Six Developments from BATMAN #0

  • 100 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by G-Man (30226 posts) - - Show Bio

Pretty much everyone knows Batman's origin and the story of how he became the Dark Knight. His parents were killed in front of him when he was a child. He vowed vengeance against evil. He traveled the world to train his mind and body to reach perfection. He returned to Gotham City and became a masked vigilante after being inspired to take on the form of a bat.

With the New 52, we have seen some changes and tweaks in the origins of characters. It turns out there is a little more to Batman's story. The details now revealed offer insight into the little moments in between what we already knew. Some are clarifications while others are brand new facts we can now see unfold.

There will indeed be spoilers for BATMAN #0. We won't give away everything. You will definitely want to buy this issue for yourself to see how the history of Batman (and Robins, plural) unfolds in the New 52.

== TEASER ==

The Red Hood Gang

The existence of the Red Hood Gang isn't new. We've seen them before and we know Joker was involved. The telling in THE KILLING JOKE made it so the 'leader' wore the helmet but that person was really meant to take the heat if the police arrived. Joker wore it and was meant to be a patsy. Of course whether or not that was his true origin was left vague as Joker admitted he sometimes got his facts incorrect. In the original first appearance in DETECTIVE COMICS #168, "Red Hood" was also revealed to be the Joker who eluded Batman and Robin for a bit.

In this issue, the leader has a slightly modified helmet. He does appear to be fully in control of the other "Red Hoods" in the gang. That marks another difference, everyone in the gang wears a red mask. If the Red Hood here is indeed Joker, he's not the sniveling sop that was portrayed in THE KILLING JOKE. They're a deadly crew. Killing is not an issue and Bruce has made it his mission to try to stop them.

Batman and his Gadgets

This was a time before Bruce even came up with the Batman guise. He has a pretty fancy looking motorcycle used to get away when things heat up. There's also a ton of equipment (see image below) that shows the beginning of his arsenal.

Bruce has been busy in gathering the tools he'd need to fight crime. Because he's just starting out, he needs to be careful with what he uses. Later when Gordon visits Bruce, he mentions the mysterious vigilante using some serious tech.

Bruce Lived in the City Rather than the Manor

In DETECTIVE COMICS #0, we witnessed Bruce Wayne returning to Wayne Manor where Alfred was tending to everything. Here we find out Bruce has decided not to live in the mansion.

As Bruce prepares his 'war' against crime, he felt it was essential to live in a brownstone in Crime Alley, where his parents were killed. It did allow him to be closer to the city but also added another element to arouse suspicion over why rich Bruce Wayne would choose to stay there instead of his mansion.

Bruce Wayne was the Mask Already

We all know that Batman is the real identity and Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman is who he is. Even before that fateful night when Bruce is pondering what was the extra thing he needs to bring fear to the criminal scum and he discovers a bat, Bruce Wayne was already gone. It could be said that Bruce Wayne did die Crime Alley the same night his parents did.

If this is the case, who did he consider himself? Batman wasn't officially born just yet. But he clearly knew that he wasn't Bruce Wayne.

Gordon Was Suspicious of Bruce

Bruce was away from Gotham for four years. When he came back, Bruce Wayne didn't make too many appearances. Moving to Crime Alley and not getting involved in Wayne Enterprises made people, Gordon included, wonder what Bruce was doing with all his time. The fact that there was a vigilante with big resources easily made Bruce a likely suspect. Gordon warned Bruce that anyone discovered to know anything about the vigilante or offering aide would go to prison as a public example.

What we don't know is what made Gordon change his tune to becoming Batman's biggest supporter (perhaps the events from BATMAN: YEAR ONE).

"Five Years Ago" - What Were the Robins Up to?

We finally have clarification on how long there has been a Robin.

Five years ago, there weren't any. Dick Grayson was still at Haly's Circus, getting ready for the weekend performance where the rich and famous Bruce Wayne would be attending.

Jason Todd is trying to survive on the streets and has resorted to robbing convenience stores with a buddy (it doesn't go well).

Tim Drake is a top student at Graystone Academy. He's clearly brilliant and very tech savvy. He has no problem standing up to authority as well as carrying out a certain sense of justice.

This isn't everything that happens in the issue. There's also a conversation between Barbara Gordon and her father that should be checked out. The first use of the Bat-Signal is here as well. It seems rather than have so many current Batman titles, we could benefit and enjoy a series taking place in the past (as I suggested in December 2011).

The zero issues are showing that there is a lot of history that could be explored and clarified. Perhaps someday we'll get all the answers we're looking for.

Tony Guerrero is the Editor-in-Chief of Comic Vine. You can follow him on Twitter @GManFromHeck. Most likely there are events in his past five years that are unknown...only because he's forgotten about them.

Staff Online
#1 Posted by feebadger (1405 posts) - - Show Bio

Not sure how i feel about this retcon. Partly feels made up as it goes along and partly really exciting. The New 52 has confused me. Loving it and hating it in equal measures.

#2 Posted by saoakden (1009 posts) - - Show Bio

Jason Todd 5 years ago looks like he was a part of the Red Hood gang. His mask looks like Deadpool's to me. So this issue takes place before Justice League good to know. SO does that mean Dick was Robin when Darkseid's invasion happened 5 years ago?

#3 Posted by Vincie_Pooh (109 posts) - - Show Bio

Glad they talked about Tim Drake. Red Hood gang. Sounds like a good costume idea for next years comic Con 2013.

#4 Posted by RedX9 (75 posts) - - Show Bio

This was a good issue, but I wasn't a big fan of how they abruptly ended the main story. But also, while there wasn't a Robin even 5 years ago, it just further makes us question how long any of these boys were a Robin. They are clearly shown to be in there mid teens. Tim had to be 12 to 13 at the most with the other two somewhere at 15 to 16. But still it wouldn't change the idea that if these guys were under the teachings of Bruce Wayne, they would have to be under his wing for a long long loooong duration of time for them to be trained in the ninja arts the same way Bruce was.

#5 Posted by TheMess1428 (2176 posts) - - Show Bio

5 years for 3 Robins? Eh...

#6 Posted by Metron144 (102 posts) - - Show Bio

well at least they solve the issue with batman effectively raising three boys to adulthood without aging himself.

#7 Posted by BoyWander (318 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know how I feel about all the robins happening in 5 years. That's barely enough time for bat's to know them well. Don't know how he'd take Jason's death if he'd only known him for a year or so. I'll definately go pick up this issue.

#8 Posted by theTimeStreamer (2841 posts) - - Show Bio

winging it. nice dc. really nice.

#9 Edited by DarthShap (874 posts) - - Show Bio

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

#10 Posted by Green ankh (998 posts) - - Show Bio

I get that the New 52 was meant to bring new readers on. And we sure need that since each time im in my comic shop there are no young people. At 45 i seem to be the average age of creaders. I wonder how the "younger" fans see this all. i was always a now and then Batman reader and the only New 52 Bat-book i read is Dark Knight. I just don't get into the others. I am a big Superman fan and i can't read the new books. With Batman i find there seems to be a "something" missing. Maybe i have been reading to long.

#11 Posted by redbird3rdboywonder (3808 posts) - - Show Bio

5 years isnt enough. This is just really stupid

#12 Posted by BatWatch (2349 posts) - - Show Bio

@BoyWander:

Actually, in the old continuity, Jason only had about a year with Batman. It was only about a year since the time he was introduced (post-Crisis) and the time he died.

@RedX9 said:

This was a good issue, but I wasn't a big fan of how they abruptly ended the main story. But also, while there wasn't a Robin even 5 years ago, it just further makes us question how long any of these boys were a Robin. They are clearly shown to be in there mid teens. Tim had to be 12 to 13 at the most with the other two somewhere at 15 to 16. But still it wouldn't change the idea that if these guys were under the teachings of Bruce Wayne, they would have to be under his wing for a long long loooong duration of time for them to be trained in the ninja arts the same way Bruce was.

Very true. The time table for all of the Robins between time their training started and time they entered the field is about six months. If that were still to hold true, you are not even looking at a five year time span. You're looking at three and a half years.

#13 Posted by Shotgun (900 posts) - - Show Bio

@psychoknights Can you find me the scans which shows that Jason only spent one year with Batman?

#14 Posted by TomHunter (30 posts) - - Show Bio

I was under the impression that the JLA was formed five years ago but that some of the heroes had been around a bit longer. I prefer to think that Bruce was Batman for 3-5 years before the JLA formed. SO in that 8-10 year period is when Dick, Tim, and Jason were involved as Robins of one type or another.

#15 Posted by StMichalofWilson (3613 posts) - - Show Bio

Snyder is really doing the Batman series...JUSTICE!(forget the pun)

#16 Posted by Splinx (5 posts) - - Show Bio

The 5-6 six year time line is just way to restricting. We were told from the start that superman was the first publicly known superhero with batman and GL operating in secret before that. That gave us at least a little bit of wiggle room. With Bats operating for 5ish years before the JL is formed you substantial time to train/raise three robins, dick to leave and become his own man, jason to die and come back, and tim to . . . do whatever it is that he does now. Also it would give you Bruce as Batman the chance to conceive damian 11ish years ago, since that was JUST stated to have happened in Batman and Robin.

#17 Posted by BatWatch (2349 posts) - - Show Bio

@Shotgun said:

@psychoknights Can you find me the scans which shows that Jason only spent one year with Batman?

No. I don't scan. What I can show you is this. http://www.comicvine.com/batman/49-796/?page=16

Jason was reintroduced after COIE in Batman 409. He did not become Robin until Batman 411. In Batman 411, he says he has been training for six months.

http://www.comicvine.com/batman/49-796/?page=15

Sixteen months later (in real time), Jason bites the big one. I suppose one could argue that these sixteen months of comics represent much more time in the comic world, but they should really count as much less than their actual time of production. I mean, after all, Tim Drake was introduced almost immediately after this plotline, and if comic time moves month for month with real time, then Tim would be thirty-seven by the end of the DCU.

If you give some more time to Jason for his pre-COIE appearances, then I think it is fair to give Jason about ten months months as Robin plus another six months in training. However, I've heard that post-Flashpoint, he is supposed to have been Robin for two years which really screws up the timetable.

#18 Posted by zombietag (1487 posts) - - Show Bio

no way that red hood is joker. his chin is way too big and bulky. normally i would say that doesnt mean anything, but capullo made big efforts to make sure lincoln looked like bruce. so i dont think thats joker

#19 Posted by TheMess1428 (2176 posts) - - Show Bio

After reading Detective Comics #0, Batman #0, Batgirl #0, and Batman and Robin #0, I have effectively come up with the question, if Bruce Wayne operated as Batman for roughly 6 years and met Damian on his 10th birthday a year and half ago, how is it possible for him to have a child with Talia before he even starts training and for her to raise him to be good enough for him?

#21 Posted by Barkley (270 posts) - - Show Bio

really it s 6 years ago...the new 52 has been around a year now..theses stories should be 6yyears ago it was five when the new52 started....1 plus 5 is 6

#22 Posted by Luster77 (137 posts) - - Show Bio

i could have sworn that the new 52 stated that Batman and the Green Lantern Universes were left untouched in the current continuity. Giving these 2 Universes that 5yr stretch does there History no good. If the Batman Universe is left untouched, the current history should remain credible and everything has happened as it should, that way we wont be left scratching our heads trying to figure out what events took place and when.

#23 Posted by Webjaker (366 posts) - - Show Bio

I despise the 5-Year thing as much as you do. This issue was really good and the back-up was amazing. I loved seeing all the Bat-Family (- a few of course) and what they were doing back then.

#24 Posted by ltbrd (557 posts) - - Show Bio

I get why DC is trying to set a five year limit to things. They want the heroes to be younger so they can be relatable to new readers.

Just one question.

When was Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman ever relatable to young readers? Particularly Superman and Batman. When Supes was introduced in 1939 he was already in his 30's or so (at least by how he's drawn) and Batman was an adult as well. Wonder Woman was probably the only true relatable character because young girls could picture themselves growing into confident women. You can't picture yourself growing into Superman.

But these characters were not meant to be relatable in the sense of the reader feeling an age bond to them. They were meant to represent ideals and specific aspects of human culture and storytelling. It was the introduction of Robin and Batgirl or the use of titles like Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen that were meant to give the reader more relatability and seeing younger characters interacting in this fantastic world.

Obviously, this idea doesn't hold true for every character. As much as I hated what they did to Spider-Man in Brand New Day, the idea actually makes sense when you consider that Spider-Man was specifically created to show that a teenager could be a stand-alone superhero and not just a sidekick. He was intended to be younger so that younger readers could relate to his personal life troubles. So while I personally feel the idea of OMD and BND are crap, it did return the character to his original concepts.

But Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and so many other DC characters weren't meant to be that way. If these characters being older turned readers away than Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns would have been an epic failure, nobody would like Wolverine or the Punisher, get all excited when a movie like The Expendables is made (come on, even if you won't admit it publicly you actually enjoyed both films just for there sheer ridiculousness and ability to poke fun at the action movie genre), been upset when writers end marriages like Peter/MJ and Clark/Lois, or made the JSA titles the success they were even with old guys like Jay Garrick and Ted Grant (miss those two in New Earth continuity)

Age is not turning away young readers. Nobody cares that Superman and Batman are in their mid to late 30's. We are reading these stories for the thrill, the excitement, the suspense, the disbelief. We aren't reading them because we want to know if Batman has the same problems as us or Superman is unsure about his place in the world. DC tried that before in the 70's and early 80's and it near ruined these characters.

Yes, give us some young characters. Robins, Nightwing, Teen Titans, Static, Legion of Super-Heroes, Supergirl (though I would have preferred new 52 have Power Girl, not the Earth-2 version, instead), Superboy.........all perfectly acceptable to being young and problem driven and striving to find their place in the world. But not those that are supposed to be the benchmark. Part of what made sidekicks and young heroes a great idea was that they had a peak to strive to and we loved reading about them making their way to the levels of the Justice League and similar standing.

#25 Posted by EdBlank (492 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheMess1428 : Here's the answer... this s*** doesn't make sense.

#26 Posted by SmashBrawler (5415 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

Only one of these sounds like a valid complaint, to be honest.

  1. It's obvious that Year One wasn't going to be canon forever. You sound like the people who complained back in 1987 that the Batman origin story shouldn't be altered in any way.
  2. Why should Snyder care when the Red Hood shows up? It's just some petty crook (or crooks) with a vague connection to the Joker. Just because Moore used the concept in the Killing Joke doesn't mean it's untouchable.
  3. Agreed. 5 years isn't nearly enough for so many Robins.
#27 Posted by danhimself (22210 posts) - - Show Bio

@saoakden said:

Jason Todd 5 years ago looks like he was a part of the Red Hood gang. His mask looks like Deadpool's to me. So this issue takes place before Justice League good to know. SO does that mean Dick was Robin when Darkseid's invasion happened 5 years ago?

no....there was a flashback in Nightwing #4 showing Dick at the circus four years ago...so Dick didn't become Robin until after the Justice League was formed

Online
#28 Posted by danhimself (22210 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

Year One was retconned the second that DC put the 5 year gap into play....if Year One was still cannon then James Jr. would be 6

Online
#29 Posted by EpicMeltDown (64 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself: So based on this there have been 4 Robins in 4 years. 2 of those years Jason Todd was Robin. Therefore, every Tim Drake story and every Damian story happened last year, at most. That is ridiculous. Especially when you consider that due to Damian's continued existence and the publication of Batman Inc you can't really throw out any of Morrison's run.

I'm excited for the day that someone retcons this into something a bit more sensible. I get that right now everybody at DC has to tow the company line but I hope in a few years somebody fixes this.

#30 Posted by htb106 (1641 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheMess1428: And how is it possible for Damian to still be ten years old?

#31 Posted by Trodorne (2569 posts) - - Show Bio

Way to go DC. You had one job and one job only. Have batman's background make sense in the new 52.... you may have told a good story for batman but you systematically screwed over the robins in this time line. STOP TRYING TO MAKE BRUCE IN THIS 20'S! it does not work. have him in his early 30's already. it makes a better explanation to the robins working with him for several years and a better build up to why Dick wanted to leave the manor, and Jason had time to build up his anger and get taken down by the joker.

This is why Marvel often kills you guys in characters because they are better at doing character stories. You guys are always focused on the main story and not the effect it has on the characters.

#32 Posted by sweetesttoaster (144 posts) - - Show Bio

They should have made it 10 years. Thats like 2 years going solo from the start (Year One period), then have Dick Grayson for 2-3 years, then Jason Todd for 2 years, then Tim Drake for 2 years, then still have time to account for Dick being Batman for a year, then the return of Bruce and the formation Batman Inc, and then the current stories. This also helps with development of Damian's character, for he is around ten years old. And Batman could have been a myth for the first 5 years and then become public when Justice League began.

Bam! Just solved continuity

#33 Edited by Or35ti (1101 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheMess1428 said:

After reading Detective Comics #0, Batman #0, Batgirl #0, and Batman and Robin #0, I have effectively come up with the question, if Bruce Wayne operated as Batman for roughly 6 years and met Damian on his 10th birthday a year and half ago, how is it possible for him to have a child with Talia before he even starts training and for her to raise him to be good enough for him?

Maybe they met beforehand. Either way it's comics, it shouldn't be so hard to find an explanation even if it is impossibly far-fetched.

I really like ow this book deals with the development of Batman's war on crime. It reminds me of Batman Begins

#34 Posted by YMCMB (160 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman has been in operation for 6 years but Bruce knocked up Talia in a Batman suit 11.5 years ago?! DC needs to just admit they screwed up and give Batman a 12 year timeline, age 32

#35 Posted by fps_dean (255 posts) - - Show Bio

@StMichalofWilson said:

Snyder is really doing the Batman series...JUSTICE!(forget the pun)

understatement of the century? :)

#36 Posted by Tyrannotaur (288 posts) - - Show Bio

I really enjoyed the issue, I just think that they maybe should have extended the timeline a year or two. 5-6 years doesn't really give enough time for Dick, Tim, Jason and Barbara all to have training under Bruce. Granted in Batgirl #0 we do see that Dick and Barbara worked together. Maybe there was some of that going on? Since Tim isn't technically a robin, according to Scott Lobdell at least, maybe there was a time when Tim was Red Robin and Jason was Robin. That would make it a bit more believable for Bruce to train 3 boys to be Robin in 5 years. Also except for Jason they all seem to have some skills in acrobatics and/or detective work. I would assume Dick and Tim picked up the training rather easily. Giving them both a year or so each to operate as Robin and then giving Jason a bit of time as well is a bit of a tight squeeze but it is doable. DC would have been better to say it was 8 years, but I understand they want to try to keep Bruce as young as possible. Still great issue overall.

#37 Posted by MadRooster81 (182 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not too bothered by the 5 year time line. I mean this issue clearly states that all 3 were Robins at some point. Maybe not as equally long. It's a comic book so I can overlook the tightness of the timeline if I'm going to buy that men can fly and run really fast.

#38 Posted by r3d_rob1n (541 posts) - - Show Bio

Where is everyone getting the whole Jason was Robin for 2 years bit? Are there scans somewhere that say this? I think Dick had the longest tenure (maybe 2 years) Jason was probably only around for 1 year (he wasn't as extensively trained which probably played a role in his death), Tim then jumps on for a year and a half, Dick then becomes Batman with Damian as his Robin for 6 months while Tim searches the globe as Red Robin. Then Batman #1 picks up in New 52 with Bruce and Damian's first mission together being Nobody and Court of Owls. This would fit the 5 year timeline for Robins, and while I don't think it is as much time as is necessary, you can make it work.

#39 Posted by DarthShap (874 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself said:

@DarthShap said:

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

Year One was retconned the second that DC put the 5 year gap into play....if Year One was still cannon then James Jr. would be 6

True but that was just crappy timeline. DC was not actively changing elements of the story.

#40 Posted by ThanosIsMad (2191 posts) - - Show Bio

@ApatheticAvenger said:

@TheMess1428 said:

After reading Detective Comics #0, Batman #0, Batgirl #0, and Batman and Robin #0, I have effectively come up with the question, if Bruce Wayne operated as Batman for roughly 6 years and met Damian on his 10th birthday a year and half ago, how is it possible for him to have a child with Talia before he even starts training and for her to raise him to be good enough for him?

Magic.

Pretty much, which is why I ignore everything and consider Batman to be operating on a 12 year timeline. Gives him two years to work alone and 10 years for everything else.

#41 Posted by wessaari (621 posts) - - Show Bio

@r3d_rob1n: red hood and the outlaws issue number 1. roy tells jason, you were with batman for two years.

#42 Posted by r3d_rob1n (541 posts) - - Show Bio

@wessaari: Thanks. I don't read RHTO, so I missed that one. Kind of seems like too much time being given to Jason though. I doubt he even had 2 years as Robin pre-Flashpoint. I like that icon btw

#43 Posted by DarthShap (874 posts) - - Show Bio

@SmashBrawler said:

@DarthShap said:

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

Only one of these sounds like a valid complaint, to be honest.

  1. It's obvious that Year One wasn't going to be canon forever. You sound like the people who complained back in 1987 that the Batman origin story shouldn't be altered in any way.
  2. Why should Snyder care when the Red Hood shows up? It's just some petty crook (or crooks) with a vague connection to the Joker. Just because Moore used the concept in the Killing Joke doesn't mean it's untouchable.
  3. Agreed. 5 years isn't nearly enough for so many Robins.

1)Why should it be obvious? Unlike Superman and Wonder-Woman, Batman never had to go through a reboot, even with the New 52. Considering that Year One is one of DC's best selling TPBs and as such, probably the most common introduction to the comic book character, that it is widely recognized as one of the best comic books of all time, it would make all the sense in the world to keep it. Have you noticed that in the post-crisis pre-New 52 era, Superman had at least three different origin stories while Batman kept the same one. There is a reason for that.

Also, there is a huge difference between writing a new origin story (what Miller did) and just messing with elements from an established origin story (what Snyder is doing right now). If Snyder wants to write his own origin story, fine by me. I know for sure that he will never be able to top Miller's. But that is not what he is doing. He is just changing and adding elements that do not fit with the existing story.

2) He should care because before Batman came along, Gotham was just a city filled with crime and corruption. With the arrival of Batman, the nature of crime changed and supervillains appeared in response to Batman. That is one of the core elements of the Batman mythos.

#44 Posted by SmashBrawler (5415 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarthShap said:

@SmashBrawler said:

@DarthShap said:

Snyder should not be RetConning Year One. It is a perfect story which should be left alone. Snyder already messed up pre-Batman Gotham by introducing pre-Batman supervillains with the Court of Owls (and he does it again here with the Red Hood, who should only appear AFTER Batman's first appearance). Now he is touching the very storyline when he really should not.

Also, the back-up was basically showing us just how dumb the new timeline is.

Only one of these sounds like a valid complaint, to be honest.

  1. It's obvious that Year One wasn't going to be canon forever. You sound like the people who complained back in 1987 that the Batman origin story shouldn't be altered in any way.
  2. Why should Snyder care when the Red Hood shows up? It's just some petty crook (or crooks) with a vague connection to the Joker. Just because Moore used the concept in the Killing Joke doesn't mean it's untouchable.
  3. Agreed. 5 years isn't nearly enough for so many Robins.

1)Why should it be obvious? Unlike Superman and Wonder-Woman, Batman never had to go through a reboot, even with the New 52. Considering that Year One is one of DC's best selling TPBs and as such, probably the most common introduction to the comic book character, that it is widely recognized as one of the best comic books of all time, it would make all the sense in the world to keep it. Have you noticed that in the post-crisis pre-New 52 era, Superman had at least three different origin stories while Batman kept the same one. There is a reason for that.

Also, there is a huge difference between writing a new origin story (what Miller did) and just messing with elements from an established origin story (what Snyder is doing right now). If Snyder wants to write his own origin story, fine by me. I know for sure that he will never be able to top Miller's. But that is not what he is doing. He is just changing and adding elements that do not fit with the existing story.

2) He should care because before Batman came along, Gotham was just a city filled with crime and corruption. With the arrival of Batman, the nature of crime changed and supervillains appeared in response to Batman. That is one of the core elements of the Batman mythos.

OK, now I agree. Thanks for the explanation. I guess Snyder is either afraid of fan backlash or he's setting up a new origin the Geoff Johns way: retcons first, full story later.

#45 Posted by RedOwl_1 (1664 posts) - - Show Bio

F*ck this timeline, as much as I love comic books there's just four words that defines my thoughts about this timeline: I DON'T F*CKING CARE!!!

(Not any more at least, because when I cared I got frustrated of how stupid and illogical it is, I think this #0 month is messing up more the f*cking timeline than making us understand it, still origin stories are good if you ignore the timeline)

#46 Posted by Dark_Vengeance_ (14586 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheMess1428: I assumed it happened during his training days.....

#47 Posted by Winken Goodfellow (6 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Batman has to be at least in his thirties just for the fact of having an 11-year old son. Yes, it's possible to father children before your twenties. Do I think Batman, the man who plans everything, would do so? No, I do not. There's just something so wrong about thinking about Batman having a child at, I dunno, 17, and that's putting him in his LATE twenties. Can you imagine him knocking up Talia at 15? I sure as hell can't.

#48 Edited by TheMess1428 (2176 posts) - - Show Bio

@htb106 said:

@TheMess1428: And how is it possible for Damian to still be ten years old?

He's 11 now. It said 1 and a half year ago was his 10th birthday. He's 11 and a half.

@ThanosIsMad said:

@ApatheticAvenger said:

@TheMess1428 said:

After reading Detective Comics #0, Batman #0, Batgirl #0, and Batman and Robin #0, I have effectively come up with the question, if Bruce Wayne operated as Batman for roughly 6 years and met Damian on his 10th birthday a year and half ago, how is it possible for him to have a child with Talia before he even starts training and for her to raise him to be good enough for him?

Magic.

Pretty much, which is why I ignore everything and consider Batman to be operating on a 12 year timeline. Gives him two years to work alone and 10 years for everything else.

I wish.

@DarkKnightDetective said:

@TheMess1428: I assumed it happened during his training days.....

That wouldn't make any sense based on the story in Detective Comics #0 where he learns not to fall in love. He wouldn't have done anything with Talia.

#49 Posted by DrThanos91 (63 posts) - - Show Bio

at first when i saw this article i was a little skeptical,but I'm kinda liking the little changes as long as it goes to the plot/story that is batman,so far it appears rather intriguing!

#50 Posted by fodigg (6130 posts) - - Show Bio

So how long ago was this? It had to be prior to Justice League, but the Robins don't look that young. I do like that they imply the Robins were already fighting crime before they became Robin however. That's a clever way of addressing the time crunch.

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.