Comic Vine Review

43 Comments

Batman #33 - Zero Year: Savage City Review

5

It's the end of Zero Year. Batman vs Riddler with all of Gotham at stake.

The Good

This was an issue I was both looking forward to and dreading at the same time. Zero Year has been an epic story. As I've mentioned several times, I want to know what happened in the early days of the New 52 Universe. Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo have shown us in a big way.

In Savage City, the final sub arc of Zero Year, Riddler's plan and triumph over Gotham was revealed. Batman joined up with Jim Gordon and Lucius Fox to try to reclaim the city and the final moment is here. This is where we find out if Gotham City can be reclaimed before the city is blown away by missiles from a fleet of jets.

Seeing Riddler is this fashion has been a trip. As cool as it is seeing how he rose to power, we all want to see Batman up against Riddler and his riddles. We get exactly that. Snyder goes all out and comes up with some nice riddles. The question is, will you try to solve them yourself before moving on to see what the answers are?

Of course the art team of Capullo, Danny Miki, and FCO Plascencia do an amazing job in this oversized issue. The detail, light, and colors of the battle between Batman and Riddler is brilliant. Capullo does a great job mixing up the perspective and angles, giving us a nice feel of the action and suspense as the clock is ticking for Gotham.

Of course there's more to the this final issue than Batman fighting Riddler. Throughout the arc, we've been seeing glimpses further into Bruce's past. The final pages to conclude the story are perfect. The entirety of Zero Year is a story that will live on in collected format. We've seen his origin story time and time again. This has been much more than just an origin story. This has been a story that defines who Batman is. This story is exactly what I've wanted since the New 52 began.

The Bad

The only complaint I have is when Riddler says, "Riddle me this, Batman," it's off panel. The fact that this arc is over is a bummer as well.

The Verdict

Batman: Zero Year comes to an end. This is the sort of story that makes you want to stand up and applaud. We've seen countless Batman origin stories throughout his seventy-five years of publication but Snyder, Capullo, Miki, and Plascencia have given us the definitive one. Zero Year is going to be a great collected story you'll want to read over and over. The entire Bat creative team have outdone themselves here. If for some reason you haven't read Zero Year, you need to fix that immediately. I can't wait to read this all over again.

46 Comments
Posted by MrTummyTumms

Can't wait to pick this up!

Posted by Omnicrono

Awesome.

Posted by SynCig

I love Snyder's Batman so much. Unfortunately, the first sub-arc of Zero Year is the only one out in trade and I will be waiting a while before I finish the story. It gets brought up a lot but I really wish DC would shorten their trade schedule. Just about every other company does a much better job with it, Image being the best.

Edited by baneofdemon22

This is definitely one of the best issues of the year. I don't want Zero Year to end, and wish the Batman of the New 52 started from this arc. I don't want to go back to Harper Row. She's not a bad character, but I feel like she's been shoved down our throats, and that's why I hate her. I didn't care for the various global Batmen that Grant Morrison introduced, but they felt natural to the story. Harper Row is the Poochy of the Batman Universe. I hope she goes back to her planet.

Posted by MrTummyTumms

@syncig: Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. By the time you finish Zero Year in trades, you'll already be two arcs behind. I'm going through the same thing with the Flash and Green Arrow right now.

Posted by GraniteSoldier

"Early adventure" arc or origin arcs that come out after a character is established can be tricky because you pretty much know all the main players so you know how it'll end. We know Batman will stop Riddler and save Gotham. We know the main players will all survive because they appear in the future.

Snyder does a great job of making this engrossing and interesting by making it very different than we are used to seeing. I can't quite put my finger on it but this has just felt very different than most "year one" type stories. I always like seeing a newbie Batman, before he has pretty much everything figured out.

Edited by SynCig

@mrtummytumms: I read everything in trade and I am a big DC fan so it gets pretty tough. I don't have the storage space or disposable income to switch over to single issues so I'll just have to deal with it. I mean, it kind of sucks when you read the first trade in someone's run (Lemire Green Arrow) and before the second trade is even close to coming out it is announced that a new creative team is taking over soon. I really hope the quality remains there because before Lemire, GA was basically the whipping boy of the entire New 52.

Edited by MuyJingo

This entire arc has been forgettable, at least IMO. I'm glad it's over.

I know some people like it, but I can't see the appeal at all. I mean, this was such an amazing opportunity to update and improve upon Batman's origins...and instead we got something that was just mediocre.

I'm trying to judge it as it's own thing and not compare it to say, Year One, but even then....there are no memorable or stand out moments, and there really isn't anything that defines these adventures as Batman's origin. If these stories were not called Zero Year and were just flashbacks not given any special treatment, it wouldn't make a difference.

That I think, is the biggest flaw of Zero Year. Compare to Year One (dammit...), where you have a focus on Gordon just as much as Bruce. It slowly shows the corruption in the city at all levels, it shows the good men who are trying to figure out how to solve it, and finally it shows the revelation of a legend being born. Not a single hint of an aspect of that is present in Zero Year.

For as much praise as Snyder gets for "treating the city like a character", Year One fleshed out the city far, far more, by showing the effect on the characters who live there.

tl;dr:

Yawn.

Posted by detective38

Thank god its over id have rather read a batman team up with hero hotline for 12 issues than this garbage

Posted by RustyRoy

Great issue, Snyder's best Batman issue yet. Zero year isn't nearly as good as Year One but that one's a classic and nothing's going to be as good as that. Btw I liked when he said 'Riddle me this'.

Posted by Omnicrono

@muyjingo said:

This entire arc has been forgettable, at least IMO. I'm glad it's over.

I know some people like it, but I can't see the appeal at all. I mean, this was such an amazing opportunity to update and improve upon Batman's origins...and instead we got something that was just mediocre.

....

Yawn.

Wow. That's really all I can say in response to this. Just... wow.

Edited by MuyJingo

@omnicrono said:

@muyjingo said:

This entire arc has been forgettable, at least IMO. I'm glad it's over.

I know some people like it, but I can't see the appeal at all. I mean, this was such an amazing opportunity to update and improve upon Batman's origins...and instead we got something that was just mediocre.

....

Yawn.

Wow. That's really all I can say in response to this. Just... wow.

I pretty much feel the same way with you somehow thinking it's a good arc, let alone 'awesome'.

Yet, you can't be surprised. In our conversations it's become apparent we have pretty different ideas of what makes a good Batman story, what the character should be, etc..

Posted by DarthShap

While I did appreciate a lot of the ideas (like Batman actually liking Gotham and its people), many set pieces, the storytelling, the art and the general tone, which is pretty refreshing, this is a very messy, very unfocused (I mean, halfway through, the story just completely changes direction, some characters and ideas just appear out of nowhere, like that Julie Madison scene, some iconic scenes are copy-pasted from Year One without their proper context), overlong origin story that just tries way too much to just be different from what it wants to replace, which leads to many questionable ideas (like "the origin story of Gordon's raincoat", the" I shall be a bat" scene, now in 3D!, the Red Hood being the inspiration behind Bruce deciding he needs to become a bat, Batman giving the finger, Bruce choosing he wants to fight Crime right before a brainwashing session, Gordon being corrupt, Lucius being compromised, Batman being an idiot, a way too literal version of The Killing Joke's "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!", the out of order narration, the way too literal "Batman as a lightning rod" metaphor etc...)

It is a bit like Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man or Zack Snyder's Man of Steel in that sense. It tries so much to do things differently that it often just adds a lot of useless stuff which gets in the way and ends up missing the point.

Edited by Omnicrono
@muyjingo said:

I pretty much feel the same way with you somehow thinking it's a good arc, let alone 'awesome'.

Yet, you can't be surprised. In our conversations it's become apparent we have pretty different ideas of what makes a good Batman story, what the character should be, etc..

I would say that is apparent, yes. Does that mean Zero Year was a "mediocre" story? No.

And for the record, my "awesome" was aimed at this review, not the Zero Year story. Though I do think the story was pretty awesome as a whole. Certainly far from mediocre, or a "yawn." Pretty sure you are going to be in the small minority with that view. But that's fine. As is also becoming apparent, you seem to be the kind of person who likes to take the contrarian stance. Which is also fine.

Posted by MadeinBangladesh

PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ZERO YEAR IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by manwithoutshame

I've loved everything from Black Mirror to Dark City, that said Savage City has major problems. I finished reading this and was like, WHAT?! What is this? Snyder reaches a level of pretentiousness in this issue I couldn't have thought possible. Perhaps this is what happens when everybody tells you how great you are all the time but whoa...In this last issue Snyder defines his Batman and it's a mess. Bruce Wayne has gone from a crusader of justice to a sad, pathetic mental case. DeNiro said it best in Cop Land: "You Blew It!"

Also only DC would put out a double splash page of nothing but black ink. Ugh.

Posted by Jayc1324

Snyder has just defined new 52 batman and who he is with this arc. He's been doing it ever since the start. But Year one > zero year.

Online
Edited by MuyJingo

@omnicrono said:
@muyjingo said:

I pretty much feel the same way with you somehow thinking it's a good arc, let alone 'awesome'.

Yet, you can't be surprised. In our conversations it's become apparent we have pretty different ideas of what makes a good Batman story, what the character should be, etc..

I would say that is apparent, yes. Does that mean Zero Year was a "mediocre" story? No.

And for the record, my "awesome" was aimed at this review, not the Zero Year story. Though I do think the story was pretty awesome as a whole. Certainly far from mediocre, or a "yawn." Pretty sure you are going to be in the small minority with that view. But that's fine. As is also becoming apparent, you seem to be the kind of person who likes to take the contrarian stance. Which is also fine.

You really, really need to check your arrogance. You seem like a reasonably smart guy, with some interesting alternate viewpoints (to me at least), which I think could lead to some very interesting, very fleshed out discussion from which the community would only benefit.

Instead, you insist your subjective viewpoints are objectively correct, and try to correct people who disagree with you. Thing is, neither of us is ultimately right or wrong, although often a better argument will prevail for one view over another.

As for taking the contrarian stance...again, get over yourself. I don't like Snyder's run, I don't like the Nolan movies, and I think MotP was a subpar movie. That's not a contrarian stance, it's an opinion. Perhaps a slight minority opinion, but one nevertheless shared by many people. If you want to be taken seriously, I might help to actually make an argument once in a while instead of just insisting that you're right and throwing out meaningless accusations.

I've given my reasons why I think the arc is mediocre. Why don't you give some reasons as to why you think it's not, instead of just insisting that it isn't?

Edited by Omnicrono

@muyjingo said:

Intimating that someone is arrogant is mudslinging plain and simple. You might want to leave responses like that at the door. I'm sure most people have fallen into that trap at one time or another when things get heated (I know I have), but it only damages your credibility, man.

As for everything else you said, I appreciate your opinions and your right to express your opinions. I didn't suggest yours (or mine) were "right" or "wrong," nor am I inclined to convince you of anything. An observation was simply being made, and I'm pretty sure I said "that's fine" a couple of times. And please don't misunderstand, there was never any intent on my part to debate the merits of this story with you. If there was, you would have known it.

At any rate, I apologize for any offense caused. Grace and peace.

Posted by MuyJingo

@muyjingo said:

Intimating that someone is arrogant is mudslinging plain and simple. You might want to leave responses like that at the door. They only damage your credibility, man.

As for everything you said, I appreciate your opinions and your right to express your opinions. I didn't suggest yours or mine were "right" or "wrong," nor am I inclined to convince you of anything. An observation was simply being made, and I'm pretty sure I said "that's fine" a couple of times. And please don't misunderstand, there was never any intent on my part to debate the merits of this story with you. If there was, you would have known it.

At any rate, I apologize for any offense caused. Grace and peace.

I'm was not intimating anything, I was directly calling you arrogant. You have a history of simply telling people that they are wrong without ever feeling the need to clarify or elaborate on why, even when people show you that same, basic courtesy. I'd be much more concerned with your own credibility given that history of behavior, rather than the credibility of someone calling you out on it.

In any event, I apologize. It's more than likely a communication issue, peoples personalities often come across differently on-line due to the inherent limitations of the written medium. For my part, you seem to have a habit of simply negating what people say, which many people would reasonably interpret as you telling them wrong, yet you seldom elaborate on why.

In your first reply to me, you negated what I said, and them simply called me contrarian, which I think is insultingly reductive. You need only look at the discussion on this issue in this thread and others to see many, many people share my opinion. Batman is a character I love, and my favorite character in comics. While I have a fairly specific idea of how that character should b e portrayed and don't tend to like alternate interpretations, that doesn't mean I'm unable to see other peoples takes as valid.

Simply negating what people say won't lead to a productive discussion. If you don't want your negations to be taken as telling people they are wrong (which is the reasonable interpretation), it may well be worthwhile to add a note that you disagree, or that your opinion differs, rather than simply stating that someones opinion is not the case.

I'd much rather us be friends who respect each others contrasting viewpoints then consider the other someone to avoid. For what it's worth, I'd still like to discuss/debate this arc/issue with you if your interested.

Edited by Omnicrono

@muyjingo said:

I'm was not intimating anything, I was directly calling you arrogant. You have a history of simply telling people that they are wrong without ever feeling the need to clarify or elaborate on why, even when people show you that same, basic courtesy. I'd be much more concerned with your own credibility given that history of behavior, rather than the credibility of someone calling you out on it.

In any event, I apologize. It's more than likely a communication issue, peoples personalities often come across differently on-line due to the inherent limitations of the written medium. For my part, you seem to have a habit of simply negating what people say, which many people would reasonably interpret as you telling them wrong, yet you seldom elaborate on why.

In your first reply to me, you negated what I said, and them simply called me contrarian, which I think is insultingly reductive. You need only look at the discussion on this issue in this thread and others to see many, many people share my opinion. Batman is a character I love, and my favorite character in comics. While I have a fairly specific idea of how that character should b e portrayed and don't tend to like alternate interpretations, that doesn't mean I'm unable to see other peoples takes as valid.

Simply negating what people say won't lead to a productive discussion. If you don't want your negations to be taken as telling people they are wrong (which is the reasonable interpretation), it may well be worthwhile to add a note that you disagree, or that your opinion differs, rather than simply stating that someones opinion is not the case.

I'd much rather us be friends who respect each others contrasting viewpoints then consider the other someone to avoid. For what it's worth, I'd still like to discuss/debate this arc/issue with you if your interested.

I have a "history" of it now, do I? Well, now you're just plain lying, my man.

If there's any sort of "history," it's no more of a "history" than most people have on this website. And that "history" is called not always wanting to get into an elaborate debate with someone. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. People have every right, if they so choose, to leave a quick comment or opinion in fun without having to back it up with "evidence." History or no history. Whether the person on the receiving side chooses to take that as his opinion being "negated" is kind of up to that person, but it just sort of tells me that said person probably wasn't too secure in his stance to begin with if he feels he is being "negated" by one lowly comment that provided no supporting evidence.

Look, bottom line: if you're not going to be honest, please don't comment. I'd like to be friends with you here on the Vine as well, and I do consider you one, but I have a low tolerance for mudslinging and general dishonesty, and both are things that you've displayed here.

Beyond that, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter.

Posted by manwithoutshame

@jayc1324 said:

Snyder has just defined new 52 batman and who he is with this arc. He's been doing it ever since the start. But Year one > zero year.

He has defined it and left me wanting.

Edited by manwithoutshame

I say once we bring Damian back from the dead we bring back Bob Kane and Bill Finger as well. Then they can remind us all what Batman truly is, a crusader for justice. Not some sad sack who can't deal with any human emotions. A man who locks himself off from relationships because he's afraid. A man who tortures himself endlessly and would probably kill himself if he couldn't be Batman.

No Scott Snyder, Electric Shock Therapy is not a way to "reboot" yourself YOU F&$*ING MORON! I hope someday somebody with a clue fixes the wretched mistakes Snyder made with this issue.

Posted by MegaHGFan

Just read this, and it was pretty underwhelming. The Dr. Death stuff was the best part of Zero Year, nothing in the rest of it was really worthwhile. Kind of feels like I wasted money on it. It wasn't bad overall , but not worth the 3.99 to 4.99 an issue when there are no shortage of great books to put on the pull list. Zero Year just went on forever and the ending was very anti-climatic. That whole thing about electroshock was incredibly stupid. Batman should be a bit more badass as far as I'm concerned. If Zero Year was my first exposure to Batman, I probably would have never become a fan. I will be glad to see a new writer take on the main Bat book one day.

Posted by MuyJingo

I have a "history" of it now, do I? Well, now you're just plain lying, my man.

If there's any sort of "history," it's no more of a "history" than most people have on this website. And that "history" is called not always wanting to get into an elaborate debate with someone. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. People have every right, if they so choose, to leave a quick comment or opinion in fun without having to back it up with "evidence." History or no history. Whether the person on the receiving side chooses to take that as "negating their opinion" is up to them, but it just sort of tells me that that person probably wasn't too secure in his/her stance to begin with.

Look, bottom line: if you're not going to be honest, please don't comment. I'd like to be friends with you here on the Vine as well, and I do consider you one, but I have a low tolerance for mudslinging and general dishonesty, and both are things that you've displayed here.

Beyond that, I've said all I'm going to say on the matter.

I find your comments hypocritical. Which is disappointing. For all your talk of not liking mudslinging, you tend to sling first.

The history I refer to is not simply stating your opinion, this is a forum, that is to be expected. No, it's that you state it in such a way to call other people wrong, or that is reasonable interpreted to mean you are calling someones opinion wrong, even if that is not your intention.

I absolutely agree that you and anyone should be free to leave an opinion without being obligated to corroborate or elaborate on it. However, the opinions you leave are that someone else's opinion is invalid (again, that is how it is reasonable interpreted even if it is not your intention), then I think in that case some elaboration on why you think that, while not necessary, would certainly be polite. Good netiquette if you will.

From your replies it is obvious that you don't seem to think there is a problem, so I'm probably wasting time even typing this, but it's worth a shot. I personally can't be bother to engage with you any further since discussing things with you has yet to be constructive, since your arguments are simply that I'm wrong without ever expanding on why. See the MotP vs UtRH thread for the most recent example of this behavior.

As such, I'll be adding you to my greasemonkey script to filter out forum users who detract from the positive experience that this place should be. As I've previously said, I'd love to discuss some of this stuff with you in more detail, but it seems we can't communicate in a constructive way (you accuse me of lying, I see you as arrogant etc...we have a clash, not necessarily the fault of either), so until that is addressed there seems to be little point. You can PM if you wish to discuss things further.

Oh, and as for the BS accusation that I'm lying? I'd be happy to quote examples of you doing so from the last several years, but I don't think it would make a difference. I don't really need to anyway, enough people are familiar with the exact behavior I refer to, as are you.

Edited by Agent_Prince

I'm very surprised (and a little disappointed) that this Bruce even thought of giving in. Ok, so it's a 'new' universe but indicates he can be broken mentally. Other than that, a great ending to a saga that, now complete, will make for better reading than having to wait a month for each instalment.

Posted by Pperspectiveandreality

Looking forward to the next arc. Zero year was exhausting. Really good Riddler arc, though. The rest of it just didn't tickle my fancy. I want more of what Snyder did in issues 19-20.

Posted by The Mast

Well-written, immaculate art, but easily a few issues too long. Plus, we had the villains' month issues in there. This arc started with #21...

Posted by BruceWayne19

Don't answer the riddler complaint, but hey this issue was awesome, and you gotta love how Alfred came back, and getting a peek into the would be life of Bruce Wayne, that was awesoem

Edited by Omnicrono
@muyjingo said:

I find your comments hypocritical. Which is disappointing. For all your talk of not liking mudslinging, you tend to sling first...

From your replies it is obvious that you don't seem to think there is a problem, so I'm probably wasting time even typing this, but it's worth a shot. I personally can't be bother to engage with you any further since discussing things with you has yet to be constructive, since your arguments are simply that I'm wrong without ever expanding on why. See the MotP vs UtRH thread for the most recent example of this behavior.

As such, I'll be adding you to my greasemonkey script to filter out forum users who detract from the positive experience that this place should be. As I've previously said, I'd love to discuss some of this stuff with you in more detail, but it seems we can't communicate in a constructive way (you accuse me of lying, I see you as arrogant etc...we have a clash, not necessarily the fault of either), so until that is addressed there seems to be little point. You can PM if you wish to discuss things further.

Oh, and as for the BS accusation that I'm lying? I'd be happy to quote examples of you doing so from the last several years, but I don't think it would make a difference. I don't really need to anyway, enough people are familiar with the exact behavior I refer to, as are you.

Sorry to hear that, man. If you want to add me to your "script of filtered users" there's not a lot I can do about it, lol. That's up to you. Personally, I'm fine conversing with you in the future, and no hard feelings here when all is said and done. I think you might be taking all of this a bit too seriously, but do what you feel is necessary regardless. It's your life.

I made a "BS" accusation? Nope. You told a lie, and then proceeded to tell another lie by saying I tend to sling mud first. Complete and utter nonsense, man. And no, making the simple observation, "You seem to be the kind of person who likes to take the contrarian stance. But that's fine," hardly qualifies as mudslinging. Definition of mudslinging: "the act of making unscrupulous and/or hateful comments about someone to discredit them." http://www.yourdictionary.com/mudslinging)

At best, your statements are deceitful attempts at trying to paint a picture of me as someone who "has a history" of wrongfully disregarding other peoples' opinions and, now, as someone who tends to sling mud first.

More than anything else, your comments here are increasingly sounding more and more like sour grapes over trivial disagreements you and I have had in the past. You didn't like that I corrected you about Mask of the Phantasm's primary genre. In that brief discussion, you said that you felt Phantasm was primarily a love story and mentioned how you felt that a Batman story should never be a love story primarily. Well, it really wasn't, and I corrected you as such. I then offered up the fact (not opinion) that it is typically not classified (not anywhere you look) as a "love story" or "romantic drama" or "romantic thriller," which highly suggests that it is not primarily a love story (and yes, I've seen the film too, in case you were wondering). It has been classified as a "mystery/suspense" and "action/adventure" film. That's how most professional film critics have classified it. Google it. It's not that hard. And yet you point to that instance as evidence of how I arrogantly disregarded your opinion without so much as a reason. Lol... Nevertheless, I even told you that you were free to hold your opinion. My wording was a bit frank/direct, so for that I apologize. (I'll do you a favor since you were so keen on bringing it up; here's Page 3 of the thread to which you referred, for all to see and make up their own minds about, not that anyone actually gives a dime about who's right or wrong with any of this nonsense): http://www.comicvine.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/favorite-animated-movies-voting-batman-mask-of-the-1576098/?page=3

So quote me all you like. Have at it. Your desire to prove your point by threatening me with old comments makes little difference, you're right, because you don't know me from Adam. Nor do I know you. Yet, you seem to think that a handful of comments I've made to you and some others on the Vine out of a thousand comments I've made here over the years somehow gives you special insight into my mind and heart. And to think all of this was spurred on because of a one-line response I made to your initial comment in this thread... That response, which was me indicating my shock that you think Zero Year was mediocre and "yawn" (nothing more intended by my response, and didn't suggest your opinion was wrong) was:

"Wow. That's really all I can say in response to this. Just... wow."

I won't derail this thread any further. Maybe it's appropriate that my final statement to you in regard to my shock over this entire conversation is:

Wow. That's all I can say in response to this. Just... wow.

(edited)

Posted by Pperspectiveandreality

@manwithoutshame:

I tend to agree with you. I enjoyed it until that part...that part made me cringe. It made Bruce look weak. That one small part ruined this whole run for me. That was worse than what he did to mr freeze.

Edited by feedonatreefrog

Man tears

I wish this book would stay in this time period. We have more than enough Batman books in present day. Or at least I hope Snyder revisits Year 1 (with a young Dick Grayson?) after Endgame.

Posted by ScarletBatman

Bruce wanting elcetroshock therapy makes sense, in a way. He is just as crazy as any of his rogues. The difference is that Batman channels that crazy for the cause of good, rather than selfish causes.

Posted by FastestBlender

Ask yourself these 3

Questions:

1. Did this year of stories add or improve upon any of the Batman mythos?

2. 10, 20 years from now, will this be referenced as part of Batman's origin?

3. Has T Guerro ever given Scott Snyder less than 5 stars?

Posted by Jayc1324

Batman wanted shock therapy or whatever was great. It gave weight to his parent deaths, which was lacking before. He needed to go through a rough time to get the motivation. He was only ten, of course he's traumatized. Nothing wrong with that. Even better, he DIDNT go through with it. He considered it, so what. It didn't happen. He was mentally stable enough to get through it. People complain about "batgod" but when Snyder gives him some sensitivity and emotion people complain that he wasn't strong enough

Online
Posted by Omnicrono
Posted by MrTummyTumms

@manwithoutshame:

I tend to agree with you. I enjoyed it until that part...that part made me cringe. It made Bruce look weak. That one small part ruined this whole run for me. That was worse than what he did to mr freeze.

He's still human. Did you really think a traumatizing event like the death of his parents happening in front of him wouldn't have a long lasting effect on him? Besides, he didn't even go through with it.

Edited by manwithoutshame

@mrtummytumms: since you brought me in on this I'll put in my 2 cents and explain in depth why that was a mistake. In that page I think we can all agree Bruce is at least an adult. So from the point his parents died to there he would have to have been extremely intelligent and driven to ever be Batman. He wasn't laying around like a bump on a log till he was an adult and THEN decide to get to work. It doesn't make sense for him to be this hopelessly lost and yes, "weak." Because if when he reached adulthood he still made no progress on coming to terms with the death of his parents how could he ever have pulled off being Batman who is a character that exists due to seemingly endless determination. Am I to think he kept his body in peak physical condition, became a master and genius of so many academics and then when he was an adult still had no clue at all? It simply does no line up nor make sense. Snyder is going for a big shock to make a point, and in doing so he dropped the ball. The narrative has fallen to pieces.

Posted by Pperspectiveandreality

@pperspectiveandreality said:

@manwithoutshame:

I tend to agree with you. I enjoyed it until that part...that part made me cringe. It made Bruce look weak. That one small part ruined this whole run for me. That was worse than what he did to mr freeze.

He's still human. Did you really think a traumatizing event like the death of his parents happening in front of him wouldn't have a long lasting effect on him? Besides, he didn't even go through with it.

That traumatixing event is supposed to put him on his life's mission/ not make him want to erase himself. The long lasting effect is that can't stop trying to clean a city that wants to be filthy. It just isn't in line iwthmy interpretation of the character. If you enjoyed it, great. That just isn't how I understand Bruce Wayne.

Edited by RustyRoy

@pperspectiveandreality said:

@mrtummytumms said:

@pperspectiveandreality said:

@manwithoutshame:

I tend to agree with you. I enjoyed it until that part...that part made me cringe. It made Bruce look weak. That one small part ruined this whole run for me. That was worse than what he did to mr freeze.

He's still human. Did you really think a traumatizing event like the death of his parents happening in front of him wouldn't have a long lasting effect on him? Besides, he didn't even go through with it.

That traumatixing event is supposed to put him on his life's mission/ not make him want to erase himself. The long lasting effect is that can't stop trying to clean a city that wants to be filthy. It just isn't in line iwthmy interpretation of the character. If you enjoyed it, great. That just isn't how I understand Bruce Wayne.

Agreed, Bruce should mentally strong, erasing himself, or killing himself is not something I expect from Bruce. Although that didn't ruin the whole issue for me, Batman's boot on Riddler's face was enough to make me forget about it lol.

Posted by RustyRoy

@jayc1324 said:

Batman wanted shock therapy or whatever was great. It gave weight to his parent deaths, which was lacking before. He needed to go through a rough time to get the motivation. He was only ten, of course he's traumatized. Nothing wrong with that. Even better, he DIDNT go through with it. He considered it, so what. It didn't happen. He was mentally stable enough to get through it. People complain about "batgod" but when Snyder gives him some sensitivity and emotion people complain that he wasn't strong enough

I kind of agree with this too, its a new take on Batman/Bruce Wayne, New 52 is a different universe. Even though I prefer the 'mentally invincible' Batman, this Batman is pretty cool too, flawed but not weak.

Edited by Pperspectiveandreality

@jayc1324 said:

Batman wanted shock therapy or whatever was great. It gave weight to his parent deaths, which was lacking before. He needed to go through a rough time to get the motivation. He was only ten, of course he's traumatized. Nothing wrong with that. Even better, he DIDNT go through with it. He considered it, so what. It didn't happen. He was mentally stable enough to get through it. People complain about "batgod" but when Snyder gives him some sensitivity and emotion people complain that he wasn't strong enough

Him becoming Batman gave weight to his parents' deaths imo. Here we have a billionaire who, rather than focus on making more money and partying, dedicates his entire being to eliminating evil people with. Here's a guy who educated himself in various fields of science, technology, criminology and martial arts just so he can keep anyone from going through what he went through. This image depicts flawlessly my position on the matter:

Edited by Jayc1324

@pperspectiveandreality: But his parent deaths are what inspired him to be batman. That's why I think their deaths should have more weight. No death, no Batman. That's why I'm happy zero year made it that way. You yourself said he does it to keep anyone from going what he went through. That is also giving weight to his parents death. It drives him. I understand what you're saying though, if he hadnt become batman their wouldn't have meant as much, but him being traumatized by their death made it so much better and gave it more meaning. He barely mentioned how their deaths affected him prior to zero year

Online
Posted by MrTummyTumms

@manwithoutshame: I wouldn't say Bruce was an adult. During the Shock therapy he couldn't have been older than 21 seeing as how he needed to pay someone to be his guardian. I also think the problem is that you're not looking at this as a new origin story. You're still holding on to Year One where yes Bruce was much harder than he was shown to be in Zero Year. In this story Snyder has shown that throughout the arc Bruce did have a hard time dealing with the loss of his parents as he was growing up. But just because someone has moments of vulnerability, it doesn't mean that they are weak. Snyder never clarifies at what point Bruce decided to go and train but it's safe to say Bruce started his training at the age of 18. Meaning he spent 5 years training to be the person that would protect Gotham and went back to Gotham with the intent to clean up the city that he loved. My guess is that the shock therapy is where Bruce decided that therapy wasn't the route to go and to instead use that pain to help his city.