The death of Batman's rogues... Good or Bad? *SPOILERS*

[The Shadow]

I'm REALLY enjoying the One Year Later story by James Robinson that's currently running through Batman and Detective Comics... but I'm torn at the deathz of some of Batman's rogues.

Batman has some of the richest villains in comics... and probably the best gallery of bad guys. Even second and third teir villains have potential as Geoff Johns showed in The Flash.

The recent death of Magpie got a resounding... meh... from me as she wasn't even a Q-lister having appeared in one... maybe two stories since she was introduced in the 80's.

But then the KGBeast was offed. Now granted he's been a joke for a long time... but his introductory story was awesome and, while it may not be among the best Batman stories, it also introduced the NKVDemon (where Batman had to go to Russia!) which was a fun story. He's been relegated to 3rd rate hired thug for the last decade... and the collapse of the Soviet Union sure didn't help... but there was always underlying potential.

THEN Scarface/Ventriloquist was killed in Batman 652. Now that's a decided step up in the villain chain from KGBeast and a huge leap up from Magpie. And I know that Orca is possibly next... and she's another Magpie... but I think DC is making a mistake.

As I said, Johns proved ANY villain (Magpie excluded :p ) could become a legitimate threat and taking out 4 villains, one of the calibre of Scarface will, in the end, hurt the Bat rogues.... add to the fact Two-Face is "cured" you're down 4 villains. One of them is a BIGGIE, another is a dummy (literally! :D ) while two others aren't as big, but have/had potential!

Normally I don't mind death in comics... Marvel used Scourge to kill a bunch of lameass villains in the mid-80's... and it appears DC is doing something similar now... but Batman is known for his villains... and DC is eliminating them one by one.

What about everyone else?
Is this bothersome?
Yay!
Nay!!
Go away Shadow? LOL

Comments??

[stealthwise]

Meh.

If they want to bring one of them back, or just make a new version of the character, then they'll do it. It's not a big deal, as I like where the story is heading, and minor villain deaths is probably the best way to get across what they're doing with Bats and Harvey so far.

[Captain Jim]

I was very sorry to see the Ventriloquist get offed. I know he's been sort of a joke in recent years, but under his creator, Alan Grant, he was awesome and one of my favorite villains.

[literally exaggerated]

None of those characters had sufficient history to make them in any way irreplacable. They had potential, in the same way that absolutely any minor character has potential, i.e. some writer could come along and write them completely differently from how they had previously been written and make them cool. But merely having the potential to be a decent character at some point in the future does not a good character make. Any writer worth his salt should be able to come up with characters at least as good as any killed off in this arc.

Honestly, I've never understood why comic fans seem so absolutely terrified of characters dying.

[Captain Jim]

In the case of Ventriloquist, we're not talking potential. He actually was an awesome villain at one time. Unfortunately, nobody has seemed interested in using him as anything but a joke since his creator, Alan Grant, moved on. Did you ever read any of those stories?

[Steppenwolf]

In the case of Ventriloquist, we're not talking potential. He actually was an awesome villain at one time. Unfortunately, nobody has seemed interested in using him as anything but a joke since his creator, Alan Grant, moved on. Did you ever read any of those stories?

Yeah, I agree with you. Not only a great gimmick, but he had a lot of psycholocial depth. I don't read much Batman anymore...haven't for a long time. But I was sad to see Ventriloquist go. The others were more....disposable, IMO.

[The Shadow]

I was very sorry to see the Ventriloquist get offed. I know he's been sort of a joke in recent years, but under his creator, Alan Grant, he was awesome and one of my favorite villains.
I LOVED the Grant stuff... in fact as I was typing my post I was thinking of this fun Norm Breyfogle cover

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/large/24038627564.642.gif

[Meta 05]

Well with anyone luck SB prime will show up again an retcon his dead enemys back to life

I wouldn't doubt it could happen which is sad

[The Shadow]

Well with anyone luck SB prime will show up again an retcon his dead enemys back to life

I wouldn't doubt it could happen which is sad
:D

Gotta love that retcon punch!

[rfahey]

I was surprised that they killed Ventriloquist, but not disappointed. I guess I've never read an issue where he was treated seriously - the only other appearance I distinctly remember was in Knightfall, where he had a competing puppet named Socko or something, and proceeded to nearly blow both of his arms off.

[chriskenny]

If they were killing off icons like the Riddler, Joker, Scarecrow, or the Penguin i might be upset. But these are characters that lack a lot of the pizzaz that made the first-tier rogues really cool. People like Magpie or KGBeast are made to be cannon fodder to a certain degree.

Chris

[Sean Walsh]

I was very sorry to see the Ventriloquist get offed. I know he's been sort of a joke in recent years, but under his creator, Alan Grant, he was awesome and one of my favorite villains.

But I LOVED his final moment........grabbing Scarface's hand as he's basically yelling at himself.

Priceless.

[The Shadow]

If they were killing off icons like the Riddler, Joker, Scarecrow, or the Penguin i might be upset. But these are characters that lack a lot of the pizzaz that made the first-tier rogues really cool. People like Magpie or KGBeast are made to be cannon fodder to a certain degree.

Chris
The problem with killing off all the useless villains is not every villain can be a Joker or Penguin... otherwise we'd have more villains on par with them. If all the lesser villains die the creators have to either create new ones (which they all seem hesitant to do nowadays) or have the joker appear over and over and over again.

Hell, even Killer Moth's asswhupping by Tim was cool in the "at least it wasn't the Joker... AGAIN" vein.

[Damo]

Disgraceful is what it is. You're given one of the most sought after jobs in comics, and all you can think to do with it is to destroy the creations of people that got the job before you? In a story that isn't even about them, turning them into canon fodder? Bad show.

Every character is someone's favorite, folks. Somewhere out there there's a guy that threw a comic at the wall in disgust because The Fisherman got killed.

The "Batman the Animated Series" people liked Scarface enough to give him two whole episodes to himself, and a major role in a third. I think that's a little more than they gave Bane. Heck, even the folks making The Batman saw potential in the character. You don't just throw a character like that away for shock value.

[Jake V]

Disgraceful is what it is. You're given one of the most sought after jobs in comics, and all you can think to do with it is to destroy the creations of people that got the job before you? In a story that isn't even about them, turning them into canon fodder? Bad show.

Every character is someone's favorite, folks. Somewhere out there there's a guy that threw a comic at the wall in disgust because The Fisherman got killed.
Oh please. A character can be brought back just as easily as they are killed. It happens all the time.

Batman comics will keep going long after both you and I stop reading. You honestly think that Scarface (or hell, even Magpie) will NEVER appear again? Get a grip.

[Damo]

Oh please. A character can be brought back just as easily as they are killed. It happens all the time.

Batman comics will keep going long after both you and I stop reading. You honestly think that Scarface (or hell, even Magpie) will NEVER appear again? Get a grip.

I don't think the standard "characters can be brought back easily" spiel works here though. It's one thing to bring back Jean Gray, or Jade, or R'as al Ghul. But when a character is far far more mortal, and has never been shown having any link to anything supernatural... and when that character isn't, let's face facts, one of the all time fan favorites... I think it's way more likely to stick. I can't think of a character of Scarface's level (both in terms of popularity and power) ever returning from the grave. With the obvious exception of the current "hey Lynx and the Ventriloquist are alive agai- oh, never mind, they're dead again" redundancies.

[Jake V]

I don't think the standard "characters can be brought back easily" spiel works here though. It's one thing to bring back Jean Gray, or Jade, or R'as al Ghul. But when a character is far far more mortal, and has never been shown having any link to anything supernatural... and when that character isn't, let's face facts, one of the all time fan favorites... I think it's way more likely to stick. I can't think of a character of Scarface's level (both in terms of popularity and power) ever returning from the grave. With the obvious exception of the current "hey Lynx and the Ventriloquist are alive agai- oh, never mind, they're dead again" redundancies.
They're comic books. Someone will figure out a way to get it done.

[Nick Kal]

The whole thing is disgraceful. They might kill Farmer Brown off at some point and then I'll officially be done with reading comics.

[Totoro Man]

they killed off "the Ventriloquist"? hmmmm, that's too bad, I was working a on a script using him in the story. I'm too lazy to keep up with "continuity" I was hoping that "Legends of the Dark Knight" (which isn't too focused on 'continuity' would pick up the title).

so perhaps I shouldn't bother? :confused:

on second thought, I'll just wait a little while. hell, they brought back Jason Todd (or Norman Osbourne, or Gwen Stacy... etc)

[Totoro Man]

The whole thing is disgraceful. They might kill Farmer Brown off at some point and then I'll officially be done with reading comics.

"his eye twitches involuntarily" :D

[OverMaster]

The whole problem with death is so overused nowadays. It's like you can't do an arc anymore without killing at least one known character. It has become a cheap, pointless way to lessen what should be one the things with the biggest impacts... characters dying. When done properly, it can pack a good punch, but now, when we have five major characters dying each month across any universe, it has become a mockery of itself. Too much of it just makes the whole thing ridiculous, and lacking any impact.

And after the grotesque kill-fest of Infinite Crisis and derivates, I was hoping things would get better after OYL. And I really hoped something better from Robinson, whose arc has been otherwise fine.

Not to mention, if they bring dead characters back, again and again, it just becomes another problem. How many times can you ressurrect a street leveller in a slightly credible way? And even if you do a 'legacy' cop-out (which work fine in heroes, but never in villains), can you buy an eventual world with a Firefly IV, Ventriloquist III, Magpie II and Clayface XXIV? Please.

[Sean Walsh]

they killed off "the Ventriloquist"? hmmmm, that's too bad, I was working a on a script using him in the story. I'm too lazy to keep up with "continuity" I was hoping that "Legends of the Dark Knight" (which isn't too focused on 'continuity' would pick up the title).

so perhaps I shouldn't bother? :confused:

on second thought, I'll just wait a little while. hell, they brought back Jason Todd (or Norman Osbourne, or Gwen Stacy... etc)

Well, Scarface himself can probably comeback somehow.......but it'd have to be with a different Ventriloquist, obviously.

LotDK stories tend to jump around the Batman timeline, don't they? I say go for the story - just make sure to imply that the story's not current day...

[protege]

The whole thing is disgraceful. They might kill Farmer Brown off at some point and then I'll officially be done with reading comics.
I didn't even know farmer brown made it into the Comics- did Calendar Girl get in too?

[literally exaggerated]

Every character is someone's favorite, folks

This is one of the stupidest quotes I've ever seen, and for some reason it pops up every single time any character dies in comics.

Why the hell can't you kill someone's favorite? A massive portion of the best characters in fiction died (and an even larger portion of the more minor characters). Hamlet died, as did Othello and Lear and almost every other tragic character Shakespeare ever wrote. Dream from Sandman died, as did Gwen Stacy. Tony Montana died. Spike Siegel died. Rorscharch from Watchmen died. He was one of my all time favorite characters. His death in no way devalued his story for me, indeed, it gave it meaning, contextualized his life.

Thats what death does. Its not always necessary, but sometimes it is, and no writer should feel like they can't utilize it simply because some people enjoy the character.

So other writers can't use the character? So what? They write new ones, and if they can't do that, then they're shitty writers. The only, and I do mean absolutely only, test of how good a story is is how good a story it is. Its not whether they keep this or that character alive, its whether their decisions regarding those characters add up to a good story. Sometimes killing a character is the wrong decisions, and sometimes keeping a character alive is the wrong decision. But thats not a matter of whether said character was someone's favorite, its a matter of whether said character needed to live or die for that story to be good. Nor should writers feel like they have to give every single character they kill a long, melodramatic death scene complete with noble sacrifice and an inspirational speech. Sometimes they just die, from a stray bullet or get casually killed or just keel over from sickness or old age, and if that makes the story work better than if they had given said character a long death scene, than thats what the writer should do. Its not a matter of disrespecting the character, its a matter of respecting the needs of the story above all.

Its like comic fans don't want to read stories so much as they want perpetual, unchanging imaginary friends who will always be there forever and ever and never truly change in any substantial way, let alone end. And if they don't get that, they somehow feel as if they and their character have been disrespected or degraded.

For example, most comic fans I know absolutely loved Kingdom Come, and one of the most popular moments in it is the death of Captain Marvel. He and Superman have a climactic, awesome battle, and then Captain Marvel gives his life to try and save most of the heroes. Its a fantastic moment, as good as melodrama gets, and I know almost nobody who didn't love it.

But I guarantee if that had happened in an actual in-continuity comic, there would have been an immediate uproar. A sizeable portion would have hated it, not because it was a bad story, but because it resulted in the death of a character they liked.

And that is absolutely infantile.

[Meta 05]

This is one of the stupidest quotes I've ever seen, and for some reason it pops up every single time any character dies in comics.

Why the hell can't you kill someone's favorite? A massive portion of the best characters in fiction died (and an even larger portion of the more minor characters). Hamlet died, as did Othello and Lear and almost every other tragic character Shakespeare ever wrote. Dream from Sandman died, as did Gwen Stacy. Tony Montana died. Spike Siegel died. Rorscharch from Watchmen died. He was one of my all time favorite characters. His death in no way devalued his story for me, indeed, it gave it meaning, contextualized his life.

Thats what death does. Its not always necessary, but sometimes it is, and no writer should feel like they can't utilize it simply because some people enjoy the character.

So other writers can't use the character? So what? They write new ones, and if they can't do that, then they're shitty writers. The only, and I do mean absolutely only, test of how good a story is is how good a story it is. Its not whether they keep this or that character alive, its whether their decisions regarding those characters add up to a good story. Sometimes killing a character is the wrong decisions, and sometimes keeping a character alive is the wrong decision. But thats not a matter of whether said character was someone's favorite, its a matter of whether said character needed to live or die for that story to be good. Nor should writers feel like they have to give every single character they kill a long, melodramatic death scene complete with noble sacrifice and an inspirational speech. Sometimes they just die, from a stray bullet or get casually killed or just keel over from sickness or old age, and if that makes the story work better than if they had given said character a long death scene, than thats what the writer should do. Its not a matter of disrespecting the character, its a matter of respecting the needs of the story above all.

Its like comic fans don't want to read stories so much as they want perpetual, unchanging imaginary friends who will always be there forever and ever and never truly change in any substantial way, let alone end. And if they don't get that, they somehow feel as if they and their character have been disrespected or degraded.

For example, most comic fans I know absolutely loved Kingdom Come, and one of the most popular moments in it is the death of Captain Marvel. He and Superman have a climactic, awesome battle, and then Captain Marvel gives his life to try and save most of the heroes. Its a fantastic moment, as good as melodrama gets, and I know almost nobody who didn't love it.

But I guarantee if that had happened in an actual in-continuity comic, there would have been an immediate uproar. A sizeable portion would have hated it, not because it was a bad story, but because it resulted in the death of a character they liked.

And that is absolutely infantile.

I agree with comic fans hating change, more so with DC.Usually caused by the following

EX "signifigantly over weight fan boys living in there parents basemtns.Comic books for them mostly the respective universes DCU, OR M 616 become a security blanket from the reality of being anti social unaccepted geeks, which in an of its self is pretty sad.

I don't read books that don't have a plot an change EX chars die

That really would be a waste of money, by like 3 books into a series.I would stop if its them same thing that happened in book number 1 its a waste of time to me "nothing happened"I feel the same way about comics, more so with DC.It keeps re telling old tales nothing happens or really changes, OYL the exception at this point in time.I am sure everything will be reset to please the sad fan boy types i spoke about above.

I like to see chars change (( costumes, Death, Friendships, Loves, ETC)

that hardly happens with DC, it really should just be a company with out a contunity becomes nothing ever really changes.

[NathanielEssex]

I'm REALLY enjoying the One Year Later story by James Robinson that's currently running through Batman and Detective Comics... but I'm torn at the deathz of some of Batman's rogues.

Batman has some of the richest villains in comics... and probably the best gallery of bad guys. Even second and third teir villains have potential as Geoff Johns showed in The Flash.

The recent death of Magpie got a resounding... meh... from me as she wasn't even a Q-lister having appeared in one... maybe two stories since she was introduced in the 80's.

But then the KGBeast was offed. Now granted he's been a joke for a long time... but his introductory story was awesome and, while it may not be among the best Batman stories, it also introduced the NKVDemon (where Batman had to go to Russia!) which was a fun story. He's been relegated to 3rd rate hired thug for the last decade... and the collapse of the Soviet Union sure didn't help... but there was always underlying potential.

THEN Scarface/Ventriloquist was killed in Batman 652. Now that's a decided step up in the villain chain from KGBeast and a huge leap up from Magpie. And I know that Orca is possibly next... and she's another Magpie... but I think DC is making a mistake.

As I said, Johns proved ANY villain (Magpie excluded :p ) could become a legitimate threat and taking out 4 villains, one of the calibre of Scarface will, in the end, hurt the Bat rogues.... add to the fact Two-Face is "cured" you're down 4 villains. One of them is a BIGGIE, another is a dummy (literally! :D ) while two others aren't as big, but have/had potential!

Normally I don't mind death in comics... Marvel used Scourge to kill a bunch of lameass villains in the mid-80's... and it appears DC is doing something similar now... but Batman is known for his villains... and DC is eliminating them one by one.

What about everyone else?
Is this bothersome?
Yay!
Nay!!
Go away Shadow? LOL

Comments??


I completely and wholeheartedly agree. Arnold Wesker is not a minor character at all. And there is only one Wesker. His look cannot be duplicated.
His personality might be... but it would be pretty pathetic if the new Ventriloquist acted just like the original. I can also think of several good stories that could have happened if they didn't kill him. The Ventriloquist death is short-sighted.

KGBeast? Call him the Beast, since the USSR imploded, and play up that he was worse than Bane, Hush and Deathstroke when he went up against Batman. And he was an "opposite number" before Bane and Hush ever were. Chuck Dixon even admitted he did a hatchet job on KGBeast in order to make Bane more relevant. The only person to do him justice since his first story was Devin Grayson in Batman + Arsenal. And, even then, he was a shadow of what he used to be. His death pissed me off, but I can see a legacy character coming into being, since The Beast's identity wasn't really a big part for him, and he wore a mask. But Wesker? NO. A legacy charactr would just blow.

Didn't shed any tears over Magpie and definitely not Orka. Why not kill Tweedledum and Tweedledee in place of Wesker? And kill Hush or Nicodemus in place of The KGBeast? It's cool that Orka is on the list, though. This brought down my opinion of Robinson, whose Starman ranks as one of my all-time favorite comic book runs. The Ventriloquist thing really did it for me.

Also, there were a couple of characters killed during the Crisis that had a lot of unused potential. Ratcatcher could have been beefed up a little threat-wise, and Firefly has been around since 1952, pretty much pre-dating any pyromaniac in comic books. Those were dumb decisions. Although I have to gloat that Firefly was in the VU Special that came out this week. Looks like the OMAC failed to kill the guy in the fireproof suit with...fire. :rolleyes: So, allow me to gloat, even though this might be the last time we see him, I've got comic-proof that he's still alive....ahem: "AAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHA!" There. Eat it, detractors. :)

Cool thread, Shadow!

[Damo]

This is one of the stupidest quotes I've ever seen, and for some reason it pops up every single time any character dies in comics.


*SNIPS*

And that is absolutely infantile.

You gave a list of deaths that had weight and meaning. Honestly, had Scarface gone out in a final blaze of glory, I might not mind so much. But he was killed as a sidenote in some other character's story. Jade? Did her death really make a difference in the whole IC storyline? Was it a heroic sacrifice that turned the tide, like Supergirl's death or the Flash's in the first crisis? No.

I'm not against killing characters. There are dozens of comic deaths that I don't think should ever be touched. Frankly Jean Gray should have stayed dead the first time. Gwen Stacy? That had meaning. Osbourne/Green Goblin? Whoever came up with the idea of bringing him back to life should be banned from ever writing comics ever again. Heck, all of the deaths you listed were perfect and eloquent ends and should never be touched, no matter how much they hurt.

There's a difference between going out in a way that has meaning and nobility, like all those names you listed, and having your head punched off by Superboy Prime without anyone even saying who you are in the damn book. Hell, even then it wouldn't be too bad, but not when every frickin' month comes with a list of characters that got killed off as cannon fodder.

[NathanielEssex]

None of those characters had sufficient history to make them in any way irreplacable. They had potential, in the same way that absolutely any minor character has potential, i.e. some writer could come along and write them completely differently from how they had previously been written and make them cool. But merely having the potential to be a decent character at some point in the future does not a good character make. Any writer worth his salt should be able to come up with characters at least as good as any killed off in this arc.

Honestly, I've never understood why comic fans seem so absolutely terrified of characters dying.

Nope. The Alan Grant Ventriloquist stories lived up to the character's potential.(Obviously, he created him). My opinion. It is your opinion that they didn't, etc. Not terrified of character deaths. Some I like, some I don't, some I couldn't give a rat's ass about. Probably just like you.

[NathanielEssex]

They're comic books. Someone will figure out a way to get it done.

Hopefully, you're right. But I wouldn't hold my breath...

[NathanielEssex]

The whole problem with death is so overused nowadays. It's like you can't do an arc anymore without killing at least one known character. It has become a cheap, pointless way to lessen what should be one the things with the biggest impacts... characters dying. When done properly, it can pack a good punch, but now, when we have five major characters dying each month across any universe, it has become a mockery of itself. Too much of it just makes the whole thing ridiculous, and lacking any impact.

And after the grotesque kill-fest of Infinite Crisis and derivates, I was hoping things would get better after OYL. And I really hoped something better from Robinson, whose arc has been otherwise fine.

Not to mention, if they bring dead characters back, again and again, it just becomes another problem. How many times can you ressurrect a street leveller in a slightly credible way? And even if you do a 'legacy' cop-out (which work fine in heroes, but never in villains), can you buy an eventual world with a Firefly IV, Ventriloquist III, Magpie II and Clayface XXIV? Please.


But didn't you know, Overmaster? Killing characters off makes a story important. It's pretty much the only way you can. Or maybe the easiest.... :D :rolleyes:

[NathanielEssex]

You gave a list of deaths that had weight and meaning. Honestly, had Scarface gone out in a final blaze of glory, I might not mind so much. But he was killed as a sidenote in some other character's story. Jade? Did her death really make a difference in the whole IC storyline? Was it a heroic sacrifice that turned the tide, like Supergirl's death or the Flash's in the first crisis? No.

I'm not against killing characters. There are dozens of comic deaths that I don't think should ever be touched. Frankly Jean Gray should have stayed dead the first time. Gwen Stacy? That had meaning. Osbourne/Green Goblin? Whoever came up with the idea of bringing him back to life should be banned from ever writing comics ever again. Heck, all of the deaths you listed were perfect and eloquent ends and should never be touched, no matter how much they hurt.

There's a difference between going out in a way that has meaning and nobility, like all those names you listed, and having your head punched off by Superboy Prime without anyone even saying who you are in the damn book. Hell, even then it wouldn't be too bad, but not when every frickin' month comes with a list of characters that got killed off as cannon fodder.


Word. Sometimes it's not THAT they die, it's HOW they die. And I like change. Some change I like, some change I don't. I also don't fit the comic book guy stereotype, either. I'm in my twenties and only seriously got into comics in 2000. Not overweight, I can defend myself, had several girlfriends over the years, none of them have been overweight and they were all normal. I was, up until a surgery last fall, a financial advisor. Going into the pharmaceutical rep business in a few months once I've recovered from the surgery. So I don't work at, you know, a video store or comic shop spouting "Worst episode ever" to anybody that walks in. So trying to put all people who dislike a character dying into one category is pretty idiotic.

[The Shadow]

I like to see chars change (( costumes, Death, Friendships, Loves, ETC)

that hardly happens with DC, it really should just be a company with out a contunity becomes nothing ever really changes.
The problem with death is that it eliminates a character from a lexicon that will not ever end.

Since we all know Batman will be Bruce Wayne forever (maybe with the odd exception for a story purpose) the character will not age and cannot die. BUT if that's the case, after 60+ YEARS of stories you start running out of good villains and stop someone else from potentially enjoying a good story.

If they had kept the Joker dead the very first time they killed him, waaaaaaay back in Batman #1 he wouldn't have become the iconic villain he is today, would never have been on the TV show or in the movie and his death would have stopped all those cool Joker stories (read The Laughing Fish!) over the years.

If villains truely great were easy to create then there would be a bunch of Magneto's, Dr Dooms, Jokers... but in fact there aren't... because a good villain is (I believe) harder to create than a good hero.

Those second and thrid string villains give the big ones a needed break now and then.

[The Batman]

the Magpie character i think is to an extent expendable. i can't recall ever reading a story with her that really made her interesting. also, i can understand them wanting to clean house on the rouges gallery a little, if for no other reason than to make room. that being said, characters like KGBeast and especially Scarface have a good deal of potential. both are interesting, have been in really good stories, and still had alot of untapped mileage in them. i imagine that the killing of these fan favs is a way of letting people know that Robinson means business and it's not just another instance of death to the no namers but still.

oh well at least Scarface and the rest can still show up in the out of continuity material.

[Ugoff]

Disgraceful is what it is. You're given one of the most sought after jobs in comics, and all you can think to do with it is to destroy the creations of people that got the job before you? In a story that isn't even about them, turning them into canon fodder? Bad show.

Every character is someone's favorite, folks. Somewhere out there there's a guy that threw a comic at the wall in disgust because The Fisherman got killed.

The "Batman the Animated Series" people liked Scarface enough to give him two whole episodes to himself, and a major role in a third. I think that's a little more than they gave Bane. Heck, even the folks making The Batman saw potential in the character. You don't just throw a character like that away for shock value.


I understand how u feel but these characters will always exist. Either on the cartoons or in Batman comics that are not in continuity. Theres always the possiblity that someone will come along and do an alternate reality story that includes B-list characters shown in a new light. Having never followed the Batman comics before, I'm really enjoying Batman and Detective Comics right now.

[stealthwise]

*cough* Lazarus Pit *cough*

[The Shadow]

*cough* Lazarus Pit *cough*
Bah... too predictable... and it seems everyone uses em from Shiva on Batgirl to Jason Todd to Ras to Talia.

[Damo]

*cough* Lazarus Pit *cough*

1. Laz pits only work on the dying and recently dead.
2. The Laz pits themselves are kinda, well, dead. All except one, being guarded by Nyssa's League of Assassins. Unless they're dead. Like Nyssa appears to be.

Death death death death death death death.

[stealthwise]

Just pointing to an easy out for the characters' inevitable returns.

[Steppenwolf]

The number 1 problem with killing characters is that it has become more crutch than creation.

Have you guys seen Didio's DC Nation ( what the hell is DC Nation, BTW? But I diverge ) where he goes on and on about deaths and body counts in the final issue of Crisis? It's all hype. Hype is fine. But using death as a big selling point easily becomes crass and silly. IMHO, DC has crossed that line a number of times.

Number 2 problem is that it closes the door on creators down the line who might want to use that character. Yeah, yeah, I know. These characters can always come back IF a creator WITH ENOUGH CLOUT wants to bring them back. But then it's always to the inevitable chorus of , "Mmmut death should be permanent. This character should stay dead, " which taints the stories.

Death really should bring a major emotional impact. But because lazy writers have gone to the death well too often, it rarely has the kind of impact it used to, either because everyone assumes its temporary or because they've just been desensitized.

Also, a couple people have referred to the manner of death. It is critical that characters with big histories should be given big deaths if they must die.

I always think of Zero Hour where some major Golden Agers were taken out in just one or two panels. No big whoop. Not cool. :mad:

[Watchman]

Well, I can't say I like it. The Bat Rogues Gallery is my favorite out of all, so I'm sort of devastated by the loss of some of the characters (Scarface/Ventriloquist for one). However, I think the question should be, is a good purge necessary once in a while? Is it just shock value? Or is something bigger happening?

[Nick Kal]

Guys... they're cleaning house. They're getting rid of crap characters. Honestly, not everyone has to have a meaningful death. That's not how life is.

[Watchman]

Guys... they're cleaning house. They're getting rid of crap characters. Honestly, not everyone has to have a meaningful death. That's not how life is.
That's sort of the point I was trying to make, with a whole lot of other points.

IMO, it's just a purge. It happens all the time. I guarantee these characters will be back, but still, it seems a bit sad to see 'em go. ;)

[stillanerd]

Guys... they're cleaning house. They're getting rid of crap characters. Honestly, not everyone has to have a meaningful death. That's not how life is.

Exactly. KGBeast has outlived his usefulness ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. Magpie was never that popular to begin with. And The Ventriloquist/Scarface, while an interesting villain, was more amusing than a credible threat and a one-trick pony to boot. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh.

[Captain Jim]

But Ventriloquist is not a crap character. :p

[stillanerd]

But Ventriloquist is not a crap character. :p

No, just a limited one...and wooden. :D

[Damo]

Again I point out that Scarface had more episodes on Batman the Animated Series than Bane. That kinda blows the "crap character" argument out of the water for me.

[Nick Kal]

... Roxy Rocket had more episodes than Bane... so what? And Deadshot never had an episode, nor did Zsasz, nor did many other Bat Rogues... what vailidity does that bring to who is and isn't a crap character?

[rfahey]

I don't think there's been a Scarface story for years, nor do I think they've ever done anything interesting with him. If the writers can't think of anything to do with the character, he's viewed as a D-list threat, and no one really takes him seriously, then what's the point of keeping him around? They might as well try to create a new villain with some development potential.

[The Shadow]

I don't think there's been a Scarface story for years, nor do I think they've ever done anything interesting with him. If the writers can't think of anything to do with the character, he's viewed as a D-list threat, and no one really takes him seriously, then what's the point of keeping him around? They might as well try to create a new villain with some development potential.
Other than age, Mirror Master, Boomerang and Captain Cold had nothing going for them... they were D list villains. By your reconning they should have been offed ages ago.

BUT Geoff Johns turned them into credible threats and they were among the best parts of Johns' Flash run.

Why kill em when someone else might be able to make em into a badass?

[rfahey]

Other than age, Mirror Master, Boomerang and Captain Cold had nothing going for them... they were D list villains. By your reconning they should have been offed ages ago.

And by your logic villains should never be killed? Comic book villains are constantly running around with other violent criminals. I don't think it's a bad thing to show that sometimes they become victims of their own lifestyle. Also, I don't follow the Flash, but I doubt that every supervillain out there has great rehab potential. Writers haven't been able to do anything interesting with the Ventriloquist for years. If his death was in the service of a good story, or better yet a good story and a new and interesting villain, then I don't have a problem with it.

[OverMaster]

And by your logic villains should never be killed? Comic book villains are constantly running around with other violent criminals. I don't think it's a bad thing to show that sometimes they become victims of their own lifestyle. Also, I don't follow the Flash, but I doubt that every supervillain out there has great rehab potential. Writers haven't been able to do anything interesting with the Ventriloquist for years. If his death was in the service of a good story, or better yet a good story and a new and interesting villain, then I don't have a problem with it.

But these are villains dying by the bucketloads. We have to draw the line somewhere. And we have yet to see if it will lead to a better villain being brought (doubtful, very doubtful, considering the track record of the newest Batvillains). Not to mention it still smells of cheap shock value deaths.

[Violently Apathetic]

I guess it comes down to is if in the end you can say it was worth it. Is this story going to be good enough to justify (theoretically) ridding the franchise of a long running character with years of history and in a lot of cases a fair amount of surviving potential? It's not that characters should never die, it's that their deaths should be weighed against what the story gains and the franchise ultimately loses. Do we lose anything by the death of Magpie? Eh, not really, but we do gain the feeling of menace in the story that characters with names and histories aren't safe. On the other hand would killing off, say, the Riddler or Bane be worth it? Probably not.

I suppose the argument would be that you can't tell if it's going to be worth it until the story is done and obviously by then it's too late. However I think in a lot of cases it's common sense. If the writer’s would stop killing off characters haphazardly to make it seem like ‘Zomg, this story is serious business!’ then maybe death wouldn’t seem like such a joke in the DC as the frivolously killed characters wouldn’t just be brought back a few years later because other writers still see their potential and saw their deaths as lacking all meaning and poignancy.

Meh, maybe I'm just bitter since my favourites have a nasty habit of dying on me...

[NathanielEssex]

Guys... they're cleaning house. They're getting rid of crap characters. Honestly, not everyone has to have a meaningful death. That's not how life is.

But this isn't life, though. It's a comic book. If the laws of physics can be routinely violated, then something like this isn't too big of a problem.

And Ventriloquist isn't a crap character. Just your opinion. Just like it's my opinion that he isn't. Wolverine is a crappy character. :p
We're not talking sales, just taste. Just because most people like something, it doesn't mean that something is good.

[NathanielEssex]

Exactly. KGBeast has outlived his usefulness ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. Magpie was never that popular to begin with. And The Ventriloquist/Scarface, while an interesting villain, was more amusing than a credible threat and a one-trick pony to boot. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh.

Oh, they can make him a credible threat. If Two-Face, Riddler, and other non-powered villains can be a threat, so can Ventriloquist.

[NathanielEssex]

And by your logic villains should never be killed? Comic book villains are constantly running around with other violent criminals. I don't think it's a bad thing to show that sometimes they become victims of their own lifestyle. Also, I don't follow the Flash, but I doubt that every supervillain out there has great rehab potential. Writers haven't been able to do anything interesting with the Ventriloquist for years. If his death was in the service of a good story, or better yet a good story and a new and interesting villain, then I don't have a problem with it.

But maybe writers weren't TRYING to do anything interesting with the character. Maybe they were either lazy and needed a stock chump villain, or there was another focus to their stories, and Ventriloquist, while involved, was not integral to them. I doubt anybody past Grant has ever actually tried to make him a threat. They are probably just amused by him, and so utilize him in a like manner. And no one's saying no villains should be killed at all, ever. Just not this way, for someone I like (and other people on here like) such as Ventriloquist.

Now, if some cunning plan of his puts Batman in a position where Wesker has him dead-to-rights, and the only thing that saves his life is Two-Face coming in and gunning him, or sniping him, if you want to leave the shooter a mystery for now--THAT would be a final story that would make me happy. And Ventriloquist has been used a LOT. Catwoman, Birds of Prey, the craptacular War Games, Broken City, City of Crime, the list goes on and on. So, yes, he has been used a lot. But none of those writers really cared whether or not he was a threat. I'd like there to have been a writer to do that at least once before they off him.

[NathanielEssex]

But these are villains dying by the bucketloads. We have to draw the line somewhere. And we have yet to see if it will lead to a better villain being brought (doubtful, very doubtful, considering the track record of the newest Batvillains). Not to mention it still smells of cheap shock value deaths.

Yeah, most of the new villains suck, to me. I liked the Aussie bounty hunter with all of the mystical tattoos in Devin Grayson's Gotham Knights, though. And Kafka was pretty amusing.

[NathanielEssex]

I guess it comes down to is if in the end you can say it was worth it. Is this story going to be good enough to justify (theoretically) ridding the franchise of a long running character with years of history and in a lot of cases a fair amount of surviving potential? It's not that characters should never die, it's that their deaths should be weighed against what the story gains and the franchise ultimately loses. Do we lose anything by the death of Magpie? Eh, not really, but we do gain the feeling of menace in the story that characters with names and histories aren't safe. On the other hand would killing off, say, the Riddler or Bane be worth it? Probably not.

I suppose the argument would be that you can't tell if it's going to be worth it until the story is done and obviously by then it's too late. However I think in a lot of cases it's common sense. If the writer’s would stop killing off characters haphazardly to make it seem like ‘Zomg, this story is serious business!’ then maybe death wouldn’t seem like such a joke in the DC as the frivolously killed characters wouldn’t just be brought back a few years later because other writers still see their potential and saw their deaths as lacking all meaning and poignancy.

Meh, maybe I'm just bitter since my favourites have a nasty habit of dying on me...


Great post! And to add to what other people are saying, Sabretooth and Dr. Light were minor characters (Dr. Light being a chump villain for most of his career), along with several Flash villains. Oh, and Dr. Psycho was a chump for most of his existence. These guys are all awesome villains now. Don't just limit your mind to looking at things only as they are. Look at things (not just talking about comic books here) for what they COULD be as well.

[Damo]

... Roxy Rocket had more episodes than Bane... so what? And Deadshot never had an episode, nor did Zsasz, nor did many other Bat Rogues... what vailidity does that bring to who is and isn't a crap character?

Well they would have had pretty blatant problems with the censors trying to get in Deadshot or Zsasz. But I'd say that, having all of the history of DC comics to draw on, the fact that they went to this character for ideas several times says something about how "crap" he is. You're saying he's crap. I'm saying I disagree, and some fairly-well resected Bat-creatives seem to be on my side.

And for the record, Roxy didn't have more episodes than Bane.

And by your logic villains should never be killed? Comic book villains are constantly running around with other violent criminals. I don't think it's a bad thing to show that sometimes they become victims of their own lifestyle. Also, I don't follow the Flash, but I doubt that every supervillain out there has great rehab potential.

I disagree. I don't think that every villain should get a makeover (it would cheapen it if everyone was badass), and I don't think Ventriloquist or KGBeast really needed one. But there have been some flat out ridiculous villains that have been turned into cool characters. Catman, The Top, even Mr. Freeze.

But again, I have no problem with villains dying. Manhunter does it a lot, occassionally to characters I like (I will miss you Dr. Moon, you were a worthy foe to so many heroes). But at least they go down doing their villain thing, fighting the hero, showing us what they're made of. Here we've got a shadowy "real villain" killing off other characters as afterhtoughts so that we can know he's a bad ass. And if it's Two Face, do we really need to see him doing that to know he's a bad ass?


I don't think there's been a Scarface story for years, nor do I think they've ever done anything interesting with him. If the writers can't think of anything to do with the character, he's viewed as a D-list threat, and no one really takes him seriously, then what's the point of keeping him around?

He's gotten a few stories in the last few years actually. Most notably he had a whole episode of The Batman. It sucked, mind you, but by The Batman standards it was one of the better episodes.

And he was pretty good in War Games. Tainted by the pervasive suck that was War Games, but one of the better things in it.


They might as well try to create a new villain with some development potential.


We don't seem to be getting many new villains with development potential (oh wait, there's Hush, with his interesting psychological baggage of basically having Black Mask's origin!). And what happens if someone creates a good villain, and he has a slump for a few years? Well then he becomes a D-lister and gets killed, I guess? Boring.

This thread has mentioned Riddler and Two Face. Look at their careers. Both of them had a period where they were total D-Listers that hadn't appeared in years. Hell, people thought you'd done every Two Face story you could - Harvey Dent had been cured, after all, and the best writers could think of was to make new non-Harvey Two Faces.

[NathanielEssex]

[QUOTE=Damo]Well they would have had pretty blatant problems with the censors trying to get in Deadshot or Zsasz. But I'd say that, having all of the history of DC comics to draw on, the fact that they went to this character for ideas several times says something about how "crap" he is. You're saying he's crap. I'm saying I disagree, and some fairly-well resected Bat-creatives seem to be on my side.


Who said Ventriloquist was their favorite Bat-villain? I read it somewhere, too (I think it was CBG), but I cannot for the life of me remember. By the way, he's not my favorite, but he's a great character.

A buddy of mine was wondering why there wasn't a Zsasz heroclick. That was funny, because it seemed pretty obvious why there wasn't one. Kids buy them, too: "Daddy, why's he got marks all over himself?" "Well, son, after he slashes people's throats and puts them in lifelike positions as mortis settles in, he slashes a scar on his body to represent the person he just killed. With the same bloody weapon he used to kill them. Now let's go get some ice cream!"

[stillanerd]

Oh, they can make him a credible threat. If Two-Face, Riddler, and other non-powered villains can be a threat, so can Ventriloquist.

Oh I agree with that. But I think the reasons Ventriloquist/Scarface was put on the chopping block was the following: 1) While not an A-lister, he was still a notable villain among Bat-fans that his murder would really get people's attention, and that has certainly succeeded it would seem. 2) Harvey Dent/Two-Face also has multiple personalities like Ventriloquist, so Robinson probably felt having two Batman villains with multiple personalities was a little excessive, so he got rid of the one who didn't have as much history. 3) Ventriloquist whole shtick is that he acts like he's a total innocent taking orders from Scarface (A wodden "Gummy" who is a parody of Depression era gangsters) when it's really him all along. After awhile, he was getting pretty stale. Personally, I thought he made a far more appropriate crime boss than the Penguin (and Black Mask for that matter) but dramatically, it seemed like they couldn't go anywhere with him after awhile.

[OverMaster]

Yeah, most of the new villains suck, to me. I liked the Aussie bounty hunter with all of the mystical tattoos in Devin Grayson's Gotham Knights, though. And Kafka was pretty amusing.

To be honest, though, I have high hopes for the new villain Paul Dini is going to bring.

[The Shadow]

Yeah, most of the new villains suck, to me.
Black Mask... Hush (especially in Gotham Knights)... Red Hood (all the time)... all lame. They all have that cookie cutter feel to them and they all seem to be cut from the same cloth too. Kinda gets boring.

[rfahey]

Did Rupert Thorne ever actually exist in the comics? If so, is he still alive?

[Sean Walsh]

Black Mask... Hush (especially in Gotham Knights)... Red Hood (all the time)... all lame. They all have that cookie cutter feel to them and they all seem to be cut from the same cloth too. Kinda gets boring.

Black Mask has been around for years. And he and the new characterization (as big mob boss guy with sadistic tendencies) mesh fairly well, I think.

[Sean Walsh]

Did Rupert Thorne ever actually exist in the comics? If so, is he still alive?

Yes to both. He was first introduced during the classic Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers run back in the 1970's. Dunno where he is these days - probably hanging out with Vicki Vale, another character you'd think would've been revived when a movie/TV show used her in a prominent fashion...

[Damo]

Rupert hanging with Vicki?

Rupert, you dog.

And we've all seen what a nice figure she has, thanks to the Goddamn Batman.

Anway, Hush and Maskie have the same damn "formative event". Friend of Bruce (one a good friend, the other not so much), wanted parents dead in contrast to Bruce, in order to get at the money. Years later have a criminal thing going on, carry around guns, and a mask (one black, one of bandages).

[NathanielEssex]

To be honest, though, I have high hopes for the new villain Paul Dini is going to bring.

Yeah, me too. I'm also anxious to see what Morrison has planned in terms of villains. Doesn't sound good to me right now, but then, I haven't read one issue yet, so I'm going to give it a chance.

[NathanielEssex]

Oh I agree with that. But I think the reasons Ventriloquist/Scarface was put on the chopping block was the following: 1) While not an A-lister, he was still a notable villain among Bat-fans that his murder would really get people's attention, and that has certainly succeeded it would seem. 2) Harvey Dent/Two-Face also has multiple personalities like Ventriloquist, so Robinson probably felt having two Batman villains with multiple personalities was a little excessive, so he got rid of the one who didn't have as much history. 3) Ventriloquist whole shtick is that he acts like he's a total innocent taking orders from Scarface (A wodden "Gummy" who is a parody of Depression era gangsters) when it's really him all along. After awhile, he was getting pretty stale. Personally, I thought he made a far more appropriate crime boss than the Penguin (and Black Mask for that matter) but dramatically, it seemed like they couldn't go anywhere with him after awhile.

I agree with the first two points, but I still disagree with the third--to an extent. The character has become stale after all of his appearances lately. Just have him retire for a bit, something Joker needs to do, as well. When he is brought back, have him enact some badass plan that almost kills Batman. The last time I've seen a writer give any actual thought to a trap/scheme in a Batman book was the Shane McCarthy's "Riddle Me That" LOTDK story. It's almost like no one wants to take the time to dream up some grandiose/ semi-plausible plan, so let's have him fight martial artists and metas and have the mastermind types just shoot at him with guns and get their asses kicked. And when there ARE plans, make them (anything Hush has done) incomprehensible and convoluted so that we can just assume it was smart enough to outwit Batman. IMO, of course. I don't think he's hit a dramatic end, he's just hit a dramatic snag; the character (talking about Scarface here) has more potential stories in him. The only change that needs to be made to him is that he needs to be more of a strategic genius. And yeah, he was a cool crime boss.

Edit: And if he's too close to Two-Face, make him a Nightwing villain. After Blockbuster's demise, Nightwing doesn't have any mastermind villains right now, does he?

[NathanielEssex]

Black Mask... Hush (especially in Gotham Knights)... Red Hood (all the time)... all lame. They all have that cookie cutter feel to them and they all seem to be cut from the same cloth too. Kinda gets boring.

I agree on all points. At first, I liked the character change to Roman Sionis. Then, as it got on, I became more and more irritated with him. Became too much like the Joker for me. Never liked Hush. His origin is almost an exact duplicate of Black Mask's. Red Hood, I could take or leave. Doesn't interest me. I did enjoy it when he killed Captain Nazi...

You can't really think your opinion on KGBeast is completely informed if you haven't read "Ten Nights of the Beast." He put Batman on the ground in three moves, for example. Other than the outfit (which was probably considered "totally rad" in the 80's), he was awesome. Pre-dated Bane by about 5 years, too.

[rfahey]

I'll agree on Hush, whose motivation completely escapes me. All he wanted in life was total control of his parents' money. Once he had that, he put his entire fortune in jeopardy in an effort to get revenge on the son of the man who supposedly wronged him. You can't be a wealthy socialite when you're running from the law, wanted for murder!

[Astonishing X-Fan]

One thing I REALLY need to point out...

This story may have taken Scarface from us...

...But it ALSO gave us Ivy back.

So at least there's something to be happy about, too.

[Constantine Drakon]

KGBeast needed to die. Yeah, chainging him to the Beast would've bought him a few more years, but eventually having a villain around trained in the Soviet Union would make Batman look old, and we cant have that. But come on he had at least one more kick ass story in him I mean imagine KGBeast deciding to make one last grand move, knowing he won't survive it but willing to die to destroy one of the people that helped bring down the USSR. He was the finest soldier the USSR ever made, their ultimate killing machine. If he wanted to go out with a bang it could have been a huge multibook event, with Batman fighting this ultimate soldier without a country.

Instead we see him working alongside Orka and Magpie, getting pushed off a building. Teh sukc.

And yeah no more Scarface blows major chunks. Man, give the Vent a few speach therapy lessons, and step up Scarface's abuse of his right hand man (maybe cut off one of Weserk's fingers to show he means business). Scarface needed old gangster style, Capone-like illegal gambling dens, his boys around him with names like Fingers and Rhino, masterminding crime sprees and putting men in cement shoes. It's not hard to put him back on top again. That unpainted look he was sporting back in Knights was kinda cool.

It's all socko's fault you know. He's never gotten respect after that.

[UniqueFrequency]

Guys... they're cleaning house. They're getting rid of crap characters. Honestly, not everyone has to have a meaningful death. That's not how life is.

this pretty much sums it up for me... i guess the specific characters isn't a big issue for me 'cause none of the villains killed are faves of mine, but if this paves the road for a new "joker" class villain, why not?

[rfahey]

Maybe Connor Kent's severed hand can field the next evil puppet villain, Bizarrface.

[The Shadow]

if this paves the road for a new "joker" class villain, why not?
Well... why aren't there more Joker class villains? Because they aren't that easy to create that's why! Think about it... if they had killed the Joker and left him dead in Batman #1 waaaaaaaaaay back in 1940 there would BE no Joker. And how many Joker class villains does Batman REALLY have? Two-Face, Penguin and the Riddler. After that there's a big drop in quality... and all those villains were created in the golden age!

If it were easy I think we would have more... and I think it takes a writer to want to make a villain a great one.

[jaguarshark]

Originally posted by NathanielEssex
A buddy of mine was wondering why there wasn't a Zsasz heroclick. That was funny, because it seemed pretty obvious why there wasn't one. Kids buy them, too: "Daddy, why's he got marks all over himself?" "Well, son, after he slashes people's throats and puts them in lifelike positions as mortis settles in, he slashes a scar on his body to represent the person he just killed. With the same bloody weapon he used to kill them. Now let's go get some ice cream!"

I read my first Zsasz story when I was five. I thought he was an incredibly cool character, but I guess I was a weird kid.
Actually, not too long after I read that Zsasz story, I thought the Ventriloquist died, which is the point of this post. Wasn't the Ventriloquist already dead? I stopped reading comics for awhile there, so I'm worried I might have missed something...
I was pretty sure that during either KnightFall or Knightquest, the Ventriloquist killed himself during a fight between Socko and Scarface. That's the way I always read the scene, anyway, although they never actually said he died, for memory. So, I take it I either read it wrong, or he just got better? Any help would be much appreciated.
And as long as we're on the dead rogues topic... Rather than cleaning house by killing them, I would really, really like to see some of them just stay in Arkham for a long time. Take the Joker, for instance. Everyone says that he's overused, but rather than killing him, or having him go into hiding for awhile, I'd really love it if he just got locked up in Arkham for a decade or so, and wasn't able to escape.
So, in keeping with that, I like the idea of keeping the lower level villians locked up in there for awhile when nobody wants to use them, just so security at the Asylum doesn't seem like such a joke. You know, Arkham is a built-in storehouse for unused characters, there's no need to kill 'em all off.

Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with killing off KGBeast. The whole Soviet Union thing really ages the Batman character. But, proving that every character is a star to somebody, Magpie was the baddie in one of the first Batman comics I read, and I thought she was a fantastic character. Each to their own, etc.

[OverMaster]

It was revealed in 'Prodigal' the Ventriloquist didn't kill himself, just wounded himself, in Knightfall. After that, he had big roles in Cataclysm and No Man's Land, as well as Broken City. Then, IIRC, he was killed in War Games, and brought back with no explanation just to be killed again.

I'll say it once more: the poor man's the Kenny Mc Cormick of the Batverse.

[Damo]

Well in Knightfall Socko and Scarface shot one another. So his hands were what were badly injured. Makes sense, even looking at the panels (more sense than The Joker's umpteenth millionth survival of an explosion or similar).

He WAS killed in War Games (Jesus, that has to be the worst crossover in Batman history). His return can either be blamed on the Retcon Punch, or Kid Eternity leaving the doors to death open.

[NathanielEssex]

KGBeast needed to die. Yeah, chainging him to the Beast would've bought him a few more years, but eventually having a villain around trained in the Soviet Union would make Batman look old, and we cant have that. But come on he had at least one more kick ass story in him I mean imagine KGBeast deciding to make one last grand move, knowing he won't survive it but willing to die to destroy one of the people that helped bring down the USSR. He was the finest soldier the USSR ever made, their ultimate killing machine. If he wanted to go out with a bang it could have been a huge multibook event, with Batman fighting this ultimate soldier without a country.

Instead we see him working alongside Orka and Magpie, getting pushed off a building. Teh sukc.

And yeah no more Scarface blows major chunks. Man, give the Vent a few speach therapy lessons, and step up Scarface's abuse of his right hand man (maybe cut off one of Weserk's fingers to show he means business). Scarface needed old gangster style, Capone-like illegal gambling dens, his boys around him with names like Fingers and Rhino, masterminding crime sprees and putting men in cement shoes. It's not hard to put him back on top again. That unpainted look he was sporting back in Knights was kinda cool.

It's all socko's fault you know. He's never gotten respect after that.


You interested in being an editor at DC? I like your ideas :)

That's true, the whole USSR angle of The Beast ages Batman. But, doesn't Magneto's being a victim of the Holocaust place him as much older than he is typically represented? I mean, The Beast could have been put in cryogenic stasis by his superiors and forgotten about with the dissolution of teh Soviet Republic, kinda like Omega Red...But that's OK. LIke I said earlier, Anatoly wasn't a very prominent part of the Beast character, so a legacy character ain't a bad idea. A cousin , nephew, roomates' fathers' cousin's uncle-in-law...who gives a damn? Just come in and mop the floor with Bats as payment for the death of the original KGBeast. Restore honor to his beloved one's memory...or some sh**. I don't think the concept of KGBeast needed to die, just the character who has a history as villain from the Cold War era. Or maybe another NKVDemon. Make this guy Spetznaz property now. They still exist, right?

[NathanielEssex]

I read my first Zsasz story when I was five. I thought he was an incredibly cool character, but I guess I was a weird kid.
Actually, not too long after I read that Zsasz story, I thought the Ventriloquist died, which is the point of this post. Wasn't the Ventriloquist already dead? I stopped reading comics for awhile there, so I'm worried I might have missed something...
I was pretty sure that during either KnightFall or Knightquest, the Ventriloquist killed himself during a fight between Socko and Scarface. That's the way I always read the scene, anyway, although they never actually said he died, for memory. So, I take it I either read it wrong, or he just got better? Any help would be much appreciated.
And as long as we're on the dead rogues topic... Rather than cleaning house by killing them, I would really, really like to see some of them just stay in Arkham for a long time. Take the Joker, for instance. Everyone says that he's overused, but rather than killing him, or having him go into hiding for awhile, I'd really love it if he just got locked up in Arkham for a decade or so, and wasn't able to escape.
So, in keeping with that, I like the idea of keeping the lower level villians locked up in there for awhile when nobody wants to use them, just so security at the Asylum doesn't seem like such a joke. You know, Arkham is a built-in storehouse for unused characters, there's no need to kill 'em all off.

Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with killing off KGBeast. The whole Soviet Union thing really ages the Batman character. But, proving that every character is a star to somebody, Magpie was the baddie in one of the first Batman comics I read, and I thought she was a fantastic character. Each to their own, etc.

Zsasz rules! Scares the hell outta me. Anyone read that Andersen Gabrych issue where he nearly kills Batman and has to be stopped by blonde Robin? That was really cool. Breyfogle's Zsasz is the scary one. Along with his Scarface and Stirk. Guy could draw freaky-looking people. Why doesn't he have a DC job??? His fight scenes were dynamic and stylish, too.

Anyone remember that demoniac...thing that went around killing people and animals at various points in Gotham to create a giant pentagram out of blood that would create some horrible curse if he succeeded? He wore a white robe, and he died at the end of the issue by falling off a cliff. C'Baoth, I think. That was another scary Grant/Breyfogle creation. And it whupped Batman's ass (sorry for the steal, Wesley Willis), too. That thing wasn't even human. Maybe it used to be. Bring it back, DC! Unlike most monster/demon villains, it looked like it had the potential to be a recurring character. Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

Sorry about the tangent. Anyway, I just wanted to say that your idea of what to do with Scarface was nice.

[NathanielEssex]

It was revealed in 'Prodigal' the Ventriloquist didn't kill himself, just wounded himself, in Knightfall. After that, he had big roles in Cataclysm and No Man's Land, as well as Broken City. Then, IIRC, he was killed in War Games, and brought back with no explanation just to be killed again.

I'll say it once more: the poor man's the Kenny Mc Cormick of the Batverse.

Lol! Ain't that the truth. That should be an ability of his by now. Maybe the magic of the cursed Blackgate hangman's tree wood that infests his dummy resurrects him. It would be hilarious if a writer acknowledged this phenomenon in a future Bat-comic, having Joker say the whole "Oh no! They killed Arny! You bastards!" schtick. Sounds like something Slott would do.

[Captain Jim]

I believe I was the one who said Ventriloquist was one of my favorites. And whoever said he hadn't been used to his potential since (creator) Alan Grant left, I think you're right. He's largely shown up in cameo scenes and been treated as a joke. Back in the day, though, boy, he was good!

It is hard to create interesting new villains, but the one guy who did a great job at it was the above mentioned Alan Grant. Boy, he had some weirdos! (Ratcatcher is another that comes to mind.) I can see killing off lame characters that have never been handled well, but killing off characters only because they've been misused recently seems shortsighted at best, IMO.

[rfahey]

Speaking of old villains that still have a few good stories left in them, I wouldn't mind if they dusted off Cornelius Stirk, who struck me as a far freakier version of the Scarecrow. I only read one of his stories, during Knightquest I think, but a psychically powered serial killer who eats human hearts and scares his victims almost to death is always entertaining.

[jaguarshark]

Originally posted by Nathaniel Essex
That's true, the whole USSR angle of The Beast ages Batman. But, doesn't Magneto's being a victim of the Holocaust place him as much older than he is typically represented? I mean, The Beast could have been put in cryogenic stasis by his superiors and forgotten about with the dissolution of teh Soviet Republic, kinda like Omega Red...But that's OK. LIke I said earlier, Anatoly wasn't a very prominent part of the Beast character, so a legacy character ain't a bad idea. A cousin , nephew, roomates' fathers' cousin's uncle-in-law...who gives a damn? Just come in and mop the floor with Bats as payment for the death of the original KGBeast. Restore honor to his beloved one's memory...or some sh**. I don't think the concept of KGBeast needed to die, just the character who has a history as villain from the Cold War era. Or maybe another NKVDemon. Make this guy Spetznaz property now. They still exist, right?

Yeah, some sort of cryogenic freeze or de-aging process could have worked for the Beast, if they were desperate to keep him. The example you mentioned of an aged character, Magneto, has actually been significantly de-aged at least once in-story, hence why he's still around. But Magneto is one of the best characters ever, so any excuse to keep him around would work for me.
The Beast could possibly have worked as a Captain America riff... he was frozen, after all, so that might have worked for the Beast.
But like I said, I'm not particularly fussed that he's dead anyway. And as you said, he'd be easy enough to create a legacy character out of eventually.

Originally posted by rfahey
Speaking of old villains that still have a few good stories left in them, I wouldn't mind if they dusted off Cornelius Stirk, who struck me as a far freakier version of the Scarecrow. I only read one of his stories, during Knightquest I think, but a psychically powered serial killer who eats human hearts and scares his victims almost to death is always entertaining.
Oh, hell yes. Is he still alive?

[The Shadow]

It is hard to create interesting new villains, but the one guy who did a great job at it was the above mentioned Alan Grant. Boy, he had some weirdos! (Ratcatcher is another that comes to mind.) I can see killing off lame characters that have never been handled well, but killing off characters only because they've been misused recently seems shortsighted at best, IMO.
Preach it Jimmy!

[The Shadow]

Speaking of old villains that still have a few good stories left in them, I wouldn't mind if they dusted off Cornelius Stirk, who struck me as a far freakier version of the Scarecrow.
Refresh my memory here... when did he appear?

[rfahey]

I'm pretty sure he was in a story during the Knightfall/Knightquest era. He's a serial killer who deliberately scares the crap out of his victims before killing them, then eats their hearts so he can consume the fear-induced hormones that their bodies produce just before death. He has the ability to psychically make himself appear to be someone well-known to his victims, allowing him to move in for the kill very easily. That might have been connected with his consumption of the fear hormones. He looks pretty freaky too - small bald guy with huge eyes. He got sent back to Arkham at the end of the story I'm thinking about. I assume he's still alive - Wikipedia doesn't say that he was ever killed.

[Guts/Batman]

Who he has killed....I have no problems with. They are all destined to come back anyways so I'm not getting overly worried about them.

Though Ventriloquist just keeps dying about every other issue...

[rfahey]

Cornelius Stirk first appeared in Detective 592, according to some fan's website: http://www.dcuguide.com/chronology.php?name=corneliusstirk.

[OverMaster]

Oh, hell yes. Is he still alive?

Yeah. The last time we saw Stirk, he was heading to Gotham City after the Arkham villains escaped way back in Road to No Man's Land. He must be out there somewhere.

[Damo]

Eating fear hormones in people's hearts. *Sighs.* Yeah, that's grounded in science... it has the word hormones in there after all.

[devinost]

I agree on all points. At first, I liked the character change to Roman Sionis. Then, as it got on, I became more and more irritated with him. Became too much like the Joker for me. Never liked Hush. His origin is almost an exact duplicate of Black Mask's. Red Hood, I could take or leave. Doesn't interest me. I did enjoy it when he killed Captain Nazi...

You can't really think your opinion on KGBeast is completely informed if you haven't read "Ten Nights of the Beast." He put Batman on the ground in three moves, for example. Other than the outfit (which was probably considered "totally rad" in the 80's), he was awesome. Pre-dated Bane by about 5 years, too.

"Ten nights of the beast" sealed the deal of me becoming a huge Batfan. I will miss KGBeast

[literally exaggerated]

"Ten nights of the beast" sealed the deal of me becoming a huge Batfan. I will miss KGBeast

Thats fine, but it doesn't somehow mean killing him was the wrong thing to do.

[devinost]

Agreed, But it will be missed.

[NathanielEssex]

Yeah, but see, there is no "right" or "wrong" in this. It's all opinion. If someone feels that was the wrong thing to do, they're right. If someone feels that was the right thing to do, they are right as well. I don't see what's so difficult about this. The only thing the pro-death side has that supercedes opinion would be that his past dates him, and by extension, Batman. And they convinced me. But I said from the start that a legacy character would be cool, anyway.

[Damo]

Well yeah his past dates him (and by extension Batman). Doesn't mean he couldn't go out with style. Someone mentioned him making one last big hit, never intending to survive, Kraven's Last Hunt style. That would have kicked total ass.

[NathanielEssex]

Well yeah his past dates him (and by extension Batman). Doesn't mean he couldn't go out with style. Someone mentioned him making one last big hit, never intending to survive, Kraven's Last Hunt style. That would have kicked total ass.

Oh, hell yes! Put in a one-shot or something to that effect!

Although he deliberately did a hatchet job (he admitted as much on his site) on the character in order to push Bane on people, that's just about the only bad thing Chuck Dixon's done to the Bat-mythos in my eyes. Gearhead and the General are great creations of his....which probly means one of them will die in this storyarc. :rolleyes:

By the way, I loved Kraven's death. And he was a great Spider-Man villain. That's how rogue deaths should be written. All hail JMD!!

EDIT: In the second paragraph, I was referring to Chuck Dixon making Beast into a chump.

[rfahey]

Eating fear hormones in people's hearts. *Sighs.* Yeah, that's grounded in science... it has the word hormones in there after all.

Hey, it's about as realistic as a middle aged puppetmaster running a gang in an urban slum.

[Damo]

I respectfully disagree. People in the DC Universe are used to working for weirdos. The Joker somehow always gets goons, lord knows how. So they'd probably be willing to work for yet another fruitcake, if his plans were good. And in his first appearance, Scarface was tough (for the time) and not afraid to shoot you for giving him lip (even if he needed a little help with the gun).

On the other hand, fear hormones in the heart is... scientifically wrong on every level.

[Guts/Batman]

On the other hand, fear hormones in the heart is... scientifically wrong on every level.

You have to let your Suspension of Disbelief have some chance of working...

[Damo]

I suspend disbelief for all sorts of things. Superman flies. Just does.

I draw the line when people get wrong science that's not just known, but frankly rather simple. Except when it's a joke.

"Thanks the baby so fresh tri-patch system, these soothing chemical patches alter your babies DNA while leaving the RNA untouched." Heh.

[Lex]

Batman has some of the richest villains in comics... and probably the best gallery of bad guys. Even second and third teir villains have potential as Geoff Johns showed in The Flash.Normally I would be thinking the exact same thing. I have a big problem with killing off any character (hero, villain or supporting). I believe that every character, no matter how lame, has a spark that a talented writing can use to tell a great story.

Even Magpie has a tiny spark. I loved Dan Slott's interpretation of her in his Arkham mini.

But I really haven't cared too much about the villains being killed in this story. KCBeast, Magpie, Orca and even Ventrilaquist don't really excite me as characters. So, like I said, normally I would rally against any character being killed off, but I haven't cared too much about their deaths... in fact I'm kind of hoping Orca bites it.

[Babylon23]

So far, I've been intrigued by Robinson's story. I don't really have a deep connection to any of the dead villains, so their death hasn't impacted me. However, I can understand people's fraustration at seeing their favourite villains used as cannon fodder.

One of the benefits that the Batman franchise has over most other comics is an existing avenue for writers to use these characters even if they are dead. LotDK and the countless spin-off bat miniseries often involve writers telling stories in Batman's past. While not ideal, at least there's a chance for writers to continue to tell stories featuring characters like KGBeast and Ventriliquist.

[rfahey]

I draw the line when people get wrong science that's not just known, but frankly rather simple. Except when it's a joke.

Specifically, Stirk was after norepinephrine, which is released from the adrenal glands into the blood. Since hearts generally are large repositories of blood, I don't see how his plan to eat the hearts of people suffering from great fear in order to consume the norepinephrine is unsound. He might have eaten other tissues as well, including the adrenal glands.

[Damo]

If he ate adrenal glands... okay, maybe. But NE and its sister hormone Epinephrine (aka Adrenaline) don't really build up in the heart. Yes, you could stretch it a bit and call the stress hormones "fear hormones", but they're degraded right as they're used. Assuming he could somehow get something out of eating those hormones, he'd really want to have a a straw sticking into the blood of a very scared person.

[The Shadow]

in fact I'm kind of hoping Orca bites it.
She is the weakest link in the group... well, her and Magpie anyway.

[AllisterH]

Thats fine, but it doesn't somehow mean killing him was the wrong thing to do.

Yeah that's true but there's another distressing point.

If KGBeast can be reduced to such a sad state from such a high point and to a lesser extent of the ventriloquist, (Orca and Magpie were never anything more than jokes), I fear for all of the formerly A-class rogues (I'm looking at you Prometheus...reduced to being Hush's lackey and looking like he's about to catch a beatdown from the Huntress)

[The Shadow]

I'm looking at you Prometheus...reduced to being Hush's lackey and looking like he's about to catch a beatdown from the Huntress
After taking on th entire JLA and almost winning he should be lightyears out of Huntress' league.

[NathanielEssex]

After taking on th entire JLA and almost winning he should be lightyears out of Huntress' league.

I heard that. Course, a bull-whip to the balls isn't exactly something out of Huntresses' means, but Prometheus still needs to be made into badass he deserves to be. Anyone else like it when he perforated Gangbuster in the last issue of Crisis?

[Damo]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Huntress can take Prometheus simply because the guy is walking, talking, distilled arrogance, put in a freezer then later chisled into the shape of a man. He kicks someone out a window - does he check to see if they're dead? No. He completely owns Batman, Huntress, Kyle, Flash, and J'onn. Does he follow through and finish 'em off? Nah, they couldn't possibly beat him.

He's Dr. Frickin' Evil. "No, I'll just walk away and assume that he perished in my elaborate scheme. What? Why are you looking at me like that?"

Prometheus comes up with a scary-brilliant plan, beats Huntress silly, kicks her out a window, she manages to grab ahold of the window sill and fives minutes later sneaks up and zaps him with a tazer while he's going to the bathroom. Because that guy can't help but leave his pants around his ankles.

(I know some people think she would just shoot him with an arrow... but the girl can have a mean sense of humor sometimes)

[NathanielEssex]

Yeah, people were wondering why Doom loses so much with all of his power on the Marvel message boards. It's his arrogance, pure and simple. He just cannot help underestimating his enemies. It sounds like Prometheus has a similar hang-up.

[Apathy Boy]

I've never gotten all hot-and-bothered about characters getting killed off. The "oh, but he had so much potential!" argument doesn't fly because every character has the potential to be written well. The problem is, few of them are.

I mean, I liked the Ventriloquist as much as the next guy, but how long has it been since we've seen a really good story about him? Maybe ten years?

I don't have any problem at all with killing off characters that are prone to being mis-written. I have no doubts that there will be replaced with other cool characters, who may or may not suffer the same fate.

[The Shadow]

I don't have any problem at all with killing off characters that are prone to being mis-written.
So you would have been OK with Batman being killed off for the past decade... and ESPECIALLY during Winick's run... because he was poorly written?

[Damo]

So you would have been OK with Batman being killed off for the past decade... and ESPECIALLY during Winick's run... because he was poorly written?


Ooo... dis.

[Apathy Boy]

So you would have been OK with Batman being killed off for the past decade... and ESPECIALLY during Winick's run... because he was poorly written?Sure. If Batman was so horribly written over such a lengthy period of time that the character was damaged beyond repair, then I would have no problem with him being killed off and getting a do-over. I didn't have any problem when DC did that to the Flash after the horrid death of Iris Allen/trial of Barry Allen years.

Of course, Batman was nowhere near as poorly written as you say he was. Seriously, are you saying there hasn't been a good Batman story in a DECADE? That's dissing a list of books that includes BROKEN CITY, NO MAN'S LAND, THE LONG HALLOWEEN, the Ed Brubaker run, ARKHAM ASYLUM: LIVING HELL and the DC Johnson/JH Williams/Seth Fisher "Snow" arc from LOTDK. If you didn't like any of those books, more power to you, but... man, that was some good readin'.

[The Shadow]

Seriously, are you saying there hasn't been a good Batman story in a DECADE? That's dissing a list of books that includes BROKEN CITY, NO MAN'S LAND, THE LONG HALLOWEEN, the Ed Brubaker run, ARKHAM ASYLUM: LIVING HELL and the DC Johnson/JH Williams/Seth Fisher "Snow" arc from LOTDK.
Of course there were some gems... but the overall consistency was low. I have a butt load of Batman comics going back to issue #38... and a 23 year consecutive run... I know what I'm talking about!

Hell, even when Boring Alle... I mean Barry Allen ;) was at his lowest there were still the odd gem in there!

[Apathy Boy]

Of course there were some gems... but the overall consistency was low. I have a butt load of Batman comics going back to issue #38... and a 23 year consecutive run... I know what I'm talking about!

Hell, even when Boring Alle... I mean Barry Allen ;) was at his lowest there were still the odd gem in there!My thinking is that, if there were still some gems in there along with the crap, then a character like Batman must have some creative potential left. Whereas there seems to be some indication that a character like the Ventriloquist can't be written well by anyone other than his creator, so I don't have a problem with him being rubbed out and replaced with some other character that writers actually have some enthusiasm in writing.

[The Shadow]

My thinking is that, if there were still some gems in there along with the crap, then a character like Batman must have some creative potential left. Whereas there seems to be some indication that a character like the Ventriloquist can't be written well by anyone other than his creator, so I don't have a problem with him being rubbed out and replaced with some other character that writers actually have some enthusiasm in writing.
Now in fairness EVERYONE wants a crack at the Bat. There are likely very few writers just drooling at the chance to write Scarface.

[Nate_Birch]

I was sad to see the Ventriliquist go...

...he was a really interesting character that had a lot of potential, but unfortunately most recent writers just wrote him as kind of a bland 2nd stringer, focusing more on making sure Scarface had lots of "b" sounds to pronounce as "g"s in his dialogue rather than thinking of anything interesting to do with him.

I'm also kind of sad to see KGBeast go. Obviously with the USSR and the KGB long gone he's sort of a relic of the past, but I still thought he was kind of a bad-ass character...I remember him being used really effectively by Chuck Dixon (I think) as an opponent for Robin back when Tim Drake first donned the domino mask.

[DeweyFinn]

Yeah, I really don't think they should have killed the Ventriloquist. I thought he was a good, kind of creepy character. I'm a big fan of James Robinson's work, The Golden Age and Starman, but I am really not happy with his decison here. They could have easily killed off Bane, who I just never liked. He looks like a steroid addicted luchadore! (though does anyone remember the story that came out directly before he was introduced, it was in Legends of the Dark Knight, it was called Venom, I believe. Batman as a steroid addict? That was a great story and some of the best art I'd ever seen in comics. I'd love to find that one again...)

[NathanielEssex]

I've always found him to be creepy, too. I remember an issue of Wizard that had the top ten sets of villains in comics. Not surprisingly, Batman and Spider-Man were the top two.

I kinda like Bane, but I cracked up when they called him a "WWF reject."
When they mentioned Ventriloquist, the writer said something to the effect of "...I guarantee you'd find him creepy if you woke up in the middle of the night and he was sitting at the end of your bed, putting on a show just for you". He said it much better than that, but, eh, you catch my drift...

And Venom is collected in paperback, just in case ya didn't know that.

[Damo]

They really should've implimented the Gotham Knights design for Scarface across the board. The unpainted wood look was freaky.