I finally read this over the weekend. The comic where Jason Todd - the second Robin- got murdered was by the Joker while searching for his biological mother overseas.
What does everyone else think? I thought it was a pretty good story that represented one of Batman's greatest failures. He doesn't seem used to having a side-kick who rebelled at the extent that Jason did, and he feels uneasy that Jason could go rogue on him as he longs to find out his true mother's identity. Once Jason dies, Batman feels extremely guilty and blames himself for taking Jason along in the first place because he wanted to relieve himself from feeling lonely.
Jason's death was quite strong. I've seen the Joker crowbar panels before, but the way the whole scene was executed was quite brutal: Jason's own mother (a relief aid worker who was coerced into working with Joker because of her shady past) had betrayed him to the Joker, who in turn double crosses her and traps her and her son to a ticking time bomb. Despite the disgraceful betrayal, a half dead Robin still tries to get her to safety.
I can't help but feel that the story tried to make a point about the political themes by setting it in war-torn Middle East and poverty-stricken Ethiopia, but they don't really say anything new about them. The craziest moment in the book was the Iranian government granting Joker diplomatic immunity. It's bizarre, although Batman assumes the Iranians wanted Joker to wipe out the entire UN embassy (which he nearly did). I liked that Superman made a cameo, as the political situation with the Joker provoked a moral argument between him and Batman.
There were some crazy ideas into the book, but they didn't put me off from reading the whole thing. Does anybody else reckon that Jim Aparo's art never looked better?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 15 Dec 2014, 11:01
I liked that Superman made a cameo, as the political situation with the Joker provoked a moral argument between him and Batman.
Come to think of it, Superman was more concerned about the political ramifications and consequences if Batman decided to kill the Joker once and for all.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSQNLh_WsAEz3kK.jpg)
When DC ran the voting polls to decide Jason's fate, it seems many fans wanted to kill him off because it would loosely connect with The Dark Knight Returns, as that story indicated Jason's death was the reason why Batman retired in the first place. I even heard that some fans found Jason to be an annoying character at the time. If that's so, I bet they would find Damian Wayne unbearable. :-[
Like it or not, A Death in the Family wouldn't be anywhere near as memorable or iconic if the fans voted for Jason's survival.
The final vote was pretty close. I read somewhere that it was ultimately decided by somebody who had a primitive auto-dialer. He set it to make hundreds of calls in favor of Jason's death. The margin of victory for the death voters was 72 so he was clearly the guy who put the death vote over top.
In other words, the readers voted to spare Jason and one person spoiled the result.
Even so, I think killing Jason off was the right decision. For one thing, it led to a very interesting post-Jason status quo for the Batman titles of Batman being despondent and then ultimately bitter, angry, vengeful and brutal as he tried coming to terms with Jason's death. For two, it gave us Tim as Robin and an even more interesting status quo of Batman being perhaps overly-protective of Tim. Tim was regularly shut out of situations that Bruce wouldn't have thought twice about bringing Dick or Jason into. For three, the specter of Jason haunted Batman, an ever-present reminder that Batman is only human and he can make mistakes. And when he does, those mistakes can have deadly consequences. Until Bane came along, Jason served as Batman's greatest mistake and it was something he took very seriously.
But now Jason is back from the dead, tee hee hee, so everything is okay now.
Anyway. Honestly, ADITF had important and interesting consequences for Batman but the story itself isn't very good. Jason's death is the one positive element of it. But even that is tempered by the fact that Batman had no reason whatsoever to not kill the Joker.
The story should've created circumstances whereby the Joker is responsible for Jason's death but it should've happened in a way where Batman shouldn't have wanted the Joker's blood. The Joker should've been indirectly responsible for Jason's death. Perhaps the Joker could've blown up a building without realizing Jason was inside.
But beating the kid to within an inch of his life with a crowbar and then 'sploding the building for good measure was simply the wrong move since it attaches intentionality to the Joker's crime which Batman could NEVER forgive. The Joker directly and intentionally killing Jason raises the ante far too high to ever come back from whereas accidentally killing him gives everybody involved a way out.
The other thing is randomly moving the story to the Middle East. For a story of this magnitude, I think Gotham City should've been the venue. Gotham is as much a character in the Batman mythos as anybody or anything else. Robbing Gotham of its role in Jason's death kind of misses the point in my way of thinking. The city itself should ultimately be responsible for Jason's death. The Joker should've been merely the occasion by which it happened.
Overall, it's a worthwhile story... in spite of itself.
I never knew the final result was so close. As I said before, I doubt the comic would've been memorable as it is today if Jason survived. We definitely wouldn't have gotten Tim Drake or the Under the Red Hood animated film, as well as the Under the Hood comic that it adapted from. Whether you're a fan of Judd Winick's story or not is beside the point.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Dec 2018, 12:21
The story should've created circumstances whereby the Joker is responsible for Jason's death but it should've happened in a way where Batman shouldn't have wanted the Joker's blood.
As you know, the topic over whether Batman
should kill or not is pretty tiresome, and it's something I try not to dwell too much nowadays. But I've come to terms with tolerating it as long as the writers stay
consistent with it. For example, when Batman tells Jason Todd in Under the Hood/Under the Red Hood that he can't go down that path to no return once he kills the Joker, no matter how much he wants to kill him, I can at least handle it as long as he doesn't break his rule five minutes later. I might not necessarily like it that much if I think about it from a realistic point of view. But from a comic point of view, I suppose Batman being afraid of not stopping once he crosses that line has some merit. His role and conduct as a vigilante puts him in a precarious position as it is anyway. If Batman kills in a comic, I prefer they don't make a big deal about the rule at all, like in issues from previous eras I read.
The way it played out in the end of A Death in the Family though, Batman's chance to avenge Jason was taken away from him, thanks to that idiotic henchman who recklessly shot him and Joker, and indirectly causing the helicopter to crash. A cruel twist of fate.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Dec 2018, 12:21
The Joker should've been indirectly responsible for Jason's death. Perhaps the Joker could've blown up a building without realizing Jason was inside.
I don't think the Joker would've cared if he killed Jason by accident. In fact, I'd go far and say the he would've claimed he did it on purpose just to spite and torment Batman even further while claiming diplomatic immunity. Just for sh*ts and giggles.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 8 Dec 2018, 12:21
The other thing is randomly moving the story to the Middle East. For a story of this magnitude, I think Gotham City should've been the venue. Gotham is as much a character in the Batman mythos as anybody or anything else. Robbing Gotham of its role in Jason's death kind of misses the point in my way of thinking. The city itself should ultimately be responsible for Jason's death. The Joker should've been merely the occasion by which it happened.
Perhaps they could've done that. But I don't think it's that big of a deal. We already know how Gotham City is always responsible for tragedy in the Batman mythos, whether it's Bruce and Dick losing their parents, Barbara Gordon getting paralysed, Sarah Essen's murder, Harvey Dent becoming a psychopath and so forth. So having Jason Todd murdered overseas while in the middle of an investigation AND trying to find his mother at the same time is something new that I can accept. Plus, Joker's crimes and dealings with other criminal networks overseas paved the way for granting diplomatic immunity and it fueled the tension and anger in Batman, as a crude realisation that justice and the law are two separate things that don't always share the same goal.
Speaking of which, some of the comics in the late 1980s didn't shy away from politics, the Middle East and terrorism. You have the Joker dealing with the Iranian government, including a cameo by Ayatollah Homeini, and the US government warning Batman not to meddle into matters or else it would further strain US-Iran relations. In
Detective Comics #590, you have Batman investigating a terrorist attack on a local veterans' club in Gotham - with the culprits screaming "Allah Akbar!" - which leads to a conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack on the House of Parliament in London, because the Syraquis see it as retribution against the American and British for hurting their country as well as other third world countries. In today's politically correct climate, I'm not sure if this sort of context would ever go to print.
Jim Starlin, who wrote ADITF, went on camera to admit he was never a fan of Robin being an integral part of the Batman mythos and took every opportunity to write him off. He even voted to get the character to die in an AIDS-related storyline that DC Comics were considering before he got the chance to kill Jason Todd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGxAR-kstwk&feature=youtu.be
From what I remember, Robin was created as a sidekick back in the Golden Age to serve as an avatar for the young readers. It makes sense from an escapist's point of view, but once things got heated up because of comics censorship and future artists having their own take and opinion on how to fit him in the Batman mythos, it can paint Batman in a questionable light if you think about it too realistically. On the other hand, that's why it's important to get stories like A Lonely Place of Dying that cements the idea of Robin as the sort of moral strength Batman needs to stay in line.
Put it this way, would Batman be just as compelling if he were morally right all the time, and never had to deal with such complexities for having child sidekicks? I doubt it. Like it or not, Robin enriches the mythos.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 10 Oct 2020, 02:45
Jim Starlin, who wrote ADITF, went on camera to admit he was never a fan of Robin being an integral part of the Batman mythos and took every opportunity to write him off. He even voted to get the character to die in an AIDS-related storyline that DC Comics were considering before he got the chance to kill Jason Todd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGxAR-kstwk&feature=youtu.be
I remember hearing about the whole Jim Starlin thing with him wanting Jason Todd to die of AIDS, back when DC was considering a major character to die of the virus (I think Jimmy Olsen was also a name thrown around for this as well if I am not mistaken. How serious those talks about Jimmy is anyone's guess). Which was yet another voting situation, but only with the people in the DC Comics office evidently.
Since it was essentially a free-for-all in the names that could be applied to such a story line, Starlin was well within his right to cast Jason's name on the ticket. Personally, I can't help but think of it as Jim having a sense of entitlement. "I don't like Robin, so I'll just explore any and every opportunity to get rid of him." Which I find annoying to a certain extent, considering the character of Robin wasn't and never will be his character. There were scores of other writers/illustrators who came before him, and made the dynamic duo work within the parameters that was given to them upon taking up the job.
Look, I'm sure there were other writers/illustrators during the forty-something years of Batman and Robin before Starlin was assigned as a writer, that were not big Robin fans (most notably Denny O'Niel, though I don't believe he was so fixated on Robin being killed as Starlin was), but that speaks more about the writer's ego than it does the character. As there were plenty of readers who were at the other end of the spectrum, and liked the character of Robin, and enjoyed the character being around.
As a writer for a long standing property, my opinion is that you are there to serve the characters and history. First and foremost. In this undertaking, the "challenge", as a writer, is to work within the established motifs set forth, and ideally succeed. Or a reason not to accept an assignment. Not a reason to change, or in this case, kill off the character.
That, in short, is a all too common example of the characters serving the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters.
QuoteFrom what I remember, Robin was created as a sidekick back in the Golden Age to serve as an avatar for the young readers. It makes sense from an escapist's point of view, but once things got heated up because of comics censorship and future artists having their own take and opinion on how to fit him in the Batman mythos, it can paint Batman in a questionable light if you think about it too realistically. On the other hand, that's why it's important to get stories like A Lonely Place of Dying that cements the idea of Robin as the sort of moral strength Batman needs to stay in line.
Put it this way, would Batman be just as compelling if he were morally right all the time, and never had to deal with such complexities for having child sidekicks? I doubt it. Like it or not, Robin enriches the mythos.
Robin has always been a character I like, but I tend to go back and forth on the notion of multiple Robin's that started with Jason Todd. As a kid who didn't really start reading Batman comics until around 1992, Jason Todd's Robin felt incredibly unique due to him being Dick Grayson's successor, but then firmly established as being deceased. I remember getting the "A Death in the Family" trade, but didn't really have a bunch of issues featuring Jason. Which I guess added to the allure of his overall tenure as Robin. Tim Drake was basically "my" Robin. He's the Robin I grew up reading, and I guess I'll always have a liking for the character because of nostalgic memories. Dick Grayson is, and will forever be the classic Robin, and even though Tim Drake was the current and long standing Robin during the 1990's, I could never shake the idea that Dick was, for all intents and purposes, THE Robin in terms of Batman mythos. Damian I could care less about, and the Spoiler's time as Robin was forgettable at best. There's probably more in continuity Robins who have had short stints for all I know, but I just don't keep up with the current stuff that much anymore.
Having said all that, especially now as an adult, I have grown to have mixed feelings on the notion of Batman having had so many Robin's over the course of his publication history. For many of us, it's all that we have ever known, but on the other hand, I sometime wish that Dick Grayson's tenure as Nightwing would have either A. Never happened. Or B. Essentially being a blip on the character's history. I get the whole thing about Dick becoming Nightwing to step out of Batman's shadow, but I also think that this progression of his character could have also transpired under his Robin guise as well. Thus, making Robin not a "title" for subsequent character's, but Robin being who Dick Grayson actually is. Similar to the Earth-Two Robin.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 14:18Robin has always been a character I like, but I tend to go back and forth on the notion of multiple Robin's that started with Jason Todd. As a kid who didn't really start reading Batman comics until around 1992, Jason Todd's Robin felt incredibly unique due to him being Dick Grayson's successor, but then firmly established as being deceased. I remember getting the "A Death in the Family" trade, but didn't really have a bunch of issues featuring Jason. Which I guess added to the allure of his overall tenure as Robin. Tim Drake was basically "my" Robin. He's the Robin I grew up reading, and I guess I'll always have a liking for the character because of nostalgic memories. Dick Grayson is, and will forever be the classic Robin, and even though Tim Drake was the current and long standing Robin during the 1990's, I could never shake the idea that Dick was, for all intents and purposes, THE Robin in terms of Batman mythos. Damian I could care less about, and the Spoiler's time as Robin was forgettable at best. There's probably more in continuity Robins who have had short stints for all I know, but I just don't keep up with the current stuff that much anymore.
Having said all that, especially now as an adult, I have grown to have mixed feelings on the notion of Batman having had so many Robin's over the course of his publication history. For many of us, it's all that we have ever known, but on the other hand, I sometime wish that Dick Grayson's tenure as Nightwing would have either A. Never happened. Or B. Essentially being a blip on the character's history. I get the whole thing about Dick becoming Nightwing to step out of Batman's shadow, but I also think that this progression of his character could have also transpired under his Robin guise as well. Thus, making Robin not a "title" for subsequent character's, but Robin being who Dick Grayson actually is. Similar to the Earth-Two Robin.
My view is that comic book Batman wants accountability partners. I see Batman as kind of like a more functional version of Dexter Morgan. Dexter can't suppress his urge to kill. But somehow, Bruce can. And yet, it's a precarious balance. If he slips, he knows he'll never stop killing.
Robin is sort of a gimme under those circumstances. Superman gave Batman the kryptonite ring in case he ever needs to get taken down
permanently. Bruce intentionally set up many "kryptonite rings" to take him out if he ever goes rogue. Dick might not be able to take Bruce out all by himself. But Dick along with Tim, Gordon, Babs, etc, they could probably manage it if they pooled their resources and knowledge. Deep down, I think that's the real function they serve for Bruce. They're a firewall standing between the bat-demon and innocent people.
For my money, Tim is more of a "purist" than Dick. Dick has a complicated father/son dynamic with Bruce that Tim just plain lacks. The most Bruce could ever claim to be for Tim is a mentor... and, I would say, a cautionary tale. If Batman ever crossed the Rubicon, Dick just might find a way to excuse him, look the other way, etc. Tim wouldn't. If Batman crossed the line, Tim would probably lead the charge to take Batman down. Dick
might compromise by letting Bruce slide; Tim never would.
To put it another way, I see significant value in what Tim brings to the table as Robin. I'm familiar with the arguments some people make that "Robin" was always Dick's thing and subsequent sidekicks should've had their own callsigns. I understand that but that ship has sailed. Robin is more of a fungible concept than
Batman is.
For those reasons, Tim is my Robin too.
I like the concept of Robin for a number of reasons, and it's why I like Adam West as Batman so much. For me, the number one positive is that Robin allows Bruce to spiritually connect with his father by stepping into his shoes. And I prefer the concept of Robin to be a childhood internship that Dick Grayson establishes, moves on from and other inherit.
Being under Batman's wing is crime fighting school, and Dick becoming Nightwing is graduation – becoming a fully formed reflection of his mentor's teachings. Choosing a new name works better because it's a clean break. Being his own man with his own city is more of a Batman thing to do. He's going solo but honoring his mentor.
The concept of Robin also allows for relationship deterioration, which I think is an important aspect of Batman. Dick has grievances with Bruce, but they are mostly healed and they share a strong bond. Whereas Jason goes down a much darker road. You don't get those nuances otherwise.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 23:33
I see Batman as kind of like a more functional version of Dexter Morgan. Dexter can't suppress his urge to kill. But somehow, Bruce can. And yet, it's a precarious balance. If he slips, he knows he'll never stop killing.
Dexter is coming back for 10 more episodes next year, by the way. A fantastic opportunity to end things on a better note than Season 8.
Dick Grayson/Nightwing:
It's kinda interesting to think that up to a certain period in DC Comics history, most characters owned their names literally for life. If I had to say where this began to shift, was during the1980s where the trend of characters taking one code name then shifting to another really began. How "successful" this approach was can be argued. In terms of Dick Grayson leaving behind his Robin code name, for a new guise/code name as Nightwing (which was a kryptonian code name originally, right?), I get the appeal of the sentiment that it's Dick becoming his own man. However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.
In short, I believe it takes something away from the uniqueness of each DC character, if code names are constantly being swapped around. This is something that fans of Tim Drake has had to endure since the introduction of Damian just over 10 years ago (2007ish?).
If Jason Todd would have lived thru A Death in the Family:
It's interesting to think what might have happened if this had actually occurred. I have to think that upon Jason recovering from his injuries, that he likely would have received a editorial makeover in terms of both his personality and costume post A Death in the Family. Under this alternate timeline scenario, I can imagine that Jason might have gradually become more and more akin to Tim Drake over time (as I really don't think keeping Jason as he was, was really an option considering how split the readership was on him), and it would have been Jason, not Tim (since Tim wouldn't exist in this scenario), that would have received the Neal Adams Robin makeover, and quite possibly, a ongoing Robin title subsequently.
The precedent of a new character taking over an existing hero's name goes back to the 1950's when Barry Allen and Hal Jordan made their debuts. Since that time, Wally West, Kyle Rayner, Bart Allen, John Stewart and other characters used those names as well.
But the irl story behind why Dick changed names...
QuoteDan Greenfield: Why don't we start with Nightwing. Tell us how that all happened.
Marv Wolfman: It was fairly simple, actually. I got a call that (DC) really would like Robin back in Batman, and they wanted Robin to be younger. Again, because Batman really needed a partner. The nice thing was that Teen Titans—which I was still on at the time—was way outselling Batman and I really wanted Dick Grayson and I really loved the character.
We had aged him, we had made him a real leader, we had done a whole bunch of things with him, and I didn't want to give up Dick Grayson. And it suddenly struck me — I don't even know what happened because it was unprecedented in comics — I said, "Why don't I keep Dick Grayson and you create a new Robin and make that a big to-do in Batman... while we have Nightwing."
https://13thdimension.com/behind-the-mask-marv-wolfman-on-the-creation-of-nightwing
The name change served the story Wolfman and Perez were telling in Teen Titans. How can
Robin, the ultimate sidekick, possibly be a leader of anything? Plus, creating a new character to be Robin maintained the iconic pairing of "Batman &..." so it seemed to work well.
I've read claims that the editorial office first tried creating a new character out of whole cloth, including a new uniform and codename. It just didn't work as well.
If Jason had survived ADITF, hoo boy. For one thing, I think it would've prevented the Joker from becoming a mass-murdering maniac for at least a few years. That would've ultimately worked to the Joker's benefit.
I believe it was in the 1980's, when the notion of long established heroes giving up their code name (not so much the case of introducing another hero with the same code name from an alternate earth) and taking up another that's drastically different really became into vogue. In terms of the Teen Titans, Aqualad took up the name, Tempest, after some time. Beast Boy took up the code name, the Changeling, at one point, but returned to his original name (probably for the best). Wonder Girl switched to the code name "Troia", then just Donna Troy (it could be vice versa on that), followed up by becoming Wonder Woman at one point, then back to Donna, ect. She, like Hawkman, suffers from retcon fatigue. Speedy/Roy Harper has burned thru a few entirely different code names since dropping the Speedy code name. I think Raven and Starfire have largely remained with their code names for the most part.
That's interesting that editorial attempted, or at the very least, considered drastically changing with dynamic duo with a completely different character/code name/costume. Kinda sounds like the idea, at that point, was probably to just keep Dick as Robin, and have Batman take up an entirely new sidekick. Yeah, I can see why that would run into a host of problems. Especially with Warners and the merchandising departments.
The Wolfman explanation is understandable to an extent, but reads to me like a writer who used his clout at the time, for leverage in getting what he wanted. Which is fine. It happens. But I guess I never really bought the premise that the code name "Robin" was A. a code name that's solely for an adolescent, and B. that he couldn't be perceived as a adult and/or leader under the Robin guise. Dick Grayson as Robin enjoyed solo adventures, in both Batman Family and Detective Comics, just as he did in the Wolfman/Perez revivial of Teen Titans, and he was consistently presented as responsible and as his own man. Typically always up front and center. I think the problem, over the years, since there has been several Robin's who are children that have appeared, has unfortunately done nothing but cement the perception that Robin can only be a child in most peoples minds.
It is what it is.
But back in the early 1980s? I don't really think the name "Robin" was in itself the problem, but rather DC's then reluctance in not allowing the Robin costume itself to mature alongside Dick Grayson (which there was already a precedent for even if it was one from a alternate earth). "Robin", after all, is an identity that Dick created and has a personal connection to it. Which in itself is based off Robin Hood, and not a bird. He doesn't really have that sort of connection with the Nightwing code name. An identity that was taken from Superman's Silver Age stories, and then later, from a back-up series Superman Family title.
With Jason living thru A Death in the Family, it does bring up some interesting alternate history. For all intents and purposes, Jason Todd escaping death would have essentially been a 3rd attempt to get the character on solid ground with the readership. Which is why I believe Jason's personality probably would have gradually shifted from his agnsty Post-Crisis self, to something, at the very least, more akin to Tim Drake's characterization. But keeping Jason's Post-Crisis street kid origin intact. Using his near death experience as a life altering event that truly opened his eyes.
No doubt, there would have been a sincere push to get Jason Todd's "Robin" back up and running on steady ground (much like what actually happened with Tim Drake taking up the code name). If, by some chance, Jason still remained a polarizing character, I think DC may have used the Zero Hour event to do some maneuvering to get Robin truly healthy again.
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 21:58
However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.
On this subject, Batman choosing everyone but the obvious person to be his replacement is something I rather like. Is he just being a bastard or is he being protective? It's like your rich parents locking you out of their will, or putting clauses in there so you have to wait until a certain age before you get your hands on it. This stuff is annoying and thus in storytelling it has considerable power. As a reader of ongoing, mainstream continuity comics we will never see Batman retire or stone cold dead die, so I think we should never see Dick as Batman full time.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 27 Oct 2020, 07:12
Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 21:58
However, due to the fact that DC clearly doesn't want Bruce being perceived as a ageing Batman, Dick's advancing has sort of stalled in a lot of ways. Which probably explains much of the gimmicky tinkering the character has experienced in recent years (Dick's Batman, then back to Nightwing, he's a spy, then he has amnesia, back to Nightwing? ect). Course Dick Grayson being under the Dan Didio editorial for so many years wasn't likely a positive thing either.
On this subject, Batman choosing everyone but the obvious person to be his replacement is something I rather like. Is he just being a bastard or is he being protective? It's like your rich parents locking you out of their will, or putting clauses in there so you have to wait until a certain age before you get your hands on it. This stuff is annoying and thus in storytelling it has considerable power. As a reader of ongoing, mainstream continuity comics we will never see Batman retire or stone cold dead die, so I think we should never see Dick as Batman full time.
I cut my teeth on Post-Crisis comics where Dick never wanted to be Batman. So, that's shaped my sensibilities about who the character is.
I always thought that in the end it would be Tim Drake who ultimately replaced Bruce as Batman. Tim would've been a less dark Batman overall but I think he'd do the name proud... and Dick would be only too happy to let him.
I see it as the line of succession. The first graduate of the school has the most experience and has waited the longest time. It's the hero's journey, which isn't easy, but ultimately rewarding.
Flipped through my ADITF trade earlier today. I reiterate what a lost opportunity this storyline was. The Middle Eastern stuff is just completely out of place in this kind of story and I'll never understand the decision to move the main story away from Gotham City. Gordon's absence is also deeply felt.
All in all, this just isn't a good storyline at all.
I'm still very mixed on the matter. Bob Kane maintains that Robin shouldn't die, regardless of who's donning the mantle and I find myself agreeing. Not liking a character or finding them annoying is one thing... but that shouldn't equate to wanting to see a child get murdered for it. In that respect, this story feels very 80s in its excess.
I'm also equally mixed on the retconning of the story and bringing Jason back to life. I usually stand against retcons of all kinds to retain the integrity of the original storyline. However, this entire climax was left up to a vote that was very likely falsified, so who really knows. It didn't weigh on Batman as heavily as I'd assumed; while there are plenty of key issues where Jason is brought up, it's not as much a constant in the series moving forward; the author just wanted to wipe the slate clean and create a new status quo.
The actual story itself is a pretty good, well-paced read, only marred by the basis itself being pretty bonkers. It's funny that I was beginning to like Jason's new character after the Crisis reboot; I wish they'd given him more time to develop in that respect, and maybe I'd be more inclined to believe that he'd get himself killed after a rather sudden acceleration the few issues before.
Now I've read some of the issues out of order, and one thing that struck me about one of the annuals before was how much it humanized Jason. There was a backup story centered around Robin that just featured Jason Todd in a high school setting. Reading that after seeing his brutal death really made it sink in that he's just a kid struggling with the everyday issues of being a teen. Then at the end of the day, only four people were there to attend his funeral.
Bob Kane's word on anything Batman related is questionable. These stories are often at their strongest when emotional pain is at the forefront (the legacy of Jason's death is given the prominence it deserves in TDK Returns) thus I have no problem with killing a Robin. They should serve Batman's character growth, and that goes for everyone. Killing Jason put the entire sidekick concept into perspective because it's a miracle it didn't happen earlier, DC plot armor aside. And I'm a fan of the resurrection for reasons I've explained before.
Back in 2014, the late Denny O'Neil looked back at the whole process of determining Jason Todd's fate, while he was the editor-in-chief of DC.
QuoteDan Greenfield: No interview with you is complete without talking about A Death in the Family.
Denny O'Neil: Oh, yeah.
Dan Greenfield: Now, I wanted to talk about Robin a little bit because you said you were instrumental in his departure in the early '70s. Now it's the mid-80s. Again, you said, it was time to start over.
I remember I was in college at the time when this came out and I made one of the calls. (Denny stifles a chuckle) I called for him to live. And the reason is that even though I liked, to coin a phrase, the badass nature of the concept, I knew I had to take a stand. I knew I had to vote.
I'd been reading Batman forever. Batman was very important to me as a character. Very important to me as a concept. And I was also at that age where, "Oh, Batman's only dark!" and I had rejected the Adam West idea and I was waiting for the Tim Burton movie to come out. "Batman's gotta be tough and bad and he doesn't NEED a Robin."
But then when it came time to make the call, I couldn't bring myself to call for him to die. I couldn't do it. For whatever reason, I called to have him stay alive. I remember at the time, I remember everything that went into it and feeling surprised at the outcome. ... With almost 30 years gone on it, what's your take on it? Explain it to me.
Denny O' Neil: Well, first of all, it came about after a retreat was over and (DC chief) Jenette Kahn and maybe Paul Levitz and I were sitting in a room waiting for our rides to arrive. The editorial work was done. This was in the mountains, maybe 50 miles north of here.
The Catskills?
Yeah, there's a beautiful old, huge mansion up there that they've turned into, like, a resort. ...
So, one of us — it might have been me — came up with this idea. We knew we had a problem with Robin. It was a case of something you hear about and seldom encounter: a character taking on a life of his own.
Maybe I should have been a more hands-on editor but it just kind of slipped past us and all of a sudden we had this disagreeable little snot and I thought we either had to give him a massive personality change or write him out of the series.
And so somebody came up with the idea of letting the readers decide and Jenette went to work making that work with the phone company. Jim Starlin got the job of actually writing the stories as he was the Batman writer at the time. He did a good job and Jim Aparo did his usual fine job — one of my favorite artists! ...
I had a number to call and a robot voice would tell me what the count was. Comes Friday night. It's late and (my wife) Marifran and I are the only two people in the office. It's 10 after 7. I make the final phone call and I find out the kid did NOT make it. (Executive Editor) Dick Giordano and I had different opinions about that. He thought they would not kill the kid. I thought the readers would do it just to see if we would actually go through with it.
It turns out, if what I heard is true, that a lawyer programmed his Macintosh to dial the killing number every few minutes. It was only 85 votes out of over 10,000 and that may have made the difference. I have never been able to verify that story but it was a squeaker any way you look at it. And I'm like, "OK, this has been an interesting caper but it's over and I'm gonna go home and have my weekend."
And I got back on Monday morning. For about three days or so I answered phones. ... As it turns out, I was glad that I didn't get on television but I sure as hell got on the radio. Somebody heard me in Australia. We made the papers, especially the Daily News, and there was a fairly violent reaction. I had to take the E train down to Soho every night and I was really glad this face did not get attached to that stunt!
So it changed my mind about what I do for a living, that one incident. Some of the fan publications said we had staged a Roman circus and people were talking about the death of a kid.
So I said, "Look, you understand that this is paper and ink! This is something that Jim Starlin made up in his head! Nobody was killed making this comic book!"
But they kind of treated it that way, particularly the ardent fans, and I realized that I had thought that what I was was a writer/editor in this odd little backwater of American publishing, this bastard child of comic strips and pulps. And I realized coming off of that caper that I'm a custodian of folklore. These characters, about four of them now, have been around SO long. 76 years, 75 years, 74 and Spider-Man well over 30 now.
https://13thdimension.com/denny-oneil-getting-rid-of-robin-twice/
Back then, the idea of killing a child sidekick would be considered unconscionable. For better or worse, nowadays nobody would bat an eye. If you have crap like Crossed being sold to the market then Jason's death in ADITF is pretty tame, isn't it?
The rumour of some lawyer programming his computer to bump up the votes to kill Jason is pretty amusing.
Honestly, I never thought Jason's death in the comics was remotely tame. He got sold out by his own mother, beaten absolutely senseless by the Joker and then left to die in a bombing.
The older I get, the more inappropriate ADITF seems. The story has aged very badly for me. I'll admit that good storylines came out of it. But ADITF itself is not a good story, both in terms execution and in terms of content.
The story getting there is poor, but Jason's death is appropriate as a wake up call. Death can come for them at any moment. Heading out for nights on end without incident is likely to develop complacency. O'Neil's own opinion was that Batman either retired at 40 years old or died on the job. It's fair to apply that same logic to a Robin, who should be less competent than their mentor. The cold hard reality is that the villains want them dead in every incarnation of the franchise, be it Adam West or Michael Keaton. It just takes one moment to slip up. You're left in that one deathtrap you can't escape and it's game over. Jason's demise being excessive is part of the shock factor violation. It had never happened before, so when it did it was big and ugly. The Joker, via the writers, got his money's worth.
DC is re-releasing Batman #428, only this time with alternate ending of Jason surviving. #428 was the third chapter of the entire story arc.
https://aiptcomics.com/2023/10/14/a-death-in-the-family-batman-dc-comics/
They promise to reveal material never seen before, but if it's the one alternate ending page to Batman expressing relief as Jason breathes in his arms, then it will be false advertising.
DC has always been very guarded about the alternate Batman #428. They've shown Batman discovering Jason's body but nothing else.
There would be differences tho. Page 15 (of the existing version) clearly shows two coffins. Plus, you'd think that if Jason survived the bombing, there would be at least one page that shows Jason recovering in the hospital.
Plus, the text that refers to Jason's death would obviously be different as well.
So, all in all, I surmise that the alternate Batman #428 will probably show a lot of differences from the existing version.
Anybody else taking bets that the yellow oval will be removed from the alternate Batman #428? No idea why DC despises the yellow oval so much. But obviously, someone hates it.
As someone who never buys floppies, like ever, the recent wave of facsimile comics has really tempted me to build up that collection. More so I feel tempted to put my money where my mouth is when it comes to the content I support versus don't support. There's a decent amount of work that goes into reproducing a classic comic, ads and all. I'm sure finishing this particular issue was no small task.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 13:25Anybody else taking bets that the yellow oval will be removed from the alternate Batman #428? No idea why DC despises the yellow oval so much. But obviously, someone hates it.
If there's historical revisionism involved then it won't authentically be the lost comic. Have there been other examples of it being edited out besides The Killing Joke?
https://www.dc.com/blog/2024/04/03/from-the-dc-vault-death-in-the-family-robin-lives-1-what-happens-after-jason-todd-survives-his-encounter-with-the-joker
We're getting a continuation of the lost comic in a four-part miniseries.
This is a great concept; some of the wrongful criticism of the alternate ending of #428 is that not enough was changed (the point was just to release the comic as it would have been). So this presents a deeper dive into that alternate timeline, which is essentially what Batman '89 set out to do as well.
Everything looks good so far; J.M. DeMatteis and Rick Leonardi are old pros that were around well before the original Death in the Family arc, with prior Batman experience to boot. 1988 doesn't seem like that long ago, but we're well past three decades.
As I'm always the skeptic, the one burning question is "where's Jim Starlin?" I'm not up to date on his personal life, but I don't believe he's retired yet. I was wondering why Mike Mignola was only on the variant cover, but that question was quickly answered.
My first choice for art probably would have been Graham Nolan after Jim Aparo sadly is not with us anymore. My reasoning is that of the many artists collaborating for Knightfall, In felt the best sense of continuity between Nolan and Aparo's art. That being said, Rick Leonardi already has some work in the examples they've provided (including an amazing cover).
Hope they have a TPB collection that includes the alternate #428. Every comic shop I went to was either sold out or didn't carry it. Wasn't about to go out of my way for a single issue.
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 3 Apr 2024, 23:17Hope they have a TPB collection that includes the alternate #428. Every comic shop I went to was either sold out or didn't carry it. Wasn't about to go out of my way for a single issue.
I had to settle for a 2nd printing, but yeah, hopefully the trade includes that alt #428 as well. It would make all the sense in the world to include it.
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 3 Apr 2024, 23:17As I'm always the skeptic, the one burning question is "where's Jim Starlin?" I'm not up to date on his personal life, but I don't believe he's retired yet
My understanding is that the Batman office and Starlin parted ways on some pretty bad terms with each other shortly after ADITF. Starlin mentioned some of that stuff in an interview at some point or another.
And I got the idea that at least on Starlin's side, those wounds went DEEP. Because apparently, and among other things, he had TONS of story ideas for where Batman could go following Jason's death. But after getting chased out of the Bat office, I got the idea that something broke inside of him.
Not to speak ill of the dead. But while Denny O'Neil did a LOT of good for Batman in his time, it sure looks like he left quite a lot of damage in his wake. The people who loved him back then seem to be loyal to this very day. But others, like Starlin (plus Alan Grant and somewhat Norm Breyfogle) had grudges that were never truly resolved.
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed, 3 Apr 2024, 23:17My first choice for art probably would have been Graham Nolan
Understandable. But Graham Nolan is probably persona non grata at DC these days. For that matter, you may as well add Chuck Dixon to that list too. Because anybody even remotely associated with Comicsgate (as Nolan and Dixon are) will probably never find mainstream comics work ever again.
And it's a crying shame too because creators like Dixon and Nolan don't exactly grow on trees. Bane didn't create himself, after all.
Also, at the rate things are going, it's probably just a matter of time until Kelley Jones gives up the pretense and announces that he's also Comicsgate through and through. He's been sympathetic enough to their cause that he may as well end the charade.
And anyway, Dixon and Nolan have both found plenty of lucrative Comicsgate work. Frankly, DC needs them a hell of a lot more than they need DC. I'm just describing the situation on the ground.