Should DC's Batman be more like Brave and the Bold Batman?

[JRM]

Finally, a decent answer from someone that understands the question I was asking. So let me ask you this--do you not feel anything can be done to make Batman mesh better, IE, not exactly the Brave and the Bold Batman, but something close to it, without losing what makes Batman cool? Or is it just a lost cause entirely and some characters are always going to stand out a bit and not mesh perfectly, Batman being the key example(?).

SageShinigami

Sage,

Taking a different tack, look at how great literary characters are handled in different contexts. King Arthur, Robin Hood, Norse or Greek Mythical characters all have a wide range of versions - many often from about similar times. Does it matter that the Arthur of Malory does not jive with Mary Stuart's, Marion Zimmer Bradley or Twains. Archtype characters are that because they can be seen in different ways.

Do I think Morrison's version of Batman is wise and fits well into the back story he is building from - not really; BUT it is a reasonable use of the various themes as tied to his Archtype. Just as Bob Haney's is just as valid. The question is which comes first - a strict DCU concept or the study of characters from differerent perspectives and for different purposes.

I think this is the strength of the stable of DC characters. So many of them are archtypes and can be used to tell thematic stories - however this is often best done when these stories don't touch on everyone elses stories.

Superman - literaly a super man - a 'god' comes to earth - Zues or Herc, Thor, Gilgamesh are his parents in literature

Batman - the extreme of what man can be but damaged or flawed- Robin Hood, Arthur, Sherlock Holmes

WW - A symbol of equality - obviously Artismis, the Amonzons, but also various Knights of legend - harder to find due to male focus of society

Flash - to me Wally is the archtype - he is the inheritor - Forget the power - Wally's story is the quest like Huck Finn's or Galahad

Robin - The Heir - the squire in chaucer, Herc also fits here

GL - The future - the amazing potential of space

Aquaman - Ruler of the waves, that dangerous and unknown place - Posidon and other sea-gods

Oracle - the leader behind the scenes - Later King Arthur stories, even Charlie with his Angels played on this. Add to that her new archtypical role as the master of technology

JLA - the Pantathon of the gods, the round table and the merrymen rolled into one

And these are only the Heroes ...


Marvel has some, Hulk, Thor, CA, IM and of course the everyman as hero - Spiderman.

But I believe that DC stable is richer for a wide perspective of interpertation. However, if DC becomes too closely linked in tone - much of the beauty of Archtypes will be lost.

Jim

[JRM]

I think the cartoon is fantastic, but I'm also happy with what's going on right now in the comics, so I prefer each depiction being its own little thing. And this also seems like an excuse to insult Didio. You could say the same thing about Superman and Smallville, LoSH and their recently canceled series. Plus, the people who come up with the tv shows are completed unrelated to Dan Didio and his comic work, he may not even like Brave and the Bold, and there's nothing he can do about it.

Human Bong

I think that many of the coments that use Didio in this connection are using it more reflectively - he is for better or worse, "THE MAN" and a figure in that role gets things heaped on him/her regardless of their ability to either control or influnce things.

Yeah, many(but not all) of the comicbook decisions that are both loved and loathed in equal parts - and in many cases readers love some, loath others, do fall onto his shoulders. But with TV and movies, DC editorial have less say than what Warner wants, Warner gets. He may not have actually had imput in all controversial scenes - that's in a book - but as the expression goes the buck stops on his desk. I expect that Levtz, Berger and others above him are shielded from a lot of flack for their decisions, due to Didio being the public face of DC.

I think that the fans unhappy with DC should think and not pile all their beefs at DC on his shoulders, but at the same time, a number of posters need to note that they often come across as being blind appoligist for Didio. The knee jerk support often does more to harden positions. There are rules here when it is clearly unfair and rude but for the most part fellow posters can see for themselves when something is hyperbole as opposed to valid criticism.

Just a few thoughts,

Jim

[Not My Real Name*]

So, you're telling me that when Nightwing or Robin inevitably talks to Commissioner Gordon, and he asks how Batman finally died, they're going to explain the Final Crisis death? You can see that happening? 'Cause I sure don't.

SageShinigami

All Nightwing and Robin have to say is that he is one of those who gave his life to save the Earth. Depending on how much everyone remembers after Final Crisis, they could say that he went up against Darkseid single-handedly and was struck down, injuring the god in the process.

[Fletcher Hawke]

Finally, a decent answer from someone that understands the question I was asking. So let me ask you this--do you not feel anything can be done to make Batman mesh better, IE, not exactly the Brave and the Bold Batman, but something close to it, without losing what makes Batman cool? Or is it just a lost cause entirely and some characters are always going to stand out a bit and not mesh perfectly, Batman being the key example(?).

SageShinigami

Here's the thing, even in real life, people behave differently depending on the context they are in. Some people are more adaptable than others. Most people have at least one memory of seeing someone in a place they aren't used to seeing them, doing something they wouldn't have expected them to do, and thinking, "wow, I never would have expected THAT!" Look at your own sig for a fictional example Then there are of course aspects of people you may never see, but you know logically have to be there. I know my mind froze the first time I heard my dad (who generally speaks in monosyllables) rather vividly telling a slightly blue joke.

We tend to be a little overly protective of fictional characters' personalities. Fiction is by it's nature a simplification, a cross section of an event viewed through a tunnel with many causes and consequences omitted for the sake of narrative clarity--which means fictional characters are almost always simpler than real people (truth is stranger than fiction). We like to define our characters in a way that we can't really do with real people (although we try there too). But just like with real people, characters can adapt to different environments. The trick is in not confusing "out of context" with "out of character."

The modern Batman's natural context is street-level. That is where he is rooted. Taking him out of that context doesn't alter the character, it just alters his focus. Even in a more fantastic setting, that root should inform the character, but it should not be his limit. Too often readers (and writers) decide that Batman in a certain situation is impossible to begin with and so just re-visualize him as any other character--just dressed a little stranger--or they "cartoon" him into a parody that they feel would fit, instead of thinking how that character would actually adapt to the situation.

While I'm loving the Brave and the Bold cartoon, transplanting that character in the DCU would be inappropriate, very much the parody of the character rather than an adaption of it.

In the "world" that the modern Batman "lives" in, it isn't that odd for him to be found among the Justice League. It isn't his primary context, it isn't where he is most comfortable; but he is readily adaptable to it. It also isn't that strange for him to go back to his street level context from the more fantastic ones without dragging much of those contexts back with him. It's built into the character that he uses exactly the appropriate amount of force. That's a pretty standard doctrine of most martial arts. It's part of why he doesn't use a gun--he doesn't need one (obviously he has other issue with that one, but that's still a large part of it). The same principle means that he wouldn't use biomechanical armor or a surface to air missle on a pickpocket. The techniques and tools he would use on a world-killer just aren't appropriate to his usual encounters. It doesn't mean he doesn't have access to them. It just means he chooses not to use them, even if it means a little more effort on his part (I'd say because it requires a little more effort on his part). That's why I'm against the bat-suit being over-gimmicked. If he needs a tool, he is, at his core, a character who will utilize it. If he doesn't actually need it--if essentially the same or even better result can be gained by application of a little more effort--he won't use it. It would be "cheating" and, to his mind, perhaps even weaken him just a bit to not put in the effort.

[Fletcher Hawke]

Sage, Taking a different tack, look at how great literary characters are handled in different contexts. King Arthur, Robin Hood, Norse or Greek Mythical characters all have a wide range of versions - many often from about similar times. Does it matter that the Arthur of Malory does not jive with Mary Stuart's, Marion Zimmer Bradley or Twains. Archtype characters are that because they can be seen in different ways. Do I think Morrison's version of Batman is wise and fits well into the back story he is building from - not really; BUT it is a reasonable use of the various themes as tied to his Archtype. Just as Bob Haney's is just as valid. The question is which comes first - a strict DCU concept or the study of characters from differerent perspectives and for different purposes. I think this is the strength of the stable of DC characters. So many of them are archtypes and can be used to tell thematic stories - however this is often best done when these stories don't touch on everyone elses stories. Superman - literaly a super man - a 'god' comes to earth - Zues or Herc, Thor, Gilgamesh are his parents in literature Batman - the extreme of what man can be but damaged or flawed- Robin Hood, Arthur, Sherlock Holmes WW - A symbol of equality - obviously Artismis, the Amonzons, but also various Knights of legend - harder to find due to male focus of society Flash - to me Wally is the archtype - he is the inheritor - Forget the power - Wally's story is the quest like Huck Finn's or Galahad Robin - The Heir - the squire in chaucer, Herc also fits here GL - The future - the amazing potential of space Aquaman - Ruler of the waves, that dangerous and unknown place - Posidon and other sea-gods Oracle - the leader behind the scenes - Later King Arthur stories, even Charlie with his Angels played on this. Add to that her new archtypical role as the master of technology JLA - the Pantathon of the gods, the round table and the merrymen rolled into one And these are only the Heroes ... Marvel has some, Hulk, Thor, CA, IM and of course the everyman as hero - Spiderman. But I believe that DC stable is richer for a wide perspective of interpertation. However, if DC becomes too closely linked in tone - much of the beauty of Archtypes will be lost. Jim

JRM

This was the strength of Elseworlds and is the potential in both the Johnny DC and All Star lines.

There are benefits to the continuity approach that just aren't possible otherwise, in the form of character development and complexity of interaction. Unfortunately, this approach is greatly weakened by the Archetype approach and vice versa. For a time, DC embraced the continuity approach, to the detriment of the archetype aspect. Now they attempt to reintegrate the archetypes, to the detriment of continuity gains.

Try as they might, I don't think they will find a happy medium. Archetypal storytelling requires fairly fixed characterization and character archs, with the ability to reset as necessary for the next story. Continuity requires gradual character development, with an overall greater range of character possible, but far less flexibility in how and how much a character can change at any given time, especially when it comes to "resets." Stories like the Rebirths can make for good reading when well executed, especially to the nostalgic, but I think over-all hurt the DCU line because they basically assert archetype over continuity in one corner of the DCU, while continuity still holds dominance in others.

In my mind, it's better to keep the two seperate, hense the Elseworlds, Johnny DC, and All Star lines. One line (DCU) to run primarily on continuity, the others to explore the strengths of Archetypal storytelling, with looser continuity limitations.

[Matches]

Finally, a decent answer from someone that understands the question I was asking. So let me ask you this--do you not feel anything can be done to make Batman mesh better, IE, not exactly the Brave and the Bold Batman, but something close to it, without losing what makes Batman cool? Or is it just a lost cause entirely and some characters are always going to stand out a bit and not mesh perfectly, Batman being the key example(?).

SageShinigami

It's hard for me to answer that question because I don't accept the basic premise - i.e. that Batman could or should be made to mesh "better". I don't have any desire to see Batman's character altered in some way to better line him up with whatever's going on in R.E.B.E.L.S. It could be done in the sense that Batman works fine in lots of different settings, but doing it in his own books would essentially marginalize the character's roots in crime/ noir.

Put another way - I love the B&B cartoon - I wish the B&B comic was just like that - but I don't want Detective Comics to be like that.

[JRM]

This was the strength of Elseworlds and is the potential in both the Johnny DC and All Star lines. There are benefits to the continuity approach that just aren't possible otherwise, in the form of character development and complexity of interaction. Unfortunately, this approach is greatly weakened by the Archetype approach and vice versa. For a time, DC embraced the continuity approach, to the detriment of the archetype aspect. Now they attempt to reintegrate the archetypes, to the detriment of continuity gains. Try as they might, I don't think they will find a happy medium. Archetypal storytelling requires fairly fixed characterization and character archs, with the ability to reset as necessary for the next story. Continuity requires gradual character development, with an overall greater range of character possible, but far less flexibility in how and how much a character can change at any given time, especially when it comes to "resets." Stories like the Rebirths can make for good reading when well executed, especially to the nostalgic, but I think over-all hurt the DCU line because they basically assert archetype over continuity in one corner of the DCU, while continuity still holds dominance in others. In my mind, it's better to keep the two seperate, hense the Elseworlds, Johnny DC, and All Star lines. One line (DCU) to run primarily on continuity, the others to explore the strengths of Archetypal storytelling, with looser continuity limitations.

Fletcher Hawke

Nothing in your analysis that I can quibble with. I thought of commenting on Elseworlds (and should have thought of Johnny DC) but decided to leave that for a follow up post. Thanks for probably stating it better than I could.

Jim

[clarkent1982*]

Okay, just yesterday I was talking with another member of the Bloc and we were discussing how Batman's "true" death in FC will probably never be directly referenced to in Battle for the Cowl. Not so much because of Final Crisis, but because it just won't fit in the middle of all this street-level stuff to say Batman died "after being zapped by a god". Just a few hours ago, I was watching the new Batman: Brave and the Bold episode, and after seeing him bust out everything from Nth Metal knuckles and batarangs to explosives, laser swords and jetpacks, I started wondering... If Dan Didio is so set on making all the DC characters seem like they all "belong" in the same world...shouldn't Batman be less "urban legend" and more like he is in the Batman: Brave and the Bold cartoon?

SageShinigami

It is a bit campy for my taste if B&tB Batman came in the the DCU.

In the last few years, there has been only one writer that I have really enjoyed his take on Batman and that's Dini's.

I didn't care for Rucka or Johns take. Grant's take is.....blah.

[Human Bong]

I think that the fans unhappy with DC should think and not pile all their beefs at DC on his shoulders, but at the same time, a number of posters need to note that they often come across as being blind appoligist for Didio. The knee jerk support often does more to harden positions. There are rules here when it is clearly unfair and rude but for the most part fellow posters can see for themselves when something is hyperbole as opposed to valid criticism. Just a few thoughts, Jim

JRM

Good point. I just like Didio, I've seen the guy at conventions and I like what he's done as editor in chief for the most part, but you're right, there's kneejerk reactions coming from me just as much as there's 'kneejerk' reactions coming from the detractors.

And I'm not blindly apologizing, it's just annoys me how people are blaming him for being supposedly bad at his job, when he's been doing it for years and obviously makes the people who sign his paycheck happy, or he gets criticized like he's the devil because someone's favorite character is dead or being 'mistreated,' or that some fanboy sitting at their computer complaining actually thinks they could do the job better or know someone who can. I see some of these posts, and I want to make it clear that the poster's point of view is the not 'right' opinion or the most popular (nor is mine the right one or popular). If it was a post or two complaining about him, fine, but there's a few posters who have the same Didio rant, ready to fire at every opportunity they get to complain about a DC character. But I'm not much better because I basically have the same rant prepared to counter their prepared rant, and the only possible ending is for one side to come up with something totally new to say, but I have yet to see it happen.

[SageShinigami]

Here's the thing, even in real life, people behave differently depending on the context they are in. Some people are more adaptable than others. Most people have at least one memory of seeing someone in a place they aren't used to seeing them, doing something they wouldn't have expected them to do, and thinking, "wow, I never would have expected THAT!" Look at your own sig for a fictional example Then there are of course aspects of people you may never see, but you know logically have to be there. I know my mind froze the first time I heard my dad (who generally speaks in monosyllables) rather vividly telling a slightly blue joke. We tend to be a little overly protective of fictional characters' personalities. Fiction is by it's nature a simplification, a cross section of an event viewed through a tunnel with many causes and consequences omitted for the sake of narrative clarity--which means fictional characters are almost always simpler than real people (truth is stranger than fiction). We like to define our characters in a way that we can't really do with real people (although we try there too). But just like with real people, characters can adapt to different environments. The trick is in not confusing "out of context" with "out of character." The modern Batman's natural context is street-level. That is where he is rooted. Taking him out of that context doesn't alter the character, it just alters his focus. Even in a more fantastic setting, that root should inform the character, but it should not be his limit. Too often readers (and writers) decide that Batman in a certain situation is impossible to begin with and so just re-visualize him as any other character--just dressed a little stranger--or they "cartoon" him into a parody that they feel would fit, instead of thinking how that character would actually adapt to the situation. While I'm loving the Brave and the Bold cartoon, transplanting that character in the DCU would be inappropriate, very much the parody of the character rather than an adaption of it. In the "world" that the modern Batman "lives" in, it isn't that odd for him to be found among the Justice League. It isn't his primary context, it isn't where he is most comfortable; but he is readily adaptable to it. It also isn't that strange for him to go back to his street level context from the more fantastic ones without dragging much of those contexts back with him. It's built into the character that he uses exactly the appropriate amount of force. That's a pretty standard doctrine of most martial arts. It's part of why he doesn't use a gun--he doesn't need one (obviously he has other issue with that one, but that's still a large part of it). The same principle means that he wouldn't use biomechanical armor or a surface to air missle on a pickpocket. The techniques and tools he would use on a world-killer just aren't appropriate to his usual encounters. It doesn't mean he doesn't have access to them. It just means he chooses not to use them, even if it means a little more effort on his part (I'd say because it requires a little more effort on his part). That's why I'm against the bat-suit being over-gimmicked. If he needs a tool, he is, at his core, a character who will utilize it. If he doesn't actually need it--if essentially the same or even better result can be gained by application of a little more effort--he won't use it. It would be "cheating" and, to his mind, perhaps even weaken him just a bit to not put in the effort.

Fletcher Hawke

But where do you draw the line? Shouldn't that essentially mean he would *never* use a tool and would just always put more effort into it? That's basically who he is as Batman.

It's hard for me to answer that question because I don't accept the basic premise - i.e. that Batman could or should be made to mesh "better". I don't have any desire to see Batman's character altered in some way to better line him up with whatever's going on in R.E.B.E.L.S. It could be done in the sense that Batman works fine in lots of different settings, but doing it in his own books would essentially marginalize the character's roots in crime/ noir. Put another way - I love the B&B cartoon - I wish the B&B comic was just like that - but I don't want Detective Comics to be like that.

Matches

Fair enough. For what its worth, I agree. You'd definitely detract from very idea of Detective Comics like that. But then again I feel often times Detective Comics is a tad too indistinguishable from Batman, and that Detective Comics should be used almost exclusively to tell detective-type stories, and Batman should be used for the big action storylines where something like B&B Batman, where he has everything in his utility belt, would be a better fit.

[Fletcher Hawke]

But where do you draw the line? Shouldn't that essentially mean he would *never* use a tool and would just always put more effort into it? That's basically who he is as Batman.

SageShinigami

What line? What he may or may not use is going to depend entirely on the situation. Minimal use of resources for maximum results. It's a matter of scaling his goals, and thereby the resources he uses to meet them, to the situation at hand.

For travel, he can often get where he needs to as fast or faster on foot than he can in a vehicle by going roof to roof, PK style. Some gaps are too big to make on foot, but not enough to really necessitate forgoing that route and choosing the Batmobile, so out comes the Batline to make that pass a little more feasible. If the gap or the distance is too great for efficiency, or making the run would leave him in a condition that hinders his goal at the end, then he considers the 'Mobile. At the same time, if a small alteration to his route allows him to bypass the gap without the need for a line or the ride, and it doesn't cost him more time/energy than he can spare, perhaps he takes that instead. Maybe he can accomplish the same thing with a jetpack or a teleporter, but would it really be an efficient use of resources?

If someone pulls a weapon and he can talk them down, either through reason or intimidation, he's probably going to do that. If not, and he can disarm them by hand, that's probably the way to go. If he can do it without causing harm, that's his primary choice. If those aren't options, perhaps the batarang and shuriken come into play. If those don't get the required results, maybe it's on to tazers or gas. Maybe he just waits for them to expend their ammo. He isn't going to Bat-nuke someone or use a commandeered freeze-ray on them just because he can, any more than he'd break someone's arm for flipping him off.

[SageShinigami]

Good point. I just like Didio, I've seen the guy at conventions and I like what he's done as editor in chief for the most part, but you're right, there's kneejerk reactions coming from me just as much as there's 'kneejerk' reactions coming from the detractors. And I'm not blindly apologizing, it's just annoys me how people are blaming him for being supposedly bad at his job, when he's been doing it for years and obviously makes the people who sign his paycheck happy, or he gets criticized like he's the devil because someone's favorite character is dead or being 'mistreated,' or that some fanboy sitting at their computer complaining actually thinks they could do the job better or know someone who can. I see some of these posts, and I want to make it clear that the poster's point of view is the not 'right' opinion or the most popular (nor is mine the right one or popular). If it was a post or two complaining about him, fine, but there's a few posters who have the same Didio rant, ready to fire at every opportunity they get to complain about a DC character. But I'm not much better because I basically have the same rant prepared to counter their prepared rant, and the only possible ending is for one side to come up with something totally new to say, but I have yet to see it happen.

Human Bong

Something new like...ohh...I'm not a Didio detractor. I don't have a problem with what he's doing. I actually like a lot of comic books that have come out under his tenure at DC.? Something new like that, maybe?

What line? What he may or may not use is going to depend entirely on the situation. Minimal use of resources for maximum results. It's a matter of scaling his goals, and thereby the resources he uses to meet them, to the situation at hand.

Fletcher Hawke

The way you phrased it in your original post was, essentially, "If he can do the same thing without using some accessory with the prefix 'Bat' attached to it, just by using some extra effort, then he would."

My response to you was to say, isn't that pretty much every situation?

But you having clarified makes it make more sense.

[Zombie Superman]

Oh no. Oh god no. Horrible, horrible cartoon. The less influence it has on the comics the better.

rpi

This, a thousand times, this.

[therealssjlink]

Why did you revive a year old topic?