roboadmiral's forum posts
Terry McGinnis all the way. Unlike all the others, he's not a longtime apprentice. The job wasn't handed down to him as a matter of inheritance. His Batman was born the only way a true Batman can be-- in the wake of tragedy with a furious thirst for justice and vengeance. The other's could wear the suit for a time and even do it well, but for all of them it was just a costume, a thing taken from Bruce and not truly their own. Terry becomes the next Batman without reservation or exception.
While I voted for Lee, I'm actually quite pleased at how close Capullo was. Often it seems in comics that we think the best days of our medium are behind us, that the masterworks have already been made and that the most we can hope of modern creators is to be a fading reflection of the past. For so many to vote earnestly that the best Batman ever drawn is the one being drawn right now is incredibly heartening.
Batman Begins by a country mile. Not that I didn't like the Dark Knight Rises. Even including the much lauded Dark Knight, Batman Begins is my favorite of the trilogy. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the best movie of the three, but it is my favorite. The stand out factor is that it seems to be the only one where Batman actually wants to be Batman.
The first article I don't necessarily disagree with (at least not completely) but it does very much rub me the wrong way. I'm always a bit perturbed when someone tries to chastise fellow enthusiasts for enjoying comics (or anything) in the "wrong" way. The activist type approach is particularly bothersome in how it treats comic readers as though they have some sort of responsibility to the comic industry. The second article I liked much more, and it also rather deftly demonstrates some of my primary issues with the first. The only comics people should be reading are the one's they like. If you came to it because of the title character or the writer or the artist or the colorist or whatever, it doesn't matter. If you liked it, good. If not, try to be a bit more discerning next time. Readers aren't beholden to publishers or creators or anyone. It's up to them to produce things the readership wants to read, not the readers to read the "right" things or push the medium in a "better" direction.
I'm not entirely clear what is meant by "snap" in this situation. I'm going to go ahead assume it doesn't mean the trite get-him-to-kill-someone thing because it's been talked to death with no terribly interesting or decisive outcome, and also because my opinions on that topic I've learned are rather controversial and I'd rather it not veer that way since I've discussed that before. The more likely and interesting definition would seem to be something along the lines of a panic attack or nervous breakdown, something that pierces through him and makes him no longer himself in a way.
It can't be an act of violence. It doesn't matter what it is or against who, Batman's waded through enough bodies that if that was going to do it, it would have done it by now. He's Batman. He'll save the victim and if they can't be saved, he'll avenge them. That's the way the game works, and no corpse, no matter how vicious and cruel their death was breaks out of that structure. You only break him by placing him in a situation where Batman is needed but Bruce Wayne cannot act, where he is forced to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. That breaks the bounds of the system. Death and destruction is all part of the mission. Death and destruction that he isn't allowed to battle against is perhaps the one thing that's inconceivable to Batman.
I don't know that they're distinct and isolated enough communities at this point to be in true direct conflict and to be able to be contrasted in a way that can be readily evaluated. The increased focus on the creative talent behind comics and the relative ease and frequency with which they pass between Marvel and DC has drastically reduced whatever stylistic or qualitative gap that might have existed between the two in the past. It's not an environment that's terribly supportive of that particular brand of hardline partisanship.
I voted Black Widow but I'm going to add an addendum here. I've been opining since The Avengers that they should do a movie with Black Widow and Hawkeye in the vein of Mission Impossible. I don't know that either of the two can support a solo movie, but together they can more than manage, and they were very much established as a set in Avengers as the team's two normies who are heavily implied to have quite a history with each other. Aside from the briefest of cameos in Thor and The Avengers (in which he has the least screen-time of all the leads) Marvel doesn't seem to be able to figure out what to do with Hawkeye. I think that would be a good place to start.