Let's Talk About the "Death of the Family" Conclusion

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

WARNING. MAJOR, LEGITIMATE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW. IF YOU HAVE NOT READ ISSUE #17, STOP READING NOW.

Now, with that out of the way, let's get to jawin'. Was I the only one incredibly underwhelmed by the story's conclusion? I mean, the build-up was more intense than the climax, and that's never a good sign. All of that waiting just to have the Joker do essentially nothing to the Family. I mean yes, at the end of the issue everyone blows off a summons from Bruce, but is that really the grand effect that Joker wanted? If so, shouldn't this have just been called "The Family Takes a Break"? Maybe "Family Vacation"? No one dies, not Alfred, not Damian, not Jason Todd and we get cheated out of the Joker's death by the tiredest trope in superhero fiction: the villain tumbles over a cliff into a fall that he cannot possibly survive, yet no body is found. Then there's some "character development" between Bruce and Joker, but its ultimately something we've always known: the Joker doesn't care who's under the cowl. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, and if it does, you haven't been paying enough attention, because it's practically a hallmark of the clown's character.

How boring. Just for reference, the same thing was done at the end of the first Dark Knight trade with Bane (as far as fake deaths go), and we all know how that arc fared...

To top it all off, the last panel has Bruce analyzing the leftovers in the Family's bloodstream from Joker's toxin, and he finds out that the element that remains has "Ha" as its symbol on the periodic table. What a f%#@ing masterstroke, Joker. You made Batman remember his tenth grade chemistry class.

Ugh. Anyway. What are your thoughts on the "epic conclusion"?

#2 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

The story is called "Death of the Family"...and isn't that what happened?

The group's faith and trust in Batman is shaken and as a result Batman becomes a more isolated character...like the Joker said he wanted him to be.

#3 Posted by entropy_aegis (15456 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: Well atleast Bane survived the fall in TDK that was made clear.

#4 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery: But the Family isn't "dead" at all. Maybe if the kids had sworn off Batman for good, but the way it's laid out is like everyone is just taking a few days off to recover, which is something you'd expect to happen at the end of any other arc. But this wasn't supposed to be just "another other arc." The Family didn't die at all. In less than six issues we'll be back to business as usual.

@entropy_aegis: Yeah, at least the author had the decency to do that. Instead, Snyder leaves off on a "cliffhanger" (the panel of Joker's face, now detached, floating at the bottom of the underground river) that isn't a cliffhanger at all to anyone who has read more than two superhero stories in their entire life.

#5 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: You're confusing marketing with storytelling. Every "event" is supposed to "change everything". This story was only big because it's the Joker's first real story in the New 52 and that Snyder's Batman comics have earned a stellar reputation for good storytelling. A snappy name "The Death of the Family" is meant to draw in readers and get speculation going. Do you remember Snyder saying that anyone was actually going to die?

#6 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1672 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll agree with you. The ending was anticlimacting. Nevertheless, I was pretty sure from the very beginning that Snyder wasn't talking about a "real" death. It was all about killing the idea of the family, destroying the ties that bond the family. I'll admit of course, this is not an epic conclusion, but I can't say I didn't like it. I was quite prepared for such an ending to be completely honest.

#7 Posted by Joelislegend (215 posts) - - Show Bio

Seriously the statements made that this arc would "forever change the Bat family" were such bullshit.

We are supposed to what all of a sudden assume that the Bat family is mad for X reason not stated above because Batman let the Joker know their secret identities or who knows what?? Seriously I don't even understand why they are mad.

#8 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery said:

@End_Boss: You're confusing marketing with storytelling. Every "event" is supposed to "change everything". This story was only big because it's the Joker's first real story in the New 52 and that Snyder's Batman comics have earned a stellar reputation for good storytelling. A snappy name "The Death of the Family" is meant to draw in readers and get speculation going. Do you remember Snyder saying that anyone was actually going to die?

No, I know he didn't say anyone was going to die explicitly. Still, this was supposed to be the Death of the Family, the destruction of the ties that bind. I don't see that happening at all. I see everyone going off and having a few issues in which there are no appearances from fellow Family members, then I see everything returning to the status quo. Say what you will, but this story was supposed to be bigger than that.

#9 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: Unless your avatar is indicative of your ability to see into the future, you don't know that.

And yes, of COURSE the Bat family isn't shattered forever. Nor would anyone have been dead forever had they actually been killed in this story.

#10 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery: I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I still maintain that Snyder hyped up a much more impactful climax than he delivered. And I disagree about no one being dead forever. I think had Damian been killed, he would have stayed dead. Same goes for Alfred. Nor was I looking for the Family to be broken forever. I just don't see them as being broken at all.

#11 Posted by John Valentine (16318 posts) - - Show Bio

@Joelislegend said:

Seriously the statements made that this arc would "forever change the Bat family" were such bullshit.

We are supposed to what all of a sudden assume that the Bat family is mad for X reason not stated above because Batman let the Joker know their secret identities or who knows what?? Seriously I don't even understand why they are mad.

Because Bruce knew that Joker knew his secret identity, and by deduction knew who each member of the Bat Family was, making them and their civilian friends and family targets. That's why they're mad.
#12 Posted by entropy_aegis (15456 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine: And in the end it was proven that the Joker doesn't care about their identities so why are they mad again?

#13 Posted by John Valentine (16318 posts) - - Show Bio

@entropy_aegis said:

@John Valentine: And in the end it was proven that the Joker doesn't care about their identities so why are they mad again?

Well, Joker knowing their secret identities enabled him to personally target each and every one of them. Dick, for example. Pretty sure Raya wouldn't be dead if Joker didn't know Dick was Nightwing.

Secondly, Bruce's arrogance lead to Alfred being captured and tortured.

#14 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1672 posts) - - Show Bio

@entropy_aegis: Sure, he doesn't care, but that doesn't mean they don't feel caught in the crossfire. And if we add the ol'trust issue (clearly a Batman issue), they are entitled to feel a little bit mad. That's what I think is Snyder's point of view.

P.S. I haven't read some of the relative issues (a couple of them), so I could be wrong.

#15 Posted by entropy_aegis (15456 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@John Valentine: And in the end it was proven that the Joker doesn't care about their identities so why are they mad again?

Well, Joker knowing their secret identities enabled him to personally target each and every one of them. Dick, for example. Pretty sure Raya wouldn't be dead if Joker didn't know Dick was Nightwing.

Secondly, Bruce's arrogance lead to Alfred being captured and tortured.

But the Joker doesn't care,the main arc makes that clear.The Raya stuff happened in a tie inn and I'm inclined to believe that other writers were also in the dark.@Phaedrusgr said:

@entropy_aegis: Sure, he doesn't care, but that doesn't mean they don't feel caught in the crossfire. And if we add the ol'trust issue (clearly a Batman issue), they are entitled to feel a little bit mad. That's what I think is Snyder's point of view.

P.S. I haven't read some of the relative issues (a couple of them), so I could be wrong.

A point which Snyder was unable to sell.

#16 Posted by mhanuroth (208 posts) - - Show Bio

the best moment in that comic is where bruce wayne basically tells joker that he is batman. the rest was a comic that i will rate with a 6

#17 Posted by JonSmith (4005 posts) - - Show Bio

I personally liked the comic a great deal. Though that may have had more to do with my having headphones on playing Joker's Why So Serious theme from the Dark Knight film while reading it rather than it actually being a triumphant conclusion.

I suppose in hindsight, it WAS an underwhelming conclusion. But don't forget the Red Hood covers. Perhaps something more happened to Jason than he let on. We don't see him and Barbara at all after that night.

And frankly, Dick and Damian don't even seem made at Bruce. Damian's just taking some time to recover, Dick is right outside the mansion, talking to Bruce over the phone with a smile on his face like, "Hey, it's cool. No worries." Still, Batgirl and Jason are the most distant members of the current Batfamily. So them getting maimed may not be as big of an impact as we'd expect from Death of the Family. Perhaps we'll get some better elaboration on everyone post DotF in their own comics.

... And I JUST remembered Tim Drake existed in this whole thing...

Eh, he's not important.

#18 Edited by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine: But it was said in the same issue, without a shadow of a doubt, that Joker just didn't care. Which means he never cared about the Family's identities, either. I don't think Raya's death had anything to do with the event, but I may be wrong. I'll have to check the issue again. And as far as Alfred goes, yeah maybe, but Alfred wasn't upset either. Hell, he was in good spirits at the end, reassuring Bruce that it was over and even engaging in friendly banter.

@Phaedrusgr: Perhaps, as Entropy said, that was the point that Snyder failed to sell appropriately. At the end of the issue, looking at those panels, I didn't feel a major falling out of the Bat family. I felt like yeah, everyone's tired from that encounter, but things will be fine.

@JonSmith: Batgirl is seen at the end of the issue, sitting by the fireplace in a comfy chair and bathrobe (DEAR GOD, THE HORROR. JOKER HAS SURELY LEFT HIS MARK.) texting Bruce her excuse for not showing up to the meet. Jason Todd is seen drinking alone in a bar. Perhaps the only person in the entire Family that was affected past the moment of crisis.

#19 Posted by John Valentine (16318 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss said:

@John Valentine: But it was said in the same issue, without a shadow of a doubt, that Joker just didn't care. Which means he never cared about the Family's identities, either. I don't think Raya's death had anything to do with the event, but I may be wrong. I'll have to check the issue again. And as far as Alfred goes, yeah maybe, but Alfred wasn't upset either. Hell, he was in good spirits at the end, reassuring Bruce that it was over and even engaging in friendly banter.

But the point still stands that Bruce knew that Joker knew who they were and they were tortured because of it. Joker may not care about who they are but he still used it against them.

Time and time again Bruce has let his obsession with Joker endager people.

#20 Posted by JohnnyGat (1573 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonSmith said:

I personally liked the comic a great deal. Though that may have had more to do with my having headphones on playing Joker's Why So Serious theme from the Dark Knight film while reading it rather than it actually being a triumphant conclusion.

I suppose in hindsight, it WAS an underwhelming conclusion. But don't forget the Red Hood covers. Perhaps something more happened to Jason than he let on. We don't see him and Barbara at all after that night.

And frankly, Dick and Damian don't even seem made at Bruce. Damian's just taking some time to recover, Dick is right outside the mansion, talking to Bruce over the phone with a smile on his face like, "Hey, it's cool. No worries." Still, Batgirl and Jason are the most distant members of the current Batfamily. So them getting maimed may not be as big of an impact as we'd expect from Death of the Family. Perhaps we'll get some better elaboration on everyone post DotF in their own comics.

... And I JUST remembered Tim Drake existed in this whole thing...

Eh, he's not important.

Honestly only Jason would probably have a serious physical scar that will be inflicted on him. The still haven't touched up on what the hell Joker was doing with the Red Hood helmet. I'm hoping it's not some sort of acid that would burn away Jason's face and make it look like the one on the cover, I don't like what I see coming I guess. Crossing my fingers that that cover was more of a symbolic tone.

#21 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@JohnnyGat: If you're referring to the issue in which Joker can be seen coating the inside of the mask with some kind of substance, I believe that was the numbing agent used to make the Family think their faces had been removed.

@John Valentine: Didn't Joker just lure them in as their costumed counterparts? Wouldn't his knowledge of their identities have been irrelevant to pulling that off?

#22 Posted by John Valentine (16318 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss said:

@John Valentine: Didn't Joker just lure them in as their costumed counterparts? Wouldn't his knowledge of their identities have been irrelevant to pulling that off?

Have you read the tie-ins?

#23 Posted by Krissyjump (104 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: Sometimes people, after being through something traumatic, like to retreat to safety and comfort. As someone who has had traumatic things happen to me, the first thing I generally want to do is go to my room and curl up in a ball.... or just go somewhere I feel safe, reassured. A nice comfy chair by a fireplace, if I had a fireplace, would probably be one of the places I'd go. Sit down, grab a book and try to let the entire world slip away...

Damian was obviously affected as well. He's a kid who is always trying to make his dad proud.... and he practically runs out on him. to get his head clear. He's shaken, and as someone who had such a violent upbringing he fell back to something simple to try and get his mind off it... It's clear they were all affected but they each are trying to deal with this in a different way. Not every reaction is a grand breakdown that leaves you a puddle of sadness.

Anyways my opinion of the conclusion... I personally thought it was a really good issue. It was a bit anticlimactic and I felt there was a real problem that nothing huge happened in the end. It had the makings, I thought, of being the best Joker story ever but didn't quite hit that mark because of this issue, but it was still a great story none-the-less. I'm not sure we can all still judge this yet because we need to see the long lasting impact it has on everyone. People are assuming that everything will be perfectly fine in a few issues...but what if it's not? What if the family actually IS broken apart this time? We don't know what the Joker told them all, what he'd whispered to them. But it was obviously enough for all of them to essentially take a step back from him. For all we know, this could last for a long time, and I think that Death of the Family's worth will eventually be weighed by what comes after.

#24 Posted by JohnnyGat (1573 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss said:

@JohnnyGat: If you're referring to the issue in which Joker can be seen coating the inside of the mask with some kind of substance, I believe that was the numbing agent used to make the Family think their faces had been removed.

@John Valentine: Didn't Joker just lure them in as their costumed counterparts? Wouldn't his knowledge of their identities have been irrelevant to pulling that off?

Probably.

But I mean Joker the rest didn't need masks for Joker to put the numbing agent on. Why was there a special little panel dedicated to Joker doing something with Hood's mask. Plus Jason's face was still heavily bandaged in Batman #17. F it I normally like to over think things when I'm stressed out on my school work.

#25 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

Speaking as someone who read this yet (because I didn't steal it online), you really don't have a lot of space to complain about this comic if you didn't buy it.

#26 Posted by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery: Y'know, I respected your arguments as reasonable right up until this one. I have every right to have an opinion on this arc, just like everyone else who's read any of it. Saying otherwise is just crazy. And how do you know I didn't pick my issue up through having a connection at my local shop?

#27 Posted by JohnnyGat (1573 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery said:

Speaking as someone who read this yet (because I didn't steal it online), you really don't have a lot of space to complain about this comic if you didn't buy it.

I read Batman 17 from a friend who does pirate things without care and it was just something that I couldn't pass off. However I disagree with you're assertion that people don't have a lot of space to complain if they didn't buy it unless the released product would have a different conclusion than what was already leaked. That comment is more applicable when talking about prices or image quality but in terms of story. It's like telling me I can't judge the quality of a movie's story if I see it on HBO or even Bootleg copies instead of in theaters or in DVD/Blu-ray.

#28 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss:

@JohnnyGat:

You can complain all your like.

Your opinion doesn't matter, though.

If you're not funding the creation of this comic, who cares what you think.

#29 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1672 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: "I felt like yeah, everyone's tired from that encounter, but things will be fine".

Haha...yeah, that's part of the anticlimactic ending I was talking about. To be honest, I felt the same, nevertheless, I can't say it's a bad story.

#30 Posted by JohnnyGat (1573 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery said:

@End_Boss:

@JohnnyGat:

You can complain all your like.

Your opinion doesn't matter, though.

If you're not funding the creation of this comic, who cares what you think.

Doesn't matter what you think of the means people got it it doesn't change the fact that a person's opinion on a story isn't void just because one doesn't pay for it (my movie comparison basically says that). I'm still buying it I like to have hard copies of anything since I don't have much faith in my luck with electronics.

#31 Posted by The_Lunact_And_Manic (3286 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm the only one who liked it, that's sad. >_>

I pirated it, because I'm a impatient son of a...

#32 Posted by germandinner (26 posts) - - Show Bio

I haven't read too many Joker stories or stories involving the Joker (mostly just The Killing Joke, TDKR, A Death in the Family, Hush, Under the Hood, RIP, Batman and Robin: Batman and Robin Must Die, and probably one or two more that I'm forgetting), but I'm just wondering where the idea that "Joker doesn't care about who is under the cowl" is touched upon on this level. I've seen small hints of it before, mainly in TDKR, but I've never seen the idea developed in this sense before. It was instrumental to the Joker's defeat in the story. Of course, the Joker wasn't defeated completely, and in a sense, he won. He broke up the family. What I'm referring to is when Batman is holding Joker over the waterfall, and some of the dialogue preceding that. Batman explained how he had looked up the Joker's background, found out who the Joker really was. This turned out to be a lie, a bluff, obviously, as it was revealed to be at the end, but this doesn't change the fact at the moment when Batman was explaining this, the Joker was clearly growing enraged and frustrated over the possibility that Batman found out who the Joker was. Why? Because it would spoil the fun for the Joker. For the Joker, it's like a game of pretend. It doesn't matter who they are underneath; what matters is who they play with their masks on (hence why Joker had his face taken off, to nail this point in; now he has a mask, too, just like Batman). This idea is built upon with the whole kingdom fantasy Joker has, with Batman as a king, him as the court jester, like a couple of kids playing pretend. Batman threatening to know who the Joker really is would ruin everything Joker finds fun about Batman's relationship with him. Joker not caring who Batman is under the mask, and Batman not knowing who Joker is, is a fundamental part of their relationship in Joker's eyes. For Batman to trample upon that would be devastating for the Joker. Snyder's been building to that with the kingdom metaphors and imagery, which I've also never seen explored before. So, I don't understand the whole "unoriginal" complaint some people have been taken up with this story. Certainly Snyder's used ideas from past Joker stories in this one, but if he hadn't, more people would go in the opposite direction, that Snyder's Joker wouldn't be in character or that Snyder has no respect for what came before. Regardless of any of this, he implemented some original ideas that still hit at the core of Joker's character, or at the very least, a core aspect of Joker's character. For that, I think he did a good job in that regard. But, like I said, I haven't read too many Joker stories. Just bigger stuff that have been considered defining Joker stories, or bigger stuff that includes the Joker in the story in some manner or the other.

Anyways, I enjoyed this issue quite a bit. I wasn't expecting any major character deaths, and if there were a major death or more, I probably would have been disappointed. I'm glad Snyder didn't go for straight shock factor (even the fake faces under the dishes wasn't purely shock value; it played an important part thematically and plot-wise this issue). Besides, we all know death doesn't mean much in comics. Alfred would have came back if he had died definitely, simply because he's been with Batman for so, so long. The other characters may have stayed dead for some time, but eventually, they would have been brought back in some way. Time will tell if this story line has much lasting significance, but really, the route Snyder took things was the only real way he could have it have any lasting significance; if the members of the Bat-family are more isolated from each other over the next few years, I will definitely hold this story in high regard. Even without a lasting impact, I enjoyed it for its ideas and imagery it added to Batman and Joker's already very well developed history.

#33 Edited by End_Boss (738 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery: Yeah, no, you're just being a jerk. Of course I have every intention of purchasing this comic when it actually hits shelves. I'm a collector. I'm not going to skip buying the climax of an arc (and one that will probably have some historic significance regardless of my opinion on it) just because I wasn't a fan of how it ended. Just because I was lucky and got a sneak peek doesn't make me some horrible person.

#34 Posted by TheJester (178 posts) - - Show Bio

Not gonna lie, when I read the final panel, I actually burst out laughing. It was really one of Joker's greatest punchlines.

#35 Posted by mhanuroth (208 posts) - - Show Bio

seriously every comic that a i could read pirate i buy. Because i love to collect comics

#36 Posted by mhanuroth (208 posts) - - Show Bio

@germandinner: it was well touched on every media except in the movies for example in arkham city is well touched. Scott is saying the obvious and none can doubt about it like the origin of joker. he ruined those mysteries that make the joker character even better

#37 Posted by germandinner (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@mhanuroth: Where was it touched on in Arkham City specifically? I'm looking for as specific as possible here. Like, if it's been in every media, give me an episode of the animated series where it's directly dealt with. Or maybe just an issue or storyline from the comics. I've listed a bunch of huge Joker stories, along with huge stories that the Joker played a part of, and I don't recall it being dealt with to any major degree. TDKR dealt with it a little, but it more focused on the romantic spin to Batman's and Joker's relationship, not Joker not caring who Batman is under the cowl. I forgot to mention above that I've also read Morrison's Arkham Asylum, but I don't recall it being mentioned there, either.

#38 Posted by mhanuroth (208 posts) - - Show Bio

@germandinner: firstly in arkham city when joker captures batman.

harley its going to take off batman mask and joker says get back here Harley. Then she says But i wanna know who he is, sweetie, and joker responds No one is who do you think they are, my dear- Why spoil the fun ?

Here it s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ArRsFxVHXg.

I think there was and episode that joker say something like that but i don t remember the name . So for that one i maybe wrong but i will have to do more search.

What do you think that i said here: "Scott is saying the obvious and none can doubt about it like the origin of joker. he ruined those mysteries that make the joker character even better"

i don t know if there was an specific issue that joker said that. but that was one of mysteries of joker, That I have tell you. I reply because you said: " he implemented some original ideas that still hit at the core of Joker's character, or at the very least, a core aspect of Joker's character.". And i wanted to tell that saying the obvious isn t very original at all.

Sorry if i have a bad english and i coudn t explain what i meant to say very well

#39 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm glad they didn't kill Alfred. I view him as the one member of the family that keeps the rest of their feet on the ground. And they didn't kill Damian because read Batman Incorporated, it's coming Damian haters calm down. I think the ending would have been a lot better had it been clear Dick, Barbara and Jason didn't trust Bruce anymore. The "death" was almost too subtle compared to the rest of the arc.

#40 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@End_Boss: Never said you're horrible. Just said thieves opinions don't count for much.

#41 Posted by Humanoid (132 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery said:

@End_Boss: Never said you're horrible. Just said thieves opinions don't count for much.

Pretty sure nobodies opinion matters. All that matters is the sales.

#42 Posted by gridde (91 posts) - - Show Bio

The opinion of an obvious troll doesn't count for a lot, either. ;)

@End_Boss said:

@JonSmith: Batgirl is seen at the end of the issue, sitting by the fireplace in a comfy chair and bathrobe (DEAR GOD, THE HORROR. JOKER HAS SURELY LEFT HIS MARK.) texting Bruce her excuse for not showing up to the meet. Jason Todd is seen drinking alone in a bar. Perhaps the only person in the entire Family that was affected past the moment of crisis.

Did this happen in #17? I seem to have missed that...

#43 Posted by Humanoid (132 posts) - - Show Bio

Can someone please tell me why Joker cut his face off.

#44 Posted by Nathaniel_Christopher (1683 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmm, I am not impressed. Not with the climax, not with the Joker, and certainly not with the event itself.

That's like saying you can't judge art if you didn't paint it and/or buy it, or that you can't rate a movie you see on tv, or that you can't judge food you didn't make. In short, it doesn't make any sense. Whether a person paid for it or not, at the end of the day everyone's opinion counts for exactly the same thing, and if you agree that it's nothing unless they contributed to making it, then whether or not they paid for it is a moot point and it's therefore completely pointless for you to even mention it at all.

#45 Posted by Batnandez (511 posts) - - Show Bio

Scott is turning into the JJ Abrams of comics, all the build up for nothing. And lol to anyone who thinks he writes batman better than Morrison. I really wanted batman to kill the Joker finally, it's getting to be a little too much that he's still alive. Definitely not a bad issue but ign giving this a 10 is ridiculous and I'll be extra surprised if tony doesn't give this a perfect score.

#46 Posted by Mighty Thorion (797 posts) - - Show Bio

The psychological effects of this story arc will no doubt continue to reverberate through the Bat-titles for months to come. I am looking forward to discovering what psychological games Joker played with the mind of each member of the Bat- family as they re-live the nightmare of their capture in the issues ahead. I never thought anyone would be majorly disfigured or killed in this issue. The family has "died" not in the usual trite comic book way in which a character is killed off only to be brought back 6 months later; but in terms of its trust, relationships and cohesion. Any family surely needs those things to function.

#47 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@Nathaniel_Christopher: Not at all.

If you sneak into the museum without paying, you're failing to support the art form.

I could care less what anyone has to say about this comic...today. Once they've actually purchased it and contributed to the production of the comic.

Anyone can say anything they want...but if they're not supporting the content by buying it, who cares.

#48 Posted by Batnandez (511 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery: I've got a subscription and I peeked so what? I technically already bought it.

#49 Posted by Strider92 (16756 posts) - - Show Bio

Feel very underwhelmed and a little disappointed.

#50 Posted by batshrine (1000 posts) - - Show Bio

@Crash_Recovery said:

@Nathaniel_Christopher: Not at all.

If you sneak into the museum without paying, you're failing to support the art form.

I could care less what anyone has to say about this comic...today. Once they've actually purchased it and contributed to the production of the comic.

Anyone can say anything they want...but if they're not supporting the content by buying it, who cares.

I agree with Crash_Recovery that if you haven't paid for it and are reading it illegally then your opinion although still exists, I could give a crap about it.

@Batnandez: And as far as your situation you already bought it, so thats cool with me. It's people who haven't bought it, and won't that bug me.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.