This is such idiot writing. How could they not talk much post-resurrection and yet be close as brothers? Its not like Tim was around pre-resurrection. ?????????
Nwing77's forum posts
Dick Grayson has killed the Joker in actual continuity. No Elseworld, no dream sequence, he just beat him to death in the Last Laugh storyline. Joker was resuscitated to prevent Nightwing from being a murderer.
So the question, OP, is not whether Damian or any other Robin can kill the Joker. I'm sure they could. It's whether DC is going think up some contrived way to keep the Joker hanging around.
Lobdell is clearly setting up Tim's parents to be killed. It makes perfect sense with the interview he gave regarding Death of the Family. He made some comments about a change of approach with Jason and Tim after getting brought in on Snyder's plans with the Joker.
I suspect the whole restoration of the 'Drake' family is only temporary and meant to put Tim through some dark, psychological torture; same for Jason and his retooled origin. The Joker crossover will apparently have a deep impact on every Bat member.
What I'm a bit disappointed in when it comes to Barbra Gordon. It was her time as Oracle that she didn't just fade into the background and become a token disabled character. She stood out of the shadow that comes with being a member of the Bat Family to become her own hero. Dick Grayson did become Nightwing, but still remained in Batman's shadow. Barbra became a power broker on her own.
Check yourself. Dick Grayson was the first sidekick/supporting character to successfully transcend beyond a legacy role and a prominent flagship title. Most characters run the risk of fading into obscurity once leaving an iconic mantle, but Dick made a name for himself OUTSIDE the Batbooks, and against Bruce's wishes, for over ten years. A little series, you've might of heard it... called Titans. And it was DC's premiere team book for a while, often outselling the X-men.
We can all appreciate that Babs found similar success with Oracle and Birds of Prey, but let's not overlook that others did before her as well.
Speaking of Barbara Gordon and BoP, the only reservation I have with this permanent team-up is that I'm really loving the current dynamic between Black Canary and Starling, especially now with the addition of Katana. Eve is delightful and the last two issues have been a blast to read. BoP feels like a fun adventure again and I don't want the baggage and weird continuity that Babs has going for her right now to throw that off. It's odd saying that because Babs and the Birds should feel natural. However, while some things have withstood the reboot, other areas are a strong reflection of what's changed in the DCnU. This is one of them. Babs does feel significantly different in her own book, and even though Dinah still reads like Dinah, she's now's turned toward a different direction with a new crew and a new type of chemistry.
It really is a shame that editorial didn't communicate better with Gail on this development, as she could've preemptively smoothed the details of Babs impending role with BoP in Batgirl [timeline, capabilities, etc.].
Sorry 'Babs', you kind of lost me a little when you took one panel from Schism to reduce that entire storyline as
"...Cyclops and Wolverine at each others' throats (over a woman who has been dead for the last 7 years), what does it mean for the leadership and future of the X-Men?"
But that seems par the course for much of this article.
I agree that Emma's characterization and BAMF status has taken a severe backseat under Fraction's pen, but many have been making this argument for nearly two years now without interpreting it as Cyclops still longing for his ex-wife. In fact, the more accurate comparison between the two heroines is that Emma has now become the new "Jean" in Cyke's narrative, which is indicative that every woman that Scott Summers has been with from Jean, to Maddie, and Emma have shared this same problem.
Cyclops is a hero that was not created with many unique innovations beyond the cliches of the leader stereotype. He was given these overly epic and romantized storylines that would influence the entire X-universe, but in my opinion, was something to supplement a lack of personality and charisma a 'main character' should have. When Jean was brought back after her poignant sacrifice in the Phoenix Saga, her character would spend the next two decades being absorbed into Scott's family/future drama. In almost every X-event, she was prominantly featured, but never truly an actual player in anything that unfolded around her--even her own 'children'.
Nowadays, even though Scott's characterization has gone through a post-Morrison renaissance and he actually draws interest under his own merit as an Xman, there is still the issue with using his relationship [with Emma in this case] as a prop or a cheerleader in his own exploits. Whedon was able to balance this dynamic quite well, giving both characters room to flex, but Fraction has done more to reverse this and downplay much of what Emma added to Scott's development. Its not like Scott suddenly became this intriguing characer ALL on his own. He had certain events and people in his life that allowed him to break a mold that for years held him back.
So to me, the problem is more Scott Summers or simply a writer's ability to interpret the character well.
In the classic sense, there has always been moments when Wolverine challenged Cyclop's leadership, Jean not even a factor. However, I always felt those scenes were written as token or more to amplify his introduction to the Xmen as a rebel, loner arrogant upstart, and ornery bastard against the less charismatic and completely cliche characterization of Scott Summers role as leader of the group. Unfortune that he would spend most of his character's lifetime written that way.
So, imagine my surprise, when I read 'Schism' and learn that there's this growing rift/resentment between Wolverine and Cyclops. Maybe I missed something, but it felt like it came completely out of nowhere; especially, since I was under the assumption that the two were on the same page.
Within the last almost ten years, Cyclops has been reimagined to be a more flawed and forceful figure in the X-books. Being played up as a Batman like strategist which was never a focus with him before. Prior to the Messiah storyline, he was getting some well earned praised as a leader. As Messiah and Second Coming unfolded, you see the frissures of his leadership as Storm, Beast, Karma, etc begin to question his objectives and costs.
Logan got pissed for bit over the loss of Kurt, but as a soldier, I suppose, he understood and still provided his loyalty. Cyke's change in temperment and idealistic methods may have even played into Logan's more suppressed to desire to cut loose. This time before Schism truly was a 'lovefest' and something that could be described as the two being at their agreeable with each other.
However, I believe seeds were being planted with Wolverine's eventual discord. Yes, X-23 was a factor, so was his growing relationship with the younger mutants that were under his watch. If it wasn't evident how much this 'war' took its toll on the younger generation of mutants, you were also beginning to see the impact of them isolating themselves on the island. Attitudes about who they are and why they should fear themselves started to emerge. There is a scene with Logan and Idie, where Idie comments that she is monster to be feared, that is why they are where they are right now. This stunned Logan because you can see on his face that he thought all their efforts was doing something positive for these kids.
That scene is a very significant plot point, imo. Its probably the first time Logan truly thought about Chuck's message in a way that had nothing to do with improving himself and being a "better man". He can now see it as something bigger than himself.
To me, that was your loaded gun and Idie's breakdown a cocking back of the pin. I'm interested to see what the final pull of the trigger is in the upcoming battle royale. I don't think either character is meant to be completely in the right. There's a lot of interpretable gray areas when you consider the threats they're up against verses the longer strategic aim of trying to build a future and intergrate a society.
To everyone arguing how its hypocritical for Wolverine to be against killing AND leading X-Force: you're missing the point.
Logan isn't pissed at Scott because he created his own little death force; the man understands lethal neccessity. It's that Scott's cold logic about what needed be done was making killers out of young kids or others who are just NOT suited to take a life.
This is honestly were Cyke f***ed up. First with having X-23 do his dirty work, then with Idie. In fact, you are deliberately made to see the pyschological fallout with Idie as the writer shows her with manifestations of PTSD. The whole cannon fodder aspect of teams like New Mutants and the loss of Nightcrawler may be a factor too. However, the whole point of Wolverine leading X-Force is that he believes you should give the killing to the killers. To put the right folks on the right bus, as Logan has come to see this threshhold as something one has to be willing to do, not forced to do or brought into it misguidedly.
I mean look at the current X-Force roster for crying out loud--you're talking individuals who already come to this cause with extreme prejudice, either personal in grudge or by their own nature. And if there is any character who knows about accepting or fighting one's nature, it's Logan. Its been a consistant theme of his.
His duality has been effectively explored from both points of views, but now I think we are going to see a third characterization arise from this mess. One that still believes in Charlie's dream, that protects human life, but accepts his role in the less noble side of business. Its neither Chuck or Magneto in the larger paradigm, but it allows Cyclops and other X-teams to get back to the roots of their former purpose.
This book is overrated.
Annoying dialogue ("Oh there you are my babies, you been bad babies, you are gonna get it, you bad babies you. Deserve a span-"SHUTUP!!!!!) (Oh, and Gothem, bless my aim), and just a goofy cliffhanger.
Really, I think this book is riding the insane Batgirl and Simone hype for people to see it could be better. Don't encourage something that's decent as amazing. Say that it could be better!
Couldn't agree more. While there are some qualities of this book that are subjective in taste, there are FAR more technical executions of this issue that were universally bad.
The plot is average, which is fine, but the ending itself is so ridiculous that you see this whole endevour as an attempt to stir up drama so Babs can have a 'conflict' to overcome, no matter how fake or insincere it comes off. There was also a failure to introduce supporting characters in a clear way. The roomate is actually given in name--but you really have to look for it.
And OMG, the dialogue! Geezus, never has prose been this choppy, cheesy, distracting, and full of fragmented stream of thought nonsense that clogs up the page. Some panels you couldn't tell if she was talking, talking presently or in the past, or if the whole thing was a thought bubble, because quoted dialogue was also being put into the narrative boxes--and yes the babies/Momma talk is just stupidly corny... Dick or Stephanie wouldn't talk like that, and that's saying something.
Personally, I think Gail is well intentioned with Babs, but her love for this character and her ego tied into how she's percieved by fans [she's smarter than Bruce, she's Batman's star pupil!] has truly swallowed her whole. She has done better work than what was delivered here. I can guess that maybe she was rushed, but there are some amateur problems with how this debut story unfolded.
I really can't buy into this book. I have no issues with Barbara Gordon being healed and mobile, especially if the transition is done tastefully and enhances her narrative.
Its the whole going back to Batgirl I find completely needless and tacky. If DC truly believed the conceit that her former iconic status was necessary for the role, then why isn't Dick Grayson back as Robin? Because it would be stupid and there's some things that even a talented writer like Gail can't gap.
The writing shown in the preview seems pretty generic so far. Although, that maybe because its an "origin story".