Did Joe Chill kill bat's parents in the standard cont.

[NightBirdFlying]

I always though that in the reg cont the killer of bats parents had never been caught, so i ask did Joe Chill kill bats parents in the normal uni?:confused:

[Captain Jim]

That has changed more than once over the years. Originally, the answer was yes. Then they changed that, I think it was during Zero Hour, to make it so Batman never found his killer. Now, recently, I understand it's been changed back so it's Joe Chill again.

[DonC]

I prefer it being Joe Chill. You just know that when it wasn't Chill some writer was going to convince his editor to let his new villain be the one who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. "Years ago he killed Batman's parents. Now he's back to finish the job. Introducing.... Some New Badguy!"

[Karl O'Neill]

is it true Grant morrison will write Joe chill into a future batman storY?

[Ungenesis]

Now here's the real puzzler ... in New Earth continuity, was Joe Chill working for Lou Moxon? :)

[Captain Jim]

Presumably not, as Ed Brubaker used Moxon in a story a few years ago, but it had nothing to do with Chill.

[TheWraith]

Yes, Joe Chill is back as the killer of the Waynes, which is as it should be.

[Chad]

You know, since Batman 47, I don't think the killer of the Waynes has ever been anyone other than Joe Chill. Yes, after Zero Hour it seemed as if Batman never caught the man who murdered his parents, but I don't think it was ever stated that the killer was someone other than Chill. What made things confusing was that immediately prior to the retcon, the Zero Hour tie-in issue of Detective had Batman travel to an alternate timeline in which eight year old Bruce Wayne was killed and Thomas and Martha Wayne survived. In this reality, Chill didn't pull the trigger. I think that issue combined with the fact that Batman no longer knew who killed his mother and father, left some readers with the impression that in the new timeline, Chill was innocent. DC themselves never made up their mind and since then, things have been unclear. Of course, just because we saw a reality in which Joe Chill wasn't guilty doesn't mean that it has any bearing on the post-Zero Hour one - I mean, did Batman start thinking "Hmm, my parents didn't die in this world, I wonder if they're still alive in this one?"

Anyhow, I haven't picked up the latest issue of Batman, but isn't Grant Morrison scheduled to address Joe Chill in this story?

[Choppa]

is it true Grant morrison will write Joe chill into a future batman storY?

Batman #665:

Written by Grant Morrison; Art by Andy Kubert and Jesse Delperdang; Cover by Andy Kubert

The "Three Ghosts of Batman" continues as Batman tries to discover the mysterious contents of Casebook X! This issue takes us back to Batman's early days and reveals the truth about his final confrontation with Joe Chill, the man who murdered his parents. It also ties in to 52, as we learn what really happened to Batman inside the cave in Nanda Parbat when he underwent a seven-day Buddhist isolation ritual to purge his negative karma.

[Lorendiac]

You know, since Batman 47, I don't think the killer of the Waynes has ever been anyone other than Joe Chill. Yes, after Zero Hour it seemed as if Batman never caught the man who murdered his parents, but I don't think it was ever stated that the killer was someone other than Chill. What made things confusing was that immediately prior to the retcon, the Zero Hour tie-in issue of Detective had Batman travel to an alternate timeline in which eight year old Bruce Wayne was killed and Thomas and Martha Wayne survived. In this reality, Chill didn't pull the trigger. I think that issue combined with the fact that Batman no longer knew who killed his mother and father, left some readers with the impression that in the new timeline, Chill was innocent. DC themselves never made up their mind and since then, things have been unclear. Of course, just because we saw a reality in which Joe Chill wasn't guilty doesn't mean that it has any bearing on the post-Zero Hour one - I mean, did Batman start thinking "Hmm, my parents didn't die in this world, I wonder if they're still alive in this one?"

Anyhow, I haven't picked up the latest issue of Batman, but isn't Grant Morrison scheduled to address Joe Chill in this story?

I remember reading that Zero Hour tie-in story when it first came out, and even then I was wondering in confusion just what the point of the exercise was supposed to be. It wasn't like I had heard of thousands of Batman fans screaming that there was anything dreadfully wrong with the old version of "Joe Chill killed Bruce's parents, and many years later Batman caught up with Joe Chill" . . . and there's an old adage: "If it ain't broke -- don't fix it!"

So at the time I just felt it was confusing and unnecessary. For what it's worth: the story I've subsequently heard is that every editor of a group of titles at DC was told that he could use "Zero Hour" as the "convenient excuse" for One Big Retcon Per Title. The Joe Chill thing was supposed to be one of several Batman-related retcons that Denny O'Neil thus imposed in 1994. Apparently he had decided it would work better if, to this day, Bruce had never positively identified and never again met the criminal who had killed his parents way back when. I think

Hmmm. One of these days, maybe I ought to put together a "timeline" of various "Turning Points" where the question of "Who is Joe Chill and did he really have anything to do with the Wayne Murders?" is involved -- Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, Post-Zero Hour, Post-IC, etc.

[BatKnight89]

I am so happy they put it back to being Chill. It takes away that fear that they'll try to say it's someone else and make a new vilian out of it as someone stated above.

I was not at all happy when they said it might have been Metallo that killed the Waynes in Superman/Batman, I think in that first or second issue, I'm pretty sure the 1st.

That made me cringe, even though I figured that wouldn't turn out true, but I'm glad it's Chill again.

They need to finally set some rules at DC comics, set a story and orgin for all of these great characters and stick to it for good!

Bruce's parents were killed by Joe that is that, Now how about Superman, I love that with the latest origin they made it more like the original, but I like Man of Steel as well, but Birthright wasn't too bad, I just didn't like some things about it.

I wish they could erase all of that Jason Todd/Redhood nonsense. That was such an insult and a mess of a story. Just not cool at all.

[yourverysilly]

just finished reading infinite crisis. cor! that was pretty good. Still, for gods sake, they've brought the waynes killer back into continuity. What a shitty thing to do.

[OverMaster]

just finished reading infinite crisis. cor! that was pretty good. Still, for gods sake, they've brought the waynes killer back into continuity. What a shitty thing to do.

Eh, it's not like it makes any real difference at the end.

[Paul Dee]

What a shitty thing to do.


Why? What's so bad about that?

It's sort of inevitable really as they'll want the comics to run closer to the new Batman movie franchise. It doesn't bother me because Batman's crusade isn't about finding the killer and bringing him to justice in that's it about preventing that sort of chaotic event from happening to anyone else.

[TheWraith]

They corrected a blatant error by bringing him back as the known killer. That gets a big thumbs up from me.

[DonC]

We did this before. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=170208&highlight=Chill)

[Captain Jim]

Threads merged.

[Nefarius]

I prefer it being Joe Chill. You just know that when it wasn't Chill some writer was going to convince his editor to let his new villain be the one who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. "Years ago he killed Batman's parents. Now he's back to finish the job. Introducing.... Some New Badguy!"

Or make Jack Nicholson the killer of Bruce's parents.:p

[Sizzle]

I like it being chill. It was changed after Denny started losing it in the late 90's.

I'd like to see the Reaper make a comeback too.

[Super Buddies Forever]

Yeah, this was probably the best change that Infinite Crisis brought about. I'm one of the biggest defenders of Post-Crisis/Zero Hour changes to the DCU Universe, but the alterations made to Batman in 1994 stunk.

If Denny O'Neill wanted the murder of the Waynes to remain a mystery, he should have gone with an explanation stemming from the Zero Hour tie-in a month before. Batman becomes paranoid that maybe Chill was innocent. There's no way to prove now whether he did or didn't. He'll always have a doubt in his mind whether his parents were avenged. I could have lived with that, because it doesn't erase Chill or the possibility that he did indeed do it.

[Captain Jim]

It wasn't just O'Neil (though he may have had the final word); I think most or all of the writers at the time felt the same way. I know Dixon did.

[Beacon]

I’m all for keeping him as the killer for a number of reasons.

1) Like others have said, leaving a blank spot just invites all kinds of unseemly retcons (“Oh, the 80s movie said it was the Joker” “Batman/Superman said it was Metallo” “The new writer says it’s this character he created”).

2) I prefer the killer as a generic thug type (if only because it keeps Batman grounded enough that he won’t lose sight of the street level guys amidst the superpowered villains and aliens). “Some guy” continues to be “some guy” even after you name him.

3) Batman has absolutely no right to claim to be the “World’s Greatest Detective” if the identity of the killer is still a mystery to him so I’m not a big fan of the “no one knows who he was” 90s retcon.

4) I’ve read some of the OLD stories with him and I gotta say that he has the single greatest villain death ever. Batman finds him and tells him why he’s after him. Joe panics and runs to some underworld allies for protection. Unfortunately, he tells them WHY he needs protection (he’s the reason that Batman became who he is) and they kill him for being the one responsible for all Gotham criminals living in fear of the Bat.* It’s the ultimate in getting what’s coming to you.

*Heh, Identity Crisis might have been downright readable if it had ended that way and Light was killed by Deathstroke or someone.

[BeastieRunner]

I'd like to see the Reaper make a comeback too.

Hell yeah! Fear the Reaper!

[lollercoaster]

I, for one, don't like the idea of Batman knowing the identity of his parents' killer. In my opinion, the mystery really serves to ground Batman. He may be Batgod, but at the end of the day, he doesn't even know who the hell killed his damn parents. It's a bit pathetic, but he was just a kid at the time. Totally helpless.

So I guess it isn't just a ground, actually. In fact, it serves a second purpose -- it's what keeps him going.

Putting a name on the face cheapens Batman's mission, IMO.

[elias_A]

I don't care that much either way, but I think I prefer Joe Chill, since it shows Batman's mission is not just about what happened to his parents, he still continues to fight crime evn after he found their killer.

And I agree, the danger of stories like Loeb's which threatened to make Metallo the killer should better be avoided.

Ty Templeton did a great Joe Chill story in the final issue of Batman Adventures:
Joe Chill today is exstremely frightened because he didn't kill Bruce back then, so that he might recognise him by chance now. He even sees Bruce Wayne's face everywhere. So when he commits a burglary and Batman surprises him, he manages to remove batman's mask, but seeing Bruce's face he thinks he's gone crazy, is terrified, and falls somehow out of the window. Batman tries to save him, but Joe is so frightened he pushes him away and falls to his death.
Batman doesn't realise that his parents' murderer just died, but is almost in despair: A man died, and I wasn't able to save him? Why, why did he refuse my help?

Maybe I'm not retelling it very good, but that was really a great story.

[Choppa]

They corrected a blatant error by bringing him back as the known killer. That gets a big thumbs up from me.

How is it a 'blantant error?' Originally Batman never knew who killed his parents as far as I know. And given that Year Two is back in continuity, that means that Batman hunted down Chill with a gun. That seems more like an error to me than not knowing who killed his parents.

[Darth Joker]

I really hate the idea of it being Metallo.

Here's why...

1. Metallo is a 2nd (or 3rd) tier Superman rogue. The guy who killed Batman's parents should not be an established Superman rogue. This would be akin to having Ma and Pa Kent killed by Clayface - Superman/Batman cross-overs are good, but this just mixes things up TOO much.

2. Metallo is in no way, shape, or form, a common criminal. It really cheapens Bats' mission if his parents killer is a hired metallic goon in the employ of Lex Luthor.

Now, for theatrical purposes (i.e. for movies), I love the idea of Joker being the killer of Batman's parents. However, I will say for the ongoing comic book continuity, it's probably best if it's Joe Chill to ensure what others here are saying - common thug, and that's why Batman focuses on common thugs.

[Captain Jim]

Originally Batman never knew who killed his parents as far as I know.

Depends on what you mean by "originally." If you mean that Joe Chill was not named in Detective #27 in 1939, you are, of course, correct. But a little research reveals that Joe Chill was first added to continuity in Batman #47 (June-July 1948). That's far enough back to still make it a long standing tradition, as far as I'm concerned.

[Super Buddies Forever]

Now, for theatrical purposes (i.e. for movies), I love the idea of Joker being the killer of Batman's parents.

I agree. People rag on Batman '89 all the time for it, but Joe Chill had no place in that movie. The idea of these two costumed nut jobs who inadvertently created each other and are locked in a dance of death was something that worked famously for that movie. Of course, it also didn't concern itself with being a serialized franchise like the comics or the new Nolan movies.

[Darth Joker]

I agree. People rag on Batman '89 all the time for it, but Joe Chill had no place in that movie. The idea of these two costumed nut jobs who inadvertently created each other and are locked in a dance of death was something that worked famously for that movie. Of course, it also didn't concern itself with being a serialized franchise like the comics or the new Nolan movies.

Absolutely!

Joker: You made me!

Batman: You made me first.

Great lines. Really made their fight more dramatic.

[Choppa]

Depends on what you mean by "originally." If you mean that Joe Chill was not named in Detective #27 in 1939, you are, of course, correct. But a little research reveals that Joe Chill was first added to continuity in Batman #47 (June-July 1948). That's far enough back to still make it a long standing tradition, as far as I'm concerned.

I see, thanks for the info. I personally like Batman not knowing who kill his parents, especially because we got this issue out of it-

http://www.thefourthrail.com/images/reviews/052702/batman603.jpg

[Slortex]

I see, thanks for the info. I personally like Batman not knowing who kill his parents, especially because we got this issue out of it-

http://www.thefourthrail.com/images/reviews/052702/batman603.jpg

I see both sides having their arguments.

Batman has always been a darker hero. He's not Clark and he's not fighting for truth, justice, and the american way. He's a man - not a god in tights - who suffered a tragedy so great that it struck him to his core and changed who he was to become. That event is what drives him and motivates him to sacrifice his life so that others may not suffer the same tragedy. But above all, he's looking for justice for his parents. I like the idea that if his parents get that justice, he ends his mission. Not because he feels much less strongly about the cause, but because the personal stake is gone for him. I feel that having that personal investment in his mission makes him much more human than somebody like Clark, who's clearly fighting for an ideal.

Then again, Batman fighting despite his parents having gotten justice casts him in a more heroic light. Still, I feel it makes him less human.

That's also why I liked how Batman Begins handled Joe Chill -- his parents never got real justice, Chill's killing was motivated by entirely other reasons. That's why he sees the system as being broken and why he sees himself as necessary.

[Captain Jim]

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/batman/47-1.jpg

[saintsaucey]

after infinite crisis he deffinantly knows before he didn't because tim figured it out in the future where he is batman

[Choppa]

after infinite crisis he deffinantly knows before he didn't because tim figured it out in the future where he is batman

What? You lost me with the future stuff. But yes it was established in IC #7 that Joe Chill did kill his parents.

[Ruthless_Pryde]

Questions for the historians out there, has Joe Chill always been the man that killed the Waynes? I mean from the start? If not then when was he introduced as the Wayne's killer? I know that he got retconned out of continuity for awhile and has been retconned back in after Infinite Crisis. any help ( or issue numbers would be appreciated )

Thanks

EDIT: This thread has been merged with two earlier ones. --Captain Jim

[SomeDude]

Gang Busters In Action :D

Ok, joking aside, Detective Comics #33 is the origin issue.

Batman #47 is when he is called Joe Chill.

[foxley]

The Wayne's killer was a nameless thug in the original origin. He was later named as Joe Chill, and killed in Batman 47.

It was later revealed that Joe Chill only pretended to be a mugger and was in fact a hitman hired by crime boss Lew Moxton to kill the Waynes in revenge for Thomas Wayne having once captured him (dressed in a proto-Batman costume naturally). Even later it was revealed that Joe Chill's mother, Mrs Chilton, was the housekeeper to Bruce's Uncle Philip and thus the woman who raised Bruce after his parents were killed. (Uncle Philip was young Bruce's guardian pre-Crisis.)

Post-Crisis it was decided to return Batman to his simpler roots, and his parents were once again victims of random street crime (not a mob hit). However, as established in the Year Two storyline, the killer was still Joe Chill. Young Bruce's guardians were now Alfred and Leslie Thomkins. Lew Moxton was later returned to continuity, but not as Joe Chill's employer. Uncle Philip and Mrs Chilton have vanished into ret-con oblivion.

Sometime after this, it was decided that the Wayne's killer was never caught or identified. (I'm not sure exactly when this happened, although it sounds suspiciously like one of Chuck Dixon's dictates.)

Incidentally, Joe Chill's son appeared in a one-shot follow-up to Year Two in which he adopts the identity of the vigilante the Reaper from Year two. If Joe Chill is back in continuity, perhaps he is as well.

[SomeDude]

Sometime after this, it was decided that the Wayne's killer was never caught or identified. (I'm not sure exactly when this happened, although it sounds suspiciously like one of Chuck Dixon's dictates.)

Batman #0. There were a bunch of #0 issues during the Zero Hour event. This issue retells Batman's origin and says he never knows the name of the killer.

[Captain Jim]

Sometime after this, it was decided that the Wayne's killer was never caught or identified. (I'm not sure exactly when this happened, although it sounds suspiciously like one of Chuck Dixon's dictates.)


Chuck was only one of a handfull of writers; he wasn't in a position to dictate anything (although he was, and continues to be, a supporter of this former retcon). In actuality, I believe this was something that came out of one of their bat-summits (agreed upon by all the creators at the time). But then editor-in-chief Denny O'Neal would have had the final word.

[yourverysilly]

I don't like chill being in continuity, I liked batman never having found his parents killer...the only reason their doing it is because of batman begins, so that they cna sell mroe comic books. When did comic books get so commercial? last time I checked I thought we were a niche market full of people which everyone assumed were the nerd stereotype(of course, we know better. We're just 'enlightened'. Its to hard to explain tot the mroatals anyway) . I liked it that way, the money men left us alone and we could just make comics for comic fans.

[Paul Dee]

I don't like chill being in continuity, I liked batman never having found his parents killer...the only reason their doing it is because of batman begins, so that they cna sell mroe comic books. When did comic books get so commercial? last time I checked I thought we were a niche market full of people which everyone assumed were the nerd stereotype(of course, we know better. We're just 'enlightened'. Its to hard to explain tot the mroatals anyway) . I liked it that way, the money men left us alone and we could just make comics for comic fans.


How does changing comics continuity in line with one aspect of Batman Begins sell more comics? That's not really going to influence anyone to buy more issues. If after Infinite Crisis/Batman Begins they released a one-off Joe Chill tie-in issue or something then it'd be understandable to a certain extent but they haven't. I really don't understand your grievance.

Incidentally, I've never understood the argument against it being Chill/Batman knowing who it was. As long as it's a random act of violence and not a mob-related hit or whatever then it really doesn't matter. If anything, it strengtens Batman's crusade which could otherwise be diluted with claims of "Well yes, but he also does it to find his parents' killer".

[Captain Jim]

I don't like chill being in continuity, I liked batman never having found his parents killer...the only reason their doing it is because of batman begins, so that they cna sell mroe comic books.

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the movie (kind of late for that anyway), and I can't imagine why that would sell more comics. :confused:



When did comic books get so commercial?

Uh, like always?

[Paul Dee]

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the movie (kind of late for that anyway)

Really? It just seems weird that the 2 main post-IC changes to both Batman and Superman tie them in more closely with the characters in another popular medium (new film franchise/Smallville). I don't really know what this would achieve though other than consistency. Certainlyt not more comic book sales.

[Beacon]

Really? It just seems weird that the 2 main post-IC changes to both Batman and Superman tie them in more closely with the characters in another popular medium (new film franchise/Smallville).


Both Joe Chill’s existence and Lex & Superman knowing each other when they were younger are things that we’ve seen in the comics LONG before either Batman Begins or Smallville did so I hardly see how the comics are imitating other media simply by returning to a decades-old old status quo.

[Choppa]

Comics do sell better when they are simliar to the films because it's more recognizable to new readers. For example, it's not just a coincidence that Spiderman is in his black suit right now.

[Paul Dee]

Both Joe Chill’s existence and Lex & Superman knowing each other when they were younger are things that we’ve seen in the comics LONG before either Batman Begins or Smallville did so I hardly see how the comics are imitating other media simply by returning to a decades-old old status quo.


Yeah, I know that. I wasn't saying that that the comics were imitating the movies/tv shows as such just that they were being changed to reflect them. I should have said "been changed back" really.

[Captain Jim]

Comics do sell better when they are simliar to the films because it's more recognizable to new readers. For example, it's not just a coincidence that Spiderman is in his black suit right now.

Apples and oranges. There's a big difference between a character's costume and a minor point of their origin.

[Choppa]

Apples and oranges. There's a big difference between a character's costume and a minor point of their origin.

That's nonsense. Everyone knows that DC and Marvel do this for mainstream readers. Twp other examples I can think of are Supergirl adopting the animated series costume and that blonde girl from Smallville being added to the comics.

[Paul Dee]

That's nonsense. Everyone knows that DC and Marvel do this for mainstream readers. Twp other examples I can think of are Supergirl adopting the animated series costume and that blonde girl from Smallville being added to the comics.

But putting Joe Chill back into continuity isn't really something that people are going to be aware of unlike Spiderman wearing the black suit again.

[Captain Jim]

^^^
Exactly the point I was trying to make. So he gives another costume example, which again is totally different. :rolleyes:

[David Walton]

I like it being chill. It was changed after Denny started losing it in the late 90's.

I'd like to see the Reaper make a comeback too.

I'm glad it's back to being Chill, but I don't think O'Neill ever started losing it. As editor, he pulled off some massive crossovers that, for the most part, were executed well. "No Man's Land" was a horrible concept. I mean, the US decides to blow up all known exits to a city and make it even more of a hellhole. But the execution was brilliant.

As far as the Zero Hour story, it was a fun concept to play with for a while. It was just something to allow Batman the slightest hint of doubt, something that most of us normal joes could accept but Bats not so much for even the 99 to 1 odds that he had the right man. Alternate universes are philosophical explorations. Bats decided that even if he might not have caught the man who murdered his parents, their death had brought about a lot of good because of his mission. It always presented as a very big maybe, so fans could make of it what they would. It suited the character of the DC Universe at the time--a world where Hal Jordan was the ultimate villain and DC wouldn't touch Superman tradition except in the form of inside jokes like naming a regular dog Krypto. I'm personally glad that DC has returned to tradition but it makes it more special that at one time they veered from it. Like coming home again.

[Choppa]

^^^
Exactly the point I was trying to make. So he gives another costume example, which again is totally different. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about this in general, not that specific example about Joe Chill. And if you read what I wrote I gave two examples, and the other wasn't a costume change.

[foxley]

I'm just wondering:

Do the fans who would rather Batman not know who his parents killer is honestly believe that were he to catch Joe Chill (or whomever), that would Bruce would say "Great! Now I've caught my parents killer I can give up being Batman and get on with being a feckless playboy!"?

[Choppa]

^I'm assuming that this means Year Two is back in continuity so read that to see what happens when he catches him

[foxley]

I know what happened in Year 2. I also know what happened in Batman 47. I was just curious because some people seemed to feel that having Joe Chill identified and brought to justice removes Bruce's motivation for being Batman.

[Slortex]

I know what happened in Year 2. I also know what happened in Batman 47. I was just curious because some people seemed to feel that having Joe Chill identified and brought to justice removes Bruce's motivation for being Batman.

Batman continuing to fight after having Chill apprehended makes him more heroic, but less human. Sure, he wants to help others, but at his core, what is there? Is it a deep desire for justice for his parents? If you think that's his prime motivation, then Bruce giving up the fight after Chill is captured makes perfect sense.

I think Bruce is compelling because he is human, and humans are driven by personal goals. Strip away the personal stake in his mission and he ends it. Not because he believes less strongly in his cause, but because his personal goal has been fulfilled.

[TROUBLEZ]

I wasn't around to read the original story of Joe Chill but I read it/heard it in a casette tape/comic when the 89 movie came out. I like, now, how Batman doesn't kill the murderer of his parents but tells chill's associates he created the Batman, and because of the criminal element, they turn on their own boss for creating the very thing that pursues them.

I like that they brought it back minus the Reaper (i liked yeare two alot but it doesn't make alotta sense in the long run) but I don't think it should mirror the comics where the killer is caught right away. I think if Bruce would have seen their killer brought to justice immediately he wouldn't have been so hell bent on becoming Batman.

[Beacon]

Batman continuing to fight after having Chill apprehended makes him more heroic, but less human. Sure, he wants to help others, but at his core, what is there? Is it a deep desire for justice for his parents? If you think that's his prime motivation, then Bruce giving up the fight after Chill is captured makes perfect sense.

I think Bruce is compelling because he is human, and humans are driven by personal goals. Strip away the personal stake in his mission and he ends it. Not because he believes less strongly in his cause, but because his personal goal has been fulfilled.

Huh? Once he catches the killer his motive becomes “make sure that what happened to my family never happens to anyone else”. That seems pretty human (if a bit obsessive … but this is BATMAN we’re talking about) to me.