to each other (despite the major differences between them) by sharing Batman related experiences which was touching, now they relate by being son and father, bleurgh. <but the episode's point is to point out that the genes were no more important than the suit. Next you'll tell me you missed the point that the suit isn't what makes Terry Batman either. <comparing genes which determines the traits of organisms to a fucking suit that you can put on and off I'm not surprised in the slightest that an Epilogue apologist don't understand basic biology and make such a foolish and ignorant parallel. Next, you're going to tell me that sex isn't biological and has no meaning and one can just choose his "gender" because that's exactly what your moronic parallel implies. No, the real point of that schwarbage episode is that it was unlikely that Terry would've been capable to become Batman if it weren't for Bruceshit' genes ("I was sixteen years old when you started to train me, Bruce. A punk kid with a smart mouth and a potential that I didn't even suspect"). While completely shitting on Terry in order to redeem Bruceshit and make sure no one will surpass him (which is the real propose of Epilogue and what it was all about), it barely tries to salvage Terry' character by stating the obvious that in general he has free will as if somehow it undermines the fact (which that retarded episode established) that Terry shares similar genes and environment to Bruce thus why he is Batman just like Bruce was. You completely missed the bad inconsistent writing of Epilogue and the importance and impact of genes throughout Batman Beyond cyberpunk transhumanist setting (splicing, Inque' and Blight' children being vile like them and in Inque' case her daughter wasn't even raised by her, Barbara becoming a commissioner like her old man, Dee Dee becoming part of the Jokerz similarly to how their grandmother was Harley Quinn, ROTJ dumb plot twist); not only Terry carrying Bruce' genes, but apparently him mom (and "dad") share nearly identical psychological profiles with Bruce' parents and of course Terry' "parent" got killed which was the event that triggered him to become Batman just like Bruce. So, all in all, pretty much completely identical to Bruce both by genes and environment making Terry almost practically a clone. Waller directly says that Terry is Bruce' son and admit there are similarities between them (another bullshit contradiction to the original series and dumb ROTJ), giving for example, having the same heart as Bruce and as a difference she mentions how Terry don't have the magnificent brain of Bruce. To concluded, Terry is reduced into a dumber version of Bruceshit. Then in the end Terry is shown sitting on Bruce' chair (muh blunt legacy and inheritance metaphor) and in the final scene Bruce says: "You're a stubborn piece of work, you know that" and Terry replies with: "Just like my old man" ABSOULETLY DISGUSTING, BLEURGH . Hence, Terry is like his daddy, Bruce, and he's Batman because of his daddy. And I didn't even get to half of the other retarded shit that happened in that schwarbage episode. Now go ahead and make an argument for Timm' "Batman and Harley Quinn" movie since you think he is such a talented and sophisticated writer. I'm sure you're going to enjoy his new "Caped Crusader" series he wrote with fellow master storytellers. <CW Flash series You're actually comparing DCAU amazing Flash to the dumpsterfire CW Flash?! Are you fucking kidding me? And then you say you think JLU is awesome despite that?! <I seriously don't see what's wrong about the pic you posted. I doubt anyone else will either <but it still looks pretty good, including your example Are you blind as a bat? Clearly, she has wonk eyes and her eyes looking in different directions and that's like a main shot. <Granted, everything after Batman: The Animated Series doesn't look as cool as that show did, since they simplified the designs and style You stupidly confuse character designs with animation. JLU' animation is absolute dogshit just like its writing ; so many animation errors such as often wonk eyes, off-model faces/bodies and so on. I'll elaborate about it in different thread. <Learn verb tenses <be being Learn biology and grammar. >There could be Batman Beyond stories after Bruce is dead, even Of course, there is a potential to that, but they'll never do that as I already mentioned and explained. >I was just spitballing an idea So it's just completely hypothetical and you have no proof to your initial claim that DC want/plan to do that.

>>14802 I love you anon. Because i liked that cartoon, and watching it being retconned into steaming horse shit has always enraged me. Never bothered to watch "epilogue" for obvious reasons. And reading through your post I am glad I didn't. Fuck its worse than I had assumed all these years. Excellent post 10/10. Fuck bruce timm to death.

>>14802 >So? Live-action is expected to be shit anyway. Max being extra cunty pales in comparison to the absolute retardation of Epilogue or truly dumb ideas from the shitty comics like killing Terry' mom and turning Matt into Robin. Again, you clearly lack the proper understanding of the series. Nigger, you don't understand that I agree with you that the comics are shit. All I'm saying is that things can always get worse. If you read any other comic books, or watched any recent hollywood shit, or watched any recent cartoons, you'd see. >And how is that makes the fact that he is Batman just like his daddy less valid?! You can't deny the bloodline connection. I didn't say that he wasn't his son. I said I don't think that was the reason he was Batman in that comic. >Epilogue complaining Many people have already tried to deal with you in the other thread, and have made almost all of the points I would make, but you're too literally autistic to deal with, so there's no point ruining this thread too. Maybe I'll go over to that thread if I can block out a few hours of my time to dedicate to explaining art and human nature to you. >You're actually comparing DCAU amazing Flash to the dumpsterfire CW Flash?! Are you fucking kidding me? And then you say you think JLU is awesome despite that?! The CW Flash series exists, and has many seasons. When talking about Flash adaptations, it makes sense to mention it. It and the DCAU both feature characters who share very little in common with the personalities of their comics' counterparts, which is another point of comparison. You're acting like I said it was good or something. The DCAU is better, but it helps, among other things, that Flash is part of an ensemble. >Wonder Woman pic Yeah naw, it's pretty good. It's all subjective, of course, but even with you explaining what you think the problems are, I had to look very hard to see what you're talking about. It really doesn't stand out. >You stupidly confuse character designs with animation. JLU' animation is absolute dogshit I thought you were confusing other visual elements with animation, because JLU's animation is about a thousand times better than Batman: The Animated Series' animation, which is much more full of errors. But B:TAS still looks better overall anyway. ><be being Learn biology and grammar Your point about "biology" is fucking stupid and I see that other people have already called you out on it in the other thread. And yes, in that context, "be being" is correct. "He doesn't always need to be being trained by Bruce." He doesn't always need to be currently in a process of training in which Bruce is his trainer. This is different than saying that it doesn't matter if Bruce is the guy who trained him or not. >Of course, there is a potential to that, but they'll never do that as I already mentioned and explained. And I already mentioned as well. I don't know why you act like points where I say the same things as you are disagreeing with you. >So it's just completely hypothetical and you have no proof to your initial claim that DC want/plan to do that. I never claimed that they want to do what I said. I claimed they want to put Batman Beyond in the mainstream DCU. They've tried to do it a bunch of different times, from the aforementioned story where Damian trained Terry, to Batman Beyond comics that were ostensibly sequels to the show but sometimes featured elements exclusive to the mainstream DCU but clashed with the DCAU, to Futures End, where some version of Terry (I don't know which) came back in time to five years in the future of the mainstream DCU and interacted with (future versions of) mainstream DCU characters. They clearly want to fit Batman Beyond in the mainstream DCU somehow, but keep fucking it up. And frankly, I think it's something that would never work well anyway, because mainstream DCU continuity differs in some of the elements required to make Terry work as a character. All I was doing was, for fun, trying to think of the least-bad way to do it. It's not my fault you're too autistic to understand things so simple. Your reading comprehension is shit, and you think people are disagreeing with you when they agreed with you. Also you have literal autism when it comes to things like adopted children, but there's already an entire thread for that. >>14803 >Fuck bruce timm to death. If you hate Bruce Timm for things related to Batman Beyond, just wait until you see the animated version of The Killing Joke.

>>14803 >Never bothered to watch "epilogue" for obvious reasons. It wasn't ENTIRELY bad. At least Phantasm made an appearance, although I admit I was disappointed to find out she had become an assassin for pay instead of revenge.

>>14803 Thank you anon, I'm flattered! I love you too! >Because i liked that cartoon, and watching it being retconned into steaming horse shit has always enraged me. Batman Beyond is one of my all time favorite franchises and my favorite DCAU cartoon so Epilogue pisses me off a lot too. JLU just exists to take huge dump on previous DCAU shows and on Kirby' masterpiece, New Gods. >And reading through your post I am glad I didn't I did it so you don't have too! I really envy you anon, I envy anyone who lived without watching JLU and in particular Epilogue. >Fuck its worse than I had assumed all these years Indeed, it was already possible to argue against it without watching it, but after watching it, it's a piece of cake and you can even refute the supposedly "good parts" of it which are none! Also, Timm made Terry look like a niggerwashed *Elvis PresleyxBruceshit abomination. So both Terry' design and personality are ruined, meaning his character as a whole was completely butchered. *Terry originally looked futuristic version of 90's-2000's teenager and now further in the future he looks like futuristic version of someone from the 50's?! The more you look into Epilogue and JLU in general, the more retarded it proves to be. >Fuck bruce timm to death While I heavily share that sentiment, especially after witnessing the sheer stupidity of Epilouge firsthand, we need to remember that Timm did contribute to Batman Beyond series such as designing not uggu Terry and his schway batsuit as well preventing from Alan Burnett breaking up Terry and Dana and instead pairing Terry with worst girl Max which would've been Epilogue tier awful. With that being said, fuck Bruce Timm and everyone who was involved with that schwarbage episode, Timm should never be allowed again to come anywhere near writing desk. >>14818 <All I'm saying is that things can always get worse And I'm trying to explain you moron how things are already bad as it is and why it is unlikely. <I didn't say that he wasn't his son. I said I don't think that was the reason he was Batman in that comic No, you just deny the connection between being Batman and being Batman' son just like you do with Epilogue you idiot. <I have no arguments to refute your points so I'll just use ad hominem! Pathetic <explaining art and human nature to you. That's rich coming from the faggot who cannot notice simple wonk eyes, confuse character designs with animation and don't understanding basic familial relationships as well as basic biology. No, you're the ignorant retard here. <You're acting like I said it was good or something So you're illiterate too? No, what I meant is you said that DCAU Flash is just as bad as CW Flash which can be easily deducted from calling CW Flash dumpsterfire and DCAU flash amazing while also saying that you still think JLU is good despite that. <I don't know why you act like points where I say the same things as you are disagreeing with you I wasn't disagreeing with you here, you illiterate, I just added what I had to say about it. <It's all subjective Hello postmodernist idiot, I'm sure you find beauty in Jackson Pollock' paintings. <I had to look very hard to see what you're talking about. It really doesn't stand out Genuinely, check your eyesight. You're blind, dumb and deaf. <Many people have already tried to deal with you in the other thread <other people have already called you out on it in the other thread So again, you faggot trying to make this into popularity contest like a stupid normalnigger? I only argued there with one retard that sounds a lot like (you), most anons agreed that Epilogue is plain dumb. But even if it wasn't the case, again, good/right things aren't decided by their popularity and only a stupid normalfag would think otherwise. >have made almost all of the points I would make I get the feeling you're samefag as you repeat the exact same points and argue the same way. <when it comes to things like adopted children Yep, the exact same retarded nigger. Way to go exposing yourself.

[Expand Post]

<Your point about "biology" is fucking stupid <because I said so! So now you just making up statements without any explanations behind them, that's not an argument, retard. <"be being" is correct It's grammatically wrong, learn to phrase your sentences better, illiterate. >I claimed they want to put Batman Beyond in the mainstream DCU <It's not my fault I asked you for souce/proofs to that and only now you're giving them. You're disingenuous moron and an illiterate. <Your reading comprehension is shit The sheer irony. <autisic <autistic <autism Stop projecting faggot, the only one autistic here is you repeating the exact same arguments that were already refuted and in general repeating the same words (due to poor vocabulary) like a true autist would. You know what? You're not just an autist, you're a literal retard as some autists can even be smarter than the average person which is undoubtedly the opposite case with you. >>14825 <It wasn't ENTIRELY bad It was anon, everything in that episode was fucking stupid, take your example: >At least Phantasm made an appearance, although I admit I was disappointed to find out she had become an assassin for pay instead of revenge It was complete contradiction to Andrea' motivations and personalty; ask yourself why would Andrea whose father was murdered and thus sought justice by becoming a vigilante and killing criminals would help an evil former glowniggeres to murder someone' innocent parents?! Even if you bring up the argument for the sake of creating Batfaggot 2.0 (which makes Waller muh last minute becoming bible thumper and preach about free will argument even weaker), it will still not justify it for two possible reasons (because it wasn't completely clear in the end of the movie): 1. Andrea didn't agree with Batman' approach to justice so there's no reason for her to take part in creating second version of him 2. She did in the end agree with Batman which would mean she is now against killing criminals too, all the more so she would be even further against killing innocents. This is a specific example of a problem that was prevalent throughout the entire JLU series where they disregarded characters' personalities and/or motivations just to fit to their badly written plots.

Why? Why do they hate everything good and pure?

>no one has bullied him for saying cringe Why is /co/ full of normalfags?

Robin should exist solely for batman's female rogues gallery to relieve their sexual frustration when Batman refuses to fuck any of them.

>>16685 >Batman refuses to fuck any of them. Due to him fucking Robin canonically now. Since the Twatterites demands have been met.

>>16683 >it's so hard to say good by - boyz 2 men

>>16687 >canoically When? And not some far reaching implication that satisfies your need for adult males molesting underage boys

>>16683 >Why? Why do they hate everything good and pure? Because they are neither.

Tim Drake is now a gay nigger.

>>16735 I want to wipe the smug look off their faces

>>14502 No the same poster, but this did gay shit did in fact end up happening and I also wanted to also comment on it. Tim Drake was at one point one of the best Robin's DC had EVER had when he was handled with Chuck Dixon writing him. So much so that his books were consistently some of the best selling comics in the 90's, and permanently changed how Robin was treated in media without the stupid short shorts and "golly gee Batman" goofy camp. Dick was the campy reliable side kick (as Robin, not as Nightwing the Teen Titan who went solo) Jason was the edgy angry teen proto-Damien. Tim was the serious, reserved computer wiz, and talented crime detective who could run solo after Knightfall. Tim initial run and his popularity greatly influenced how they handled Robin in Batman the Animated Series. But they never gave Tim the credit as being the Robin that they portrayed Dick as. Ever since and just before nu52, DC has badly mismanaged Tim Drake. Imagine how they are mismanaging comic characters now, well that is how they have been messing up Tim for decades despite that he gave them a lot of money as Robin Vol 3 and Young Justice. They would at times when they finally had "Tim" as a character make an appearance in media, apply Jason's character on Tim. And now they basically ruined the character for some woke groomer message. So I agree with this poster that this new iteration by the woke left is based on that weird nu52 revamp bird outfit that was recently redone, and not the original Tim Drake that had Ariana Dzerchenko, Stephanie Brown, etc as a girlfriend. Fuck DC. I'll never give them a dime again. Shame how the new Young Justice cartoon and the old Arkham Assylum were able to finally get Tim right again and not the comics where he was first developed.

What are the best Tim Drake stories that can be read online? Other than the batman cartoon, I only know his fight against Ras, his part in DC 1Million, obligatory Battle for the Cowl, tie-ins with Batman Beyond. I like the idea of the smart Robin bringing the detective aspect back to DC.

>>16897 Teen titans V3 up to nu-52

>>17020 Affleck should be sad he's forever the worst incarnation of live action Batman. Surpassing Christian "Gravel Mouth" Bale only because his Batman is an inconsistent killer.

>>17022 >Affleck should be sad he's forever the worst incarnation of live action Batman Holy shit, you absolute nigger, stuff yourself into a fold-a-bed and arrange to have someone leave you in front of a Goodwill.

>>17114 George clooney was a better batman by far.

>>17022 At this point I'd like a new Batman movie centered entirely around good old fashioned detective work. Maybe end on a quick fist fight against some goons showing Batman's dominance in that part but otherwise just showing Batman's smarts in that department, how he thinks and what he has that the police doesn't.

>>17114 George Clooney is bad because of bad writing. Not because he's a ruthless killer. >>17119 The Long Halloween movie is the closest to that but even Batman says he's a shitty detective during it all.

>>17114 Clooney wasn't even that bad of a Batman he was just stuck in a bad movie.

>>17116 >>17128 >>17129 Batnipples Clooney is the worst. >>17119 >I'd like a new Batman movie Already coming:^) This is the most boring Batmobil design I've seen.

>>17132 Okay Doug Walker.

>>17132 That's got to be the laziest batmobile I've ever seen.

>>17132 The only way I can see this working would be this is just a prototype for all the batmobile's gadgets. That or this is something Bruce jerryrigged after the actual batmobile was damaged and he didn't have the time to fix it.

>>17149 Well the film is chronologically Batman Year 2.

>>17132 The basis for that one is a 1967 Camero. They were trying to give it an iconic muscle car look. It's amazing how no die cast toy company has thought to produce any of the older batmobiles from the early comics. The only modern of one was in BATAS The Mechanic.

>>17132 >>17158 I think going for an old school muscle car look makes since in light of how radically the car market has changed since the last time Batman drove a real car. Everything at the low end is a soft-curved homogenized faggoty vagina mobile and everything at the high end is an ultra-sleek plastic shell that will crumple into nothing at the slightest fender-bender (for safety). A muscle car gives an impression of durability and power and lets Batman drive something that looks like a car and will sound like a car that people (men moreso than women) would actually like to have. Also, from a practical standpoint, the more absurd the Batmobile is, the more obvious it is that Batman is loaded or at least has an extremely wealthy benefactor (i.e. is probably Bruce Wayne). Something like a souped up musclecar could be owned by any hobbyist that got it from a relative and kept it in impeccable condition or anyone that put enough time and money into the car. Maybe it lacks a bit of the mystique of the Burton-era batmobile or the "what the fuck is that?" factor of the Tumbler or the BvS batmobile, but I think they're mostly barking up the right tree conceptually.

>>17172 Very true. > Also, from a practical standpoint, the more absurd the Batmobile is, the more obvious it is that Batman is loaded or at least has an extremely wealthy benefactor (i.e. is probably Bruce Wayne). Very true. It's how Penguin was able to use the information, given to him by the auto parts associate, to track down and muscle Batman's personal mechanic. Due to the order placed for specialty parts. In BTAS The Mechanic Had it be a regular old 1968 Charger, 1968 Cougar, or 1968 Cutlass. It would have been harder for him to do that. Which brings us to Robin's vehicle; The Batcycle 2. If Batman could have the Bat-Mobile, Bat-Planes, Bat-Tanks, and other BAT-related-vehicles. Surely they could give Robin his own vehicle after all these years. That Hayabusa has gotten old.

>>17116 >>17128 >>17129 To be fair, Clooney and Kilmer had the same problem as Ben Aflek. They were in a bad bat movie and they can be argued to be worse than Batflek based on one's personal preference. I don't see how any of the three are better than the other. Hell Michael Keaton was a worse casting than the three but he was definitely in two better Batman movies than the three were.

>>17215 The problem is Batman is not supposed to kill. That's like Spider-man murdering people.

>>17215 >he was definitely in two better Batman movies than the three were. Keaton was only in the one Batman movie, and The Flash(2022) is not a Batman movie. But maybe they should have gotten Van Damme to do the three post Keaton films.

>>17142 On the bright side, it can be used for characters that haven't been wanked to death. I wonder how the McFarlane version will be...the Batcycles they've been doing are great (highly detailed with rubber tires for the cost of 25$, just those alone are better than anything Mattel ever done with their more than a decade wasted DC license), but the Batmobil they did for the '66 series was not in scale. >>17158 >the early comics Speaking of, I'm trying to read the original and it's just terribly drawn and written, like every second word is THE BATMAN. It does make me question how the hell Batman became so popular in the first place?! >>17172 >>17199 >>Also, from a practical standpoint, the more absurd the Batmobile is, the more obvious it is that Batman is loaded or at least has an extremely wealthy benefactor (i.e. is probably Bruce Wayne) There's nothing practical or logical about Batman, he is just a regular dude in fabric costume with no powers who manages to dodge bullets and defeating supervillains using the most ridiculous plot armor possible. Batman shtick is having unique toyetic gadgets and vehicles, this the other main reason why he keeps getting wanked besides just being popular, he has great merch potential. >>17216 Batman killed in the original comic, he had so many iterations that one point or another he killed again and more than once. >>17217 >The Flash(2022) I can already feel the pain...does anyone have hopes for the Batman (2021) movie?

>>17225 Man, I hate when people say Batman has no powers. He's got like two of the best powers a regular/highly trained ninja can have. 1. Unlimited money. 2. Highly intelligent. If people have those things they can do amazing shit, though I do admit that his plot armor is ridiculous at times but eh I don't care, all superheros get giant plot armor.

>>17225 >Batman killed in the original comic Yes.... IN THE PROTOTYPE DETECTIVE COMICS! NOT BATMAN PROPER WHEN THEY MADE HIM A REAL HEROIC CHARACTER!

>>17226 > 1. Unlimited money. 2. Highly intelligent. Yet, he still wearing basic fabric costume that could easily be damaged so much for those two. >plot armor is ridiculous at times That's an understatement. >all superheros get giant plot armor Not on Batfag level. >>17228 Sure, but it does give legitimacy to make him kill.

>>17229 But that's not the Batman that's existed in comics for most of the 80 years they've kept this fucker around. Nor is the the Batman that's been popularized through cartoons. It shouldn't be this way.

>>17230 I like this panel very much. A+ >>17229 It's usually bullet proof lightweight body armor. You think he's not gonna wear protective gear when he's doing his ninja bullshit? He stops street crime, they only stick him against galaxy destroying asswipes when they have no other ideas. He should stick to fixing Gotham, not saving the world every ten minutes.

>>17225 >"He's falling into the acid tank!" He's, uh, he's definitely got a favorite finishing move, doesn't he?

>>17225 >It does make me question how the hell Batman became so popular in the first place?! Because of the many comics featuring him and his 1966 television series. The series and late 60s cartoon is what set him in stone with a majority of Bat-Fanatics. >There's nothing practical or logical about Batman, he is just a regular dude in fabric costume with no powers who manages to dodge bullets and defeating supervillains using the most ridiculous plot armor possible. The same can be said for comic book detectives the likes of The Phantom, Captain Compass, and Green Hornet. In his earlier comics, Captain Compass was just some sea-fairing corporate detective hired out by various maritime companies. But the thing about Batman is - he's always been more of a James Bond type detective more than others, and can also pull off a caped vigilante Bond better than others. >I can already feel the pain...does anyone have hopes for the Batman (2021) movie? No. It'll be just like all of the current DC films.

>>17229 >Not on Batfag level. Anon, wolverine survived a nuclear blast regenerating itself from a cell on the bone.... every capeshit in its own comic will have a plot armor that kills suspension of believes

>>17258 >does anyone have hopes for the Batman (2021) movie? I have high hopes that Pattinson will never work again in the mainstream, if that's what you mean. I also have a secret prayer that it will be The Room of super hero movies.

>>17225 >does anyone have hopes for the Batman (2021) movie? Is that the Pattinson one? I'm hoping it's so unironically edgy it somehow manages to be cool. At the very least I'd like a cool silhoutte shot. Who am I kidding it's going to be a complete clusterfuck like every other DC movie and I'm probably not going to watch it.

>>17323 It turned Riddler into a gimp suit zodiac killer, Gordon into some nigger, & likely the Batgirl movie is gonna be spinning off from this since they made her some ugly negress too.

>>17240 Yeah, it's not that batman doesn't kill people. He totally does. It's that they started putting lids on all the acid tanks in Gotham.

>>17295 >The Room I'm forever stuck with 90s early 2000s thriller/suspense movies, and are not familiar with that one. >>17352 But Jason had a poll decide his fate. Which is he came back with a vengeance.

Batman not killing makes sense if he's just ambushing the occasional group of thugs. Batman not killing is retarded if he's off facing against heavily armed mercenary groups and super ninjas on an hourly basis every night. Especially when said heavily armed mercenary group involves an entire mechanized force that requires a bat-tank with but is somehow all remotely controlled so that no one actually dies during the tank fights, and also this bat-tank has an electric shock field around the bumper and wheels that's capable of launching people into the air but they don't die guys, also the same cannon that fires armor piercing shells capable of taking on said mechanized force also switches to bean bags for humans because they don't die, guys. Also the bat tank can fire homing missiles at APCs during chases that always end in the APC crashing on its roof but everyone crawls out of the APC because BATMAN NEVER EVER KILLS guys. You know it would make a really neat idea having Batman kill certain individuals like say The Dark Knight Returns Joker who gasses an entire stadium and shit, and having a big moral quandary about how Batman's playing executioner and how the city and characters react to it. Maybe a good deal of the city is for it, maybe Alfred and Gordon are against and Bruce has to figure out a middle ground.

>>17367 That's an argument in the meta sense. Not an argument in the sense of superhero logic. Batman shouldn't kill for the same reason Spider-man shouldn't kill. They're defined by the deaths of their loved ones. They shouldn't be like the men that destroyed their lives. They need to be better to fight against the injustice. Of course this means comic writers would have to stop letting shit go on forever with continuous stakes being raised. Making Joker a criminal bank robber then a mass murderer just doesn't gel with the idea of a hero who refuses to kill. The easy solution there would be someone like Red Hood or Punisher being the answer to mass murdering villains who aren't being dealt with for good. But again, that's a meta problem that can't be used as a solution. Because no one can die permanently. That would mean having to make new ideas. Having to actually write new stories building off of progress & permanence. So the answer is simply that none of these problems can be solved without fixing comics as a medium.

>>17367 Out of curiosity, when the Batman Begins movie came out in 2005, how did comic book fans react to the fact that Batman left Raz Al Ghul to die? did they also sperg back then, about how Batman "never kills", or it didn't count since he didn't actually have to save him?

>>17379 >how did comic book fans Found the summerfag.

>>17376 Weirdly enough it's just a batman problem the no killing rule tho Spidy enemy almost never kill if not by accident like rhino did and they regret it so much that makes ammend Or outright murder so many that they get killed off anyway morlunyeah I know somehow he returned but I refuse to acknowledge anything spidy related after OMD The only spidy villain that gets kills and still manage to survive is carnagewhich still gets killed Goblinthat dies and revive so much that is pointless and maybe venombecoming an antihero to clean his sins So the problem of the nokills rule really apply only to batman since every one of his villain pool started to get edgier and edgier and started to rank up death counts in the triple digits, while other foes kept robbing banks

>>17383 At the end of the day the problem lies with how comics are made to go on forever. So writers feel like they keep having to make villains more evil without understanding that it only makes readers more frustrated when nothing is done about them. In any sort of logical writer's mind, modern day psychopath Joker would've been killed by a single cop by now. Even if it meant he himself goes to prison. This kind of writing & the way comics have done things with never ending mainline worlds limits writing too much.

>>17367 Batman accidentally killing someone by hitting or kicking them too hard is acceptable. Because that actually happens. But use of extreme force should be necessary when: >he's off facing against heavily armed mercenary groups and super ninjas on an hourly basis every night. Killing in that sense is justifiable.

>>17258 >Because of the many comics featuring him and his 1966 television series But how it even got more comics afterwards when the original comic was so lame? >The Phantom He is 16th successor of superhero lineage and carries a gun. >Captain Compass, and Green Hornet Not familiar with those two. >he's always been more of a James Bond type detective more than others Also carries a gun and likely wears bulletproof vest underneath. >>17292 That's an exceptional case. Batman has ridiculous plot armor on regular basis, pic related should've at least ended with concussion. >>17295 >>17323 >>17334 >Pattinson >Search on wiki The guy who played the faggy vampire from Twilight is going to be Batman? Kek. Do you think the movie will be bad enough that normalfags will become less enthusiastic about Batman? I'm more looking forward to the Caped Crusader and the absolute shitshow it's going to be.

>>17413 Normalfags have never cared about Batman beyond what they see in live action movies. They don't even watch the cartoons. Probably why they don't care that Batman is always a killer in movies.

>>17413 >But how it even got more comics afterwards when the original comic was so lame? Batman has always had a bit more push to share Superman's spotlight. Though, what we see as lame today, was "cool" back in its day. Speaking of bulletproof vests and lame gimmicks. PEP comic's The Press-Gaurdian was just some masked, flak-jacket wearing reporter-detective. Possessing no special powers or abilities. But, indeed. There are quite a lot more comic book detectives and such deserving just as much, if not more, popularity than Bat Douche and his backstage sidekick. >He is 16th successor of superhero lineage and carries a gun. He also has a better dog and a horse. But he has no sidekick for kids to wish they could be. >Not familiar with those two. Captain Compass had a short run, and Green Hornet is just cloak and dagger stuff. >Also carries a gun and likely wears bulletproof vest underneath. Batman has shot people with his grapnel-gun, in their hand, and has also used guns.

>>17420 >Black Terror! >& Tim. hahaha

>>17420 >Yank & Doodle It's always fun to see the innocence of the past.

>>17420 >"Big Blue" ... Why does the Blue Beetle have a nickname? Is it because they fear DC? >Pyroman >has lightning bolts on head >generating ball of what appears to be electricity >surround by electric aura >no trace of flame insignia anywhere Um.

>>17441 Blue Beetle, the original character, is public domain but DC maintains a trademark on Blue Beetle.

>>17376 >They shouldn't be like the men that destroyed their lives They wouldn't be, at all actually. It's a complete false equivalence. In fact, you can use similar logic to say they're already like thugs and criminals since they violently beat villains into submission. Batman's no kill rule, given the criminals he faces, doesn't make him look like a good person or even misguided. It makes him look like a retard with a pathological need to not kill. But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill.

>>17455 >It makes him look like a retard with a pathological need to not kill >But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill. Anon meet The Batman Of Zur-En-Arhh, not the golden age one, the crazed alternate personality. The one time Batman broke his no kill rule was against Darkseid while using a god killing gun and it ended miserably.

>>17455 Yes they would. Man it's superhero comics. They're supposed to be about men being ideals in a world full of injustice. How's that so hard to get that that's what people want?

>>17456 >The one time Batman broke his no kill rule it ended miserably. Because the writers made it that way to try and validate the rule. >>17457 No they wouldn't. Allowing sadists like the joker with a death count higher than most dictators to go without their proper punishment, let alone the fact that in the dc universe doing so allows him to continue to destroy and ruin even more lives, isn't justice. In fact, it's not even naive. It's morally wrong. And frankly, batman is a terrible person for it. Killing the joker and all criminals of similar or worse caliber, on the other hand, is not wrong at all or even a "grim necessity". It's the morally correct and respectable course of action. The ideal you apparently think superheroes should represent is injustice. If some guy killed say Stalin, that wouldn't make him an anithero, that would just make him a plan old noble hero worthy of far more respect than batman.

>>17458 Have you ever considered you're just immensely retarded.

>>17455 >But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill. No, they just forcing him to be a complicated anti-hero, even though it doesn't suit him. Should Batman kill? If the given circumstance cannot be resolved by any other means, then, yes. He's killed in the golden age comics when no non-violent solution was available. But just start killing criminals in Gotham all willy-nilly like the Punisher? No.

Honestly Batman doesn't even have to kill. I'm not trying to be a sadist here but I'd probably break joker's spine by the third time he proves to be an uncurable fuck.

>>17461 Like I keep saying. You keep using real world meta logic to comics, of course it's going to be retarded. There obviously needs to be a balance of "this can't be too edgy/serious or else it makes the hero look useless" with wacky comic heroics being taken seriously. This all goes back to the simple fact that comic books cannot run as the forever medium that they have been. There needs to be permanence, logic, consistency, & a tone that works for telling stories about virtuous characters. I could go on & on. Simply put, comic books can't improve without being actual structured stories first.

>>17367 >Batman kill certain individuals like say The Dark Knight Returns Joker I remember how near the end of the movie he went on with moralfag speech in his stupid death metal voice, yapping and I just wanted Joker to kill him already. >>17416 >Batman is always a killer in movies He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy and neither in the Schumacher films. >>17420 >Though, what we see as lame today, was "cool" back in its day I don't necessarily mean lame in terms of concept, but rather execution. I read few other golden age comics here and there and they were by mils ahead better. Heck, I read some random comic from the same anthology that wasn't even capeshit and it was still better quality and more enjoyable. The main selling point of the original Batman was its edginess, I guess, but the thing is golden age comics didn't lack in edge so I still don't see how this below mediocre level comic became so popular?! >Bat Douche Not bad, I prefer to call him Batwat. >He also has a better dog and a horse I was more focused on weaponry, armory and skills. >But he has no sidekick for kids to wish they could be I wonder how many kids actually relate to Robin (there isn't a lot of merch for Robin), as far as kid friendly superheroes goes Captain Marvel/ Shazam is probably the best. >Batman has shot people with his grapnel-gun, in their hand, and has also used guns. Was it really common in the comics, especially the regular guns? >>17456 <Batman killing Darkseid It's one thing for the Scouts Boy to steal New Gods to himself, but why Batman who has arguably the best rouge gallery needs Darkseid for? >god killing gun At least it's not as retarded and wanked as throwing regular Batarang and just kicking Darkseid. >>17462 >with wacky comic heroics being taken seriously That's the main source of problem with current capeshit, having retcons and whatnot in not so serious comic is something that can be swallowed. >There needs to be permanence, logic, consistency, & a tone that works for telling stories about virtuous characters. I could go on & on I think it's nearly impossible when it comes to multiverse/extended universe which consists huge number of different superheroes with different settings. There would be need for someone or at least set of rules to guide the writing of all said different comics. Not to mention, how each licensed fanart keep changing and adding its own ideas, resulting in contradicting previous versions of certain character and its setting.

>>17491 >He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy See >>17379 he also pushed Two Face off a building at the end of the movie, and didn't save him, like he did with Joker.

>>17462 I don't disagree. yet if comics were structured, fags wouldn't be able to write what they want and keep the bullshit going to suit their needs.

>>17491 >why Batman who has arguably the best rouge gallery needs Darkseid for? Because it was a cosmic level comic event and he's a member of the Justice League you fucking idiot.

>>17491 >He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy and neither in the Schumacher films. Kills at least 2 thugs in the chase scene, 3 dogs in the final fight, & Harvey Dent/Two Face in The Dark Knight. He would have killed Bane had he not been saved by Talia fixing his dumb mask. He totally killed Talia though. Then in the Schumacher films he killed Two Face with the coins & indirectly killed Poison Ivy by letting Freeze end up in the same cell. >That's the main source of problem with current capeshit, having retcons and whatnot in not so serious comic is something that can be swallowed. I don't think so. It's far worse with what we have now of serious comics wanting to be taken seriously but nothing makes sense. Getting filled in with retcon excuses later. >I think it's nearly impossible when it comes to multiverse/extended universe which consists huge number of different superheroes with different settings. There would be need for someone or at least set of rules to guide the writing of all said different comics. That further enforces my point that comics can't change for the better within their current state of doing things. >>17493 >I don't disagree. yet if comics were structured, fags wouldn't be able to write what they want and keep the bullshit going to suit their needs. Well.... yeah? That's the point. If there's structure & control then writers have to get creative & actually think. Y'know actually write stories that can't just bullshit their way through with retcons, resurrections, or reboots.

>>17492 >didn't save him That was the point of the coin toss and the whole theme of the film. In TDK he's constantly trapped between choosing who to save and morality of decisions. He chose to save Harvey over Rachel, he chose not to blow up Joker while he was in the semitruck, and he put all his efforts in saving the child instead of Harvey. Joker wanted Batman to break his one rule and in a way he was successful as the Batman purposely failed to save Harvey.

>>17497 Being thematic doesn't make it any less stupid. >"How do I save Gordon's kids?" >"OH I know! I'll play possum then tackle Harvey at the last possible second! That's safe!" Not like he has batarangs or anything.

>>17495 Writers aren't creative nor inventive. I've read at least 1,000 books in my life and most of them share the same language, theme, and, for lack of a better word, structure. Writers don't think, they mimic and hit up what came before them. Or, if they're super new, what warrants writing- blacked, Asian, women heroes. Writers aren't creative anymore.

>>17499 That's pretty pessimistic. I've read a lot of manga that have wowed me & filled me with more emotion than any comic crossover event story.

>>17497 >He chose to save Harvey over Rachel He actually wanted to save Rachel, but the Joker tricked him by switching the addresses, but that isn't relevant to the overall discussion, just wanted to point it out. >and he put all his efforts in saving the child instead of Harvey That wasn't even a moral choice, what hero wouldn't save an innocent child from a madman waving his gun at him? That's heroic 101. He could have incapacitated Harvey, without killing him and saving the boy at the same time. >Joker wanted Batman to break his one rule and in a way he was successful as the Batman purposely failed to save Harvey. The Joker failed, because A, he didn't kill the Joker, and got called "truly incorruptible" as a result, and B, he took the fall for Harvey's murders, in order for the city to function properly, as exposing Harvey's crimes would have meant that the Joker won.

>>17498 >Being thematic doesn't make it any less stupid. Blame the director. >>17501 He knew Joker switched the address, why would he believe Joker in the first place? >That wasn't even a moral choice For that instant it wasn't but as a whole with Harvey portrayed as Gotham's white knight, losing him would harm the hope of the city. >The Joker failed Never said he won, I said "in a way". >he didn't kill the Joker, and got called "truly incorruptible" as a result But according to your own logic he did kill Harvey thus breaking his rule. >he took the fall for Harvey's murders, in order for the city to function properly While being blamed for Harvey's death and later he disappeared for 8 years. Joker took out Harvey Dent, corrupted him and forced the city to chase Batman forcing him into hiding.

>>17502 >Blame the director. I do. Nolan clearly did not want to make any sort of Batman movie. Definitely didn't want to make 3 of them. He has no respect or love for the ideas.

>>17503 Or you just have a homoerotic hatred for the man due to your immense amount of autism.

>>17504 Okay.

>>17502 >He knew Joker switched the address, why would he believe Joker in the first place? I re-watched the scene, there is nothing to indicate that he knew about the trick, though I believe he wanted to save Rachel, since he was in love with her, and Harvey doesn't have a vagina. He honestly thought she would choose him, over Harvey, and they could start a happy family together. >For that instant it wasn't but as a whole with Harvey portrayed as Gotham's white knight, losing him would harm the hope of the city. And how would letting Harvey kill some children, help protect the White Knight image? >But according to your own logic he did kill Harvey thus breaking his rule. I guess you got me here, though I will say that the only reason Harvey got killed, was so the director could give Batman the "messiah" ending, by taking all of Harvey's sins and bearing them, thus becoming the Dark Knight I said the title of the movie. >Joker took out Harvey Dent, corrupted him and forced the city to chase Batman forcing him into hiding. What are you even talking about? In my head cannon, once Joker heard that "Batman killed those cops as well as Harvey", he didn't believe it, thought it was one big cover up, but since Batman was now out of the picture, he had no more will to cause chaos in Gotham, plus he was in an actual maximum security prison.

>>17506 >In my head cannon How did a faggot from tumblr get here?

>>17507 Tell me what happened to Joker between the second and the third movie, as well as during Bane's dominion of the city, and it has to be canon.

>>17508 >Joker between the second and the third movie His actor died and they had to rework everything. > it has to be canon. No Anon, you're just a faggot that should go back to whatever hellhole you came from.

>>17508 No, because your personal feelings don't matter.

>>17509 >His actor died and they had to rework everything. We all know the actor died, but the character didn't, unless you are going to tell me that the character died as well, in which case that would be your headcanon, and by your own words, should go back to Tumblr >No Anon, you're just a faggot that should go back to whatever hellhole you came from. How about you actually answer the question, instead of being a faggot. Are you telling me, that I can not speculate what a fictional character might have done, considering all that had happened up until that point, if there is no official word from the writer/director? Do you think Tumblr invented the concept, of imagining how a story that had ended might have continued? >>17510 Well, if his problem was that I speculated, then it means he has some information that I don't have, and I am curios to know what the director or writer's words are on it.

>>17511 >but the character didn't, They didn't want to recast joker so they just left him out. They brought back scarecrow in person for all three films because the actor was still alive, its not a retarded headcanon the director and the production knew they can't top the joker's performance so they just didn't bother and left him out. >that I can not speculate what a fictional character might have done >Do you think Tumblr invented the concept, Of course not, but you sound an awfully like one of those faggots.

>>17512 >they can't top the joker's performance I'll never understand people acting like mumbling, slurring, & lip smacking Joker is some great performance. There's only one great Joker & it's always Mark Hamill's animated Joker. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Etst4t3ES8Y

>>17512 Heath ledgers joker was fucking terrible

>>17491 >I don't necessarily mean lame in terms of concept, but rather execution. I read few other golden age comics here and there and they were by mils ahead better. Heck, I read some random comic from the same anthology that wasn't even capeshit and it was still better quality and more enjoyable. The main selling point of the original Batman was its edginess, I guess, but the thing is golden age comics didn't lack in edge so I still don't see how this below mediocre level comic became so popular?! The original comics were written so that anyone could mentally digest them. You have to understand this comic was from the era when spanking was funny and the preferred method of scolding, everyone minded they're manners, and superheroes dished out a good whopping on nefarious ne'er-do-wells, especially if they harmed kids. Incorporating all of that into a comic; with dashes violence and pro-troop/America messages, really sold it. >I was more focused on weaponry, armory and skills. Other than his guns, he uses knives, spears, his Tarzan-like strength, and his skull engraved ring. >I wonder how many kids actually relate to Robin (there isn't a lot of merch for Robin), as far as kid friendly superheroes goes Captain Marvel/ Shazam is probably the best. In the early 1940s comics, they were clearly trying to get him over to kids with their "Hey, look! Robin can fight baddies too! type of pushing. >Was it really common in the comics, especially the regular guns? Batman used a gun to kill vampires in a golden age comic and also evil spies at one point.

Fuck's sake. >>17515 I think when you compare it to I'M AN IDEA it looks retroactively better than it actually was. plus no one wants to talk shit about a dead man who was in some nice stuff like A Knight's Tale

>>17659 Anon thats a fake trailer.

>>17661 Where the fuck did I get it from? I can't even find it in my history. Am I going senile or something I could have sworn it was the official WB channel.

>>17659 > nice stuff like A Knight's Tale Wasn't the love interest non-white and a women blacksmith?