Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Batman comics

1356762

Posts

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hensler wrote: »

    There was a future story, I want to say it was in Robin, that had Tim and Cassie sharing the role of "Batman" in the future. He did all the investigating, gadget-ing, and detective work, and she did all the ass kicking. It worked really well.

    I think it was in Damion Scott's SOLO issue. I remember it had some seriously whacky, Corey Lewis-esque angles/perspective going on in a few panels. It was a really neat concept though. Cass also dyed her hair orange, presumably out of respect for Barbara.

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth You Don't Even Know, ManRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So I just read that Stephanie is going to be the new Batgirl.

    I'm intrigued, but also worried, because I wonder what bullshit thing they'll do with Cass next.

  • KVWKVW Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I hope they play it smart and add a bunch of DLC episodes though, including playable Nightwing.

    I suspect they have a bunch of villain and other hero based challenge rooms in the pipeline, similar to how they have Joker missions for the PS3.

    Angry wrote:
    i hope they do nothing of the sort and immediately begin the sequel.

    Not sure what I'd want in a sequel. It'd be hard to get so many villains together again in one place and a return to Arkham would be derivative. If ambitious, they could make a overworld map of gotham, bust villains out of arkham and have you track them down in each of their own little themed hideouts, but that's a lot more textures and zones to design compared to reusing areas and mostly the same stuff for most of Arkham right now. I'd love to see co-op added with a nightwing/robin/batgril type sidekick, either for challenge rooms or even the single player mode, but doubt that will happen.

  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    KVW wrote: »
    I hope they play it smart and add a bunch of DLC episodes though, including playable Nightwing.

    I suspect they have a bunch of villain and other hero based challenge rooms in the pipeline, similar to how they have Joker missions for the PS3.

    Angry wrote:
    i hope they do nothing of the sort and immediately begin the sequel.

    Not sure what I'd want in a sequel. It'd be hard to get so many villains together again in one place and a return to Arkham would be derivative. If ambitious, they could make a overworld map of gotham, bust villains out of arkham and have you track them down in each of their own little themed hideouts, but that's a lot more textures and zones to design compared to reusing areas and mostly the same stuff for most of Arkham right now. I'd love to see co-op added with a nightwing/robin/batgril type sidekick, either for challenge rooms or even the single player mode, but doubt that will happen.

    It'd ideally be a No Man's Land inspired sequel, inspired mind you not direct copy.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'd actually like to see Rocksteady pick up a different hero and give him/her a game as good as Arkham. They have proven themselves quite capable, and I'd love to see that same talent applied to a different character. Its too soon to be talking Batman sequels. If they churn them out too quickly, they will lose their specialness and the quality will inevitably go down.

    Instead, they should take a break from Batman and do another game. I personally would love to see them make a Green Lantern game.

    BN_Sig3.jpg
  • descdesc Goretexing to death Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Instead, they should take a break from Batman and do another game. I personally would love to see them make a Green Lantern game.

    oh jesus yes

  • CorporateLogoCorporateLogo Cream of my compulsions Rising to the tip of the spoutRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'd like to see their take on Madden '11.

    Do not have a cow, mortal.

    3DS: 2251-4432-9039

    c9PXgFo.jpg
  • TexiKenTexiKen it's a one way street, whichever way I go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    KVW wrote: »
    I hope they play it smart and add a bunch of DLC episodes though, including playable Nightwing.

    I suspect they have a bunch of villain and other hero based challenge rooms in the pipeline, similar to how they have Joker missions for the PS3.

    Angry wrote:
    i hope they do nothing of the sort and immediately begin the sequel.

    Not sure what I'd want in a sequel. It'd be hard to get so many villains together again in one place and a return to Arkham would be derivative. If ambitious, they could make a overworld map of gotham, bust villains out of arkham and have you track them down in each of their own little themed hideouts, but that's a lot more textures and zones to design compared to reusing areas and mostly the same stuff for most of Arkham right now. I'd love to see co-op added with a nightwing/robin/batgril type sidekick, either for challenge rooms or even the single player mode, but doubt that will happen.

    It'd ideally be a No Man's Land inspired sequel, inspired mind you not direct copy.

    A direct copy would be pretty damn good.

    It would be a sandbox game with ongoing territory changes, and multiple characters to choose from (Batman, Batgirl/Huntress, Nightwing with Blackgate, Bane wrecking shit up as the unlockable villain).

    wowsmm_zps1010c3b6.jpg
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ok what the hell.

    We are only 3 issues in and Gotham City Sirens already has a fill-in writer?

    BN_Sig3.jpg
  • KidDorkKidDork Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Ok what the hell.

    We are only 3 issues in and Gotham City Sirens already has a fill-in writer?

    This is where I'd usually vent about goddamned writers, but it's Dini, so I won't. But I hope he signed on for the long term with this, because unless Gail Simone takes over after him, I'm gone.

    Speaking of disappointment, I wished I'd known who the writer of the new Batgirl is before I paid for it. Because it is now in the recycle bin. It's a writer from Smallville--if you love that show, you'll love this. If Smallville makes you feel dead inside, then, well, you know.

  • KVWKVW Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Streets of Gotham is getting the fill-in writer (Yost). Is Sirens getting one too?

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sirens issue 3 is by Scott Lobdell. Art is still by Guillem March, which suggests to me that this might've been some sort of last minute change-up.

    BN_Sig3.jpg
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm a little amazed that Lobdell is still working in comics.

  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Munch wrote: »
    I'm a little amazed that Lobdell is still working in comics.

    This is the first mainstream book I've seen his name on in a while; I'd heard at a Con that he was doing stand-up comedy now. I know that he was making the Hardy Boys graphic novels until last year.

  • 143999143999 Duly appointed editor of the Tyrest AccordRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Re: Arkham Asylum - I really don't like this voice for the Riddler. John Glover > Wally Wingert.

    4Bpocis.png
  • FaynorFaynor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I will probably rent Arkham Asylum this weekend.

    do you wanna see me eat a hotdog
  • TexiKenTexiKen it's a one way street, whichever way I go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Scott Lobdell wrote High Roads and therefore I have to check out what he writes.

    wowsmm_zps1010c3b6.jpg
  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    TexiKen wrote: »
    Scott Lobdell wrote High Roads and therefore I have to check out what he writes.

    Was that the crazy ass WW2 story from Wildstorm a while back?

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    143999 wrote: »
    Re: Arkham Asylum - I really don't like this voice for the Riddler. John Glover > Wally Wingert.

    I actually really like the voice of the Riddler. He's got a great sarcastic edge in his voice. Each time you solve a riddle he taunts you, and it is glorious.

    By the same token, I don't like the voice of Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow at all. It isn't nearly sinister enough. That being said, the Scarecrow moments in-game have been brilliant thus far.

    BN_Sig3.jpg
  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    That being said, the Scarecrow moments in-game have been brilliant thus far.

    Everything about this game has been brilliant. I want to do this with it: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2000/07/07/

  • 143999143999 Duly appointed editor of the Tyrest AccordRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    143999 wrote: »
    Re: Arkham Asylum - I really don't like this voice for the Riddler. John Glover > Wally Wingert.

    I actually really like the voice of the Riddler. He's got a great sarcastic edge in his voice. Each time you solve a riddle he taunts you, and it is glorious.

    By the same token, I don't like the voice of Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow at all. It isn't nearly sinister enough. That being said, the Scarecrow moments in-game have been brilliant thus far.

    It was easy to believe that TAS' Riddler could possibly outsmart Batman. Glover's performance was like, "I have to dial this shit down to riddles because if I spoke to you in my native tongue, your pitiful mortal brains would melt from the exertion of trying to keep up." Glover sold it to you.

    Conversely, Wingert's Riddler sounds like a whiny David Cross sitting in the front row in the 3rd grade and complaining every time the teacher calls on someone else.

    4Bpocis.png
  • AngryAngry Slang Pope Breakbeat MinisterRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    i like the riddler voice fine.

    concerning scarecrow
    Spoiler:

    best game purchase for me in a long time. absolutely loved every minute of playtime.

    GW2: Doomunit.5462
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth You Don't Even Know, ManRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I wanted to make a separate thread for this, but since the mods probably wouldn't approve of two Batman threads, I'll post this here. It's something I'd like to have a serious discussion about.

    Basically, it's about Batman's "One Rule". The one that Joker taunts him for following, the one that probably could save lots of lives, the one that other heroes have no problem breaking. Batman doesn't kill, we know this.

    The question I propose is: Why doesn't Batman kill? For someone like The Joker, who breaks out of Arkham Asylum like it was a daycare center, only to rampage across the streets and kill at least a double-digit amount of innocent people per week, and who has been declared by numerous professionals as "untreatable", why does Batman continue to go to great strides to make sure his encounters with Joker don't result in fatal harm?

    If a police officer were to beat Batman to the punch and have a face-to-face with Joker, who would probably use a tommygun made out of ham or something similarly ridiculous/deadly, it is within that officer's rights to put a bullet in the fucker's head. No one would chastise him for this, in fact they'd probably throw him a huge parade and pension as a result. Yet not only does Batman reject such an outcome, he even goes out of his way to keep other people from killing Joker, even in self defense. There's even a story where Joker is convicted in a state that enforces the death penalty, yet Batman just couldn't let it go (turns out Joker was innocent of the crime, but seriously....Bats could have devoted that time to get a truly innocent person out of death row instead of one who deserves to fry a hundred times over).

    What's puzzling is that there's plenty of other superheroes who have no problem killing a villain if it's during an encounter. For crying out loud, even Superman has killed some of his enemies from time to time. It's not like he enjoyed it, but it's war, so it's not like he lost sleep over it either. Yet Batman constantly sticks to his One Rule policy, even though he's breaking plenty of other rules the heroes wouldn't tread over.

    So why does he stick by this One Rule, even when he's aware that for every second Joker is in the streets, more people will die? That's what I'd like to discuss now.

    For me, the primary reason I can think of is this: Because Batman is such a valued symbol in Gotham City, but also a vigilante, if he were to take the life of another villain, he would basically tell all his followers and believers that it's OK to commit homicide, regardless of the law. Even if Bats was discreet about it, there's lots of other crimefighters or even regular bystanders who might take things too far. Of course, this has me wondering if his One Rule would still be in affect if he was a sworn officer of the law, but if he really respected the police, he wouldn't be working so hard to one-up them every chance he got. Has he ever sat back and let the cops take a stab at Joker? Would he go ape-shit if they pelted the bastard full of bullets?

    The more psychological reason, and one that's been brought up before, is that deep down Batman doesn't want his crusade to end, and he enjoys the deadly dance between himself and his enemies. And since Joker is his ultimate opposition, having him out of the picture would force him to face reality, in all its harsh, boring ways. This is the most commonly accepted rationale for The Joker (one episode of the series, where Bats is believed to be dead, shows Joker to be incredibly depressed, no longer having the will to commit crimes), but would it fly for Bruce as well? It sure would be an interesting storyline to have him come out and admit this, and would probably cause a big rift among his Bat Family (or rather, a believable rift).

    And the obviously real answer is that The Joker is far too popular a villain to put down, but we're not getting into those kind of specifics here.

    And before you mention that Spider-Man also employs a "no killing" policy (painfully cemented in the Maximum Carnage arc, where Carnage and his cronies murder at least half the population of New York while Spidey and the other heroes spend more time whining about killing Carnage and less time doing any actual ass kicking), I chalk up his reasoning as a result of his upbringing. Peter comes from the "gee willikers" era of being raised as an upstanding youth, as echoed by his speech about power and responsibility. It isn't a stretch to believe that he is against killing. Batman, on the other hand, was raised purely by vengeance, and in a much more urban, gritty setting like Gotham City, his "One Rule" isn't nearly as acceptable. In fact it's pretty much baffling: Is he really inspiring anyone in Gotham by not killing Joker?

    Finally, as an East vs West perspective, I find it interesting how rare it is for Manga heroes to enforce a no-killing policy. Even in children's manga, the main hero usually has no problem destroying his current enemy in a spectacularly violent fashion. Even in some stories where the hero does adapt a One Rule policy (such as Goku during DBZ's Saiyan and Freeza arcs), the hero is usually seen punished for adapting this rule, and afterward decides "to hell with it" and takes out his enemy, usually in time for the kids to cheer him on as he came to his senses just in time.

    Usually killing baddies in manga is considered okay because they're usually set up as these incredibly powerful entities with aspirations to kill all humankind, God, the universe, and all existence of itself. In this case, the only outcome for a peaceful resolution is to kill such a dangerous opponent.

    Of course, if Joker got his hands on some universe-destroying power, would Bats still employ his One Rule? Food for Thought.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    It could also be that the Batman persona (albeit minus the Bat part, which was added later) was created in Bruce's childhood as a way of coping with the trauma. As such, it was shaped by a child's expectations of what a hero should be, which not only explains the innocent concept of what justice means, but also the gadgets and need for a gimmick.

  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009

    Of course, if Joker got his hands on some universe-destroying power, would Bats still employ his One Rule? Food for Thought.

    I think Final Crisis answered this question.

  • smokmnkysmokmnky Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So Batman & Robin and Detective Comics both came out today and both were amazing however I'm really not liking Kate's "style" her Batwoman is fine but she just looks to I'm not sure but it bugs me. The whole party scene just didn't seem right to me, like trying to hard to go the other way with the Lesbian thing you know? Like I get Rucka doesn't want it to be the male fantasy lesbian but the two lesbians at the part both wear Tuxes? It just felt weird.

    Can't say anything bad about B&R, Quietly was awesome and Morrison writes really creepy villains

  • KVWKVW Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    *snip*

    If you want to get into it more than just, "super heroes dont kill", there's the whole idea that Joker isn't guilty of any of his crimes since he is criminally insane - aka he cannot see or understand the consequences of his actions and therefore cannot be held responsible for them, hence the constant trips to Arkham instead of maximum security prisons. Batman, being the goddamn Batman, knows this and also knows that he can disable Joker without killing him, so does not use lethal force to subdue him.

    There's also the whole moral quandry. If Batman was a murderer, there's very little Gordon or any allies can do to aid him in his endeavours. The police and everyone can overlook mild vigilante work, but soon as he kills one person, he's now a murderer, even if it's a criminal. Self-defense wouldnt work since he is forcing these unstable people into action. Therefore, there would be no big bat signal on the roof or any aid from cops, whow ould be forced to apprehend him.

    Also, where's the line drawn? Kill every single criminal with a gun? He's the one forcing them into action. He's the one attacking them, so you could argue they were forced into using their weapons for self defense. Do you kill people you have evidence for? All criminals? How far are you taking this? 1 kill? 10? What about rape? Kill them too? You have laws designed to do this. It's not Batman's job to doll out punishment (technically, it's not his job to do anything) and he only gets leeway due to not going over the line.


    As far as manga go, if you are referring to shounen style manga, they typically always try to redeem their foes (many a villain joins the hero) and never outright kill them in cold blood as you are suggesting Batman do. Just look at the popular shounen of the past decade or so. DBZ = Goku doesn't kill. He just wants a good fight and he didn't even want to kill Frieza and tried to svae him right up to the end. Bleach = they're all dead already, technically, but many of the villains do end up dying, but not due to the main hero's intent. Much like the Frieza example, it came down to the villains being defeated and going for a last ditch kill and forcing their own deaths. Naruto has never killed anyone and is all about redeeming people.

    And those are aimed at teenagers/young males, not children. Look at Pokemon or what have youf or a children's show that has lots of action,b ut no actual killing. T he villains are constantly defeated but never suffer any consequences so they can reappear later.

  • TexiKenTexiKen it's a one way street, whichever way I go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    It would be nice if Batman went the route he did in Batman Begins with at least some of the bigger villains like Joker or Zsaz (Zsaz especially, he's completely off the radar in terms of recovering), where he won't kill them but he also won't save them crash boom bye bye Liam Neeson.

    wowsmm_zps1010c3b6.jpg
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    Its a bit of a grey area. If he LETS them die but he could've saved them then hes pretty much killing them/passing judgement and thats not what he believes in.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • HenslerHensler Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Bruce Wayne is a total nutjob, and trying to understand anything he does comes back to him being crazy. Bat shit crazy, son.

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    There is also the whole thing about the established rogues and all of their history, and having Batman let Joker drown or whatever would really hamper future stories.

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • VerrVerr Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Hensler wrote: »
    Bruce Wayne is a total nutjob, and trying to understand anything he does comes back to him being crazy. Bat shit crazy, son.

    This really hard. Bat's is crazy, if not more crazy, then the Joker.

    Yeah. That crazy.

  • Bloods EndBloods End Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Thats stupid and you're stupid for saying it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth You Don't Even Know, ManRegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    It could also be that the Batman persona (albeit minus the Bat part, which was added later) was created in Bruce's childhood as a way of coping with the trauma. As such, it was shaped by a child's expectations of what a hero should be, which not only explains the innocent concept of what justice means, but also the gadgets and need for a gimmick.

    An interesting theory, but Batman does so many things that are out of the norm for a typical "childhood hero". He always goes against the "rules" when it comes to delivering justice, so it feels a bit contradictory that he doesn't complete the circle by killing his enemies.

    Also, he mainly got the idea from Zorro, right? Pretty sure Zorro has killed people (but don't quote me on that).
    Hensler wrote: »

    Of course, if Joker got his hands on some universe-destroying power, would Bats still employ his One Rule? Food for Thought.

    I think Final Crisis answered this question.

    I didn't read it. What was the answer?
    KVW wrote: »
    *snip*

    If you want to get into it more than just, "super heroes dont kill", there's the whole idea that Joker isn't guilty of any of his crimes since he is criminally insane - aka he cannot see or understand the consequences of his actions and therefore cannot be held responsible for them, hence the constant trips to Arkham instead of maximum security prisons.

    Doesn't Batman himself think this is a load of bull? I know he's scoffed at doctors for thinking they could "cure" Joker, and has also mentioned that nearly everything out of Joker's mouth is a clever lie.
    There's also the whole moral quandry. If Batman was a murderer, there's very little Gordon or any allies can do to aid him in his endeavours. The police and everyone can overlook mild vigilante work, but soon as he kills one person, he's now a murderer, even if it's a criminal. Self-defense wouldnt work since he is forcing these unstable people into action. Therefore, there would be no big bat signal on the roof or any aid from cops, whow ould be forced to apprehend him.

    What about all those times when Bats and Joker fight, and Joker ends up falling 20 feet from a cliff, or gets trapped in an exploding helicopter/car/robot? That's self defense, and the police are usually quick to declare he's dead (but of course, no body means Bats doesn't believe it). Would things really change if they ended up finding Joker's charred body afterward?
    As far as manga go, if you are referring to shounen style manga, they typically always try to redeem their foes (many a villain joins the hero) and never outright kill them in cold blood as you are suggesting Batman do. Just look at the popular shounen of the past decade or so. DBZ = Goku doesn't kill. He just wants a good fight and he didn't even want to kill Frieza and tried to svae him right up to the end. Bleach = they're all dead already, technically, but many of the villains do end up dying, but not due to the main hero's intent. Much like the Frieza example, it came down to the villains being defeated and going for a last ditch kill and forcing their own deaths. Naruto has never killed anyone and is all about redeeming people.

    And those are aimed at teenagers/young males, not children. Look at Pokemon or what have youf or a children's show that has lots of action,b ut no actual killing. T he villains are constantly defeated but never suffer any consequences so they can reappear later.

    In Manga, the villains that reform are usually 2nd tier villains (or 3rd tier comic relief villains), bad guys that are usually only bad to the hero due to some deep rivalry. Obviously, a super evil bad guy who killed a hundred people and drinks the blood of puppies isn't going to reform.

    And like I mentioned with Goku, he's basically punished for not finishing off the big bads early on, and after the Freeza saga, he has no problem at all in finishing off bad guys (he even cheers Vegeta after he completely murders an opponent that was practically begging for mercy in the Buu saga). Basically, killing the big bad in Manga=super happy ending where everyone cheers.

    The only series where I've seen a character employ strict, western-style rules about not killing no matter what is Vash the Stampede in Trigun, although this fits with his character once his origin story is revealed.
    Its a bit of a grey area. If he LETS them die but he could've saved them then hes pretty much killing them/passing judgement and thats not what he believes in.

    This was the one thing that bugged me the most in Begins. There was a similar moment where Azrael let a bad guy die by simply "not helping him". Bruce went apeshit over that.

    On that note, I find it pretty funny how the Michael Keaton movies had Bats kill lots of enemies with no problem, even SMILING in Batman Returns when he straps a bomb on that one guy. I watched the animated series afterward and was puzzled at first to why he only apprehended Joker and the others instead of finishing them off in a flashy way.
    Hensler wrote: »
    Bruce Wayne is a total nutjob, and trying to understand anything he does comes back to him being crazy. Bat shit crazy, son.

    This is an explanation I can get behind. Batman is flawed, simple as that.

  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Batman attempts to disrupt/apprehend criminals in the process of breaking the law. He hands them over to the police. That's where his involvement ends, and even without his moral code I'm pretty sure that's where society says it should end as well. Now if his methods proved to be unworkable at fighting crime because criminals apprehended by Batman can't actually be successfully prosecuted by the courts then Batman should think about finding a better way to accomplish his goals. If the problem is with the State being unable to successfully deal with prosecuted criminals then that is a failing of the State.

    Batman isn't stupid for not killing the Joker. The citizens of Gotham (and whatever state it resides in) are stupid for not amending the laws to kill the Joker.

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    AUGMENTOS - Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Bloods End wrote: »
    Thats stupid and you're stupid for saying it.

    Seriously. The only insane Batman is a Frank Miller written Batman.

    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • Gajengi baxtGajengi baxt Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Is it not just that Batman is not a "super" super-hero. He has no super-powers and therefore he is just a human. And as such acts humanely, i.e. to preserve life.
    Maybe not the great American way, but a role-model nonetheless?

  • ManonvonSuperockManonvonSuperock Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    the why doesn't batman kill argument looks long and is probably boring, so I didn't read it.

    Has anyone mentioned the main reason above anything else is marketing?

    Batman kills his highly marketable villains, they can't return for stories in a serial medium.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    the why doesn't batman kill argument looks long and is probably boring, so I didn't read it.

    Has anyone mentioned the main reason above anything else is marketing?

    Batman kills his highly marketable villains, they can't return for stories in a serial medium.

    That's the case with all heroes, though, and still a lot of them have killed once or twice.

  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    the why doesn't batman kill argument looks long and is probably boring, so I didn't read it.

    Has anyone mentioned the main reason above anything else is marketing?

    Batman kills his highly marketable villains, they can't return for stories in a serial medium.

    That also highlights why villains die in Manga. They're usually self contained stories, so it's not like they have to worry about the villains needing to be used again.

    scale3nk0.png
This discussion has been closed.