Batman 680 **Spoliers**

[HopeLantern]

*raises hand from the back of the classroom*

I'm still confused. Can anyone shed light on how the identity of the Black Glove in any way jibes with what we saw in Batman #666?

The Faux Batman was the only connection I saw. That plus the fact that Damien refers to Dick and Bruce as previously being "Batman", which tells me that Dick survives what's going on at Arkham.

[HopeLantern]

I have a question.

I'd gone back over #666 and the third Batman (while walking on water) talks about "the old man" with "wings like black skin" who came to him and gave him his mission and all.


You know, I was wondering if that meant Dr. Hurt, wearing the "First Batman" outfit???

[HopeLantern]

I think Dick will stay as Nightwing (his comic's still ongoing), Damian will become Robin so that only leaves Tim. He's also the only one besides Alfred whom has read the black casefiles, Batman's ultimate reference book.
I could be totally wrong on this but one thing's for sure, it won't be Bruce as Batman. Grant's already stated that he's mapped out storylines until Bruce returns in 2010.

I'm starting to agree with this theory. I think Robin's book gets renamed "Batman and Robin" which would make since given that Damien would need some sort of mentor to keep him from placing bombs in people's decapitated heads. I haven't really had a chance to see if Nightwing and Damien have interacted yet (have they???) but somehow I don't see Dick having the patience for that.

Although personally, Nightwing should get the cowl, and Tim should be the new Nightwing. But that's just my own opinion!

[Don't pee in the (Dead)pool]

I'm starting to agree with this theory. I think Robin's book gets renamed "Batman and Robin" which would make since given that Damien would need some sort of mentor to keep him from placing bombs in people's decapitated heads. I haven't really had a chance to see if Nightwing and Damien have interacted yet (have they???) but somehow I don't see Dick having the patience for that.

Although personally, Nightwing should get the cowl, and Tim should be the new Nightwing. But that's just my own opinion!

Y'know, Tim becoming Nightwing could also make sense too. All I've come up with so far is just a theory based on RIP and what the characters are doing in that story, so anything could happen really.
I just hope that Jezebel Jet isn't the Black Glove, surely the last two pages of Batman #680 is just the last in a two year run of clues and Red Herrings. I think she's in on it but I'm still not convinced she's the Black Glove though...

[hippy fascist]

Y'know, Tim becoming Nightwing could also make sense too. All I've come up with so far is just a theory based on RIP and what the characters are doing in that story, so anything could happen really.
I just hope that Jezebel Jet isn't the Black Glove, surely the last two pages of Batman #680 is just the last in a two year run of clues and Red Herrings. I think she's in on it but I'm still not convinced she's the Black Glove though...

Jet is NOT the black glove

Morrison said at the CCI panel that the identity would be revealed in 681. Jet being the black glove would mean the reveal occured an issue early...

[HopeLantern]

Jet is NOT the black glove

Morrison said at the CCI panel that the identity would be revealed in 681. Jet being the black glove would mean the reveal occured an issue early...

Plus, there's still the entire "biggest reveal in the last 70 years" that he mentioned, which JJ surely is not.

[HopeLantern]

Y'know, Tim becoming Nightwing could also make sense too. All I've come up with so far is just a theory based on RIP and what the characters are doing in that story, so anything could happen really.
I just hope that Jezebel Jet isn't the Black Glove, surely the last two pages of Batman #680 is just the last in a two year run of clues and Red Herrings. I think she's in on it but I'm still not convinced she's the Black Glove though...

Yeah, Tim being Nightwing would be just the overhaul that title needs. At one point they were talking about killing Dick b/c the book sold so poorly. But at the same time, there's no way Damien can support a book by himself, not at this juncture. But with Dick training him in humanity, we could all like him in time if written properly.

The only thing I can't figure out right now, is what ultimately becomes of a) Jason Todd and b) Red Robin (if you're not sure who I mean, there's a new Red Robin running around the pages of Robin right now. And he is NOT Jason Todd). Jason's supposed to be in the "Battle of the Cowl" next year, but he most assuredly will not get it since I have a hard time seeing Warner Bros put the cowl on a guy the fans voted to be beat to death by a crowbar and blown up in a building.

[Don't pee in the (Dead)pool]

The only thing I can't figure out right now, is what ultimately becomes of a) Jason Todd and b) Red Robin (if you're not sure who I mean, there's a new Red Robin running around the pages of Robin right now. And he is NOT Jason Todd). Jason's supposed to be in the "Battle of the Cowl" next year, but he most assuredly will not get it since I have a hard time seeing Warner Bros put the cowl on a guy the fans voted to be beat to death by a crowbar and blown up in a building.

To be honest, I wouldn't put it past DC. They did resurrect him after all...:frown:

[botch]

what the hell did I just read?

hahaha .

[Red_Knight]

One quick question: Is #681 going to be oversized by any chance? I' sure Morrison won't bother explaining every little clue and detail, but even so, I can't see him completing R.I.P. within 25 pages. There's just too much stuff to cover, unless # 681 is going to be one giant info dump.

[JoeKhul]

Ok... Got to admit to this being my first REAL shot at trying to decipher this thing. So if I am way off just ignore it.

:tongue:

In 680 Batman says that he gave it 'all away' in the Dead Man's Hand.

Okay, remember in that scene from DC Universe 0, where Joker says that some very bad people have decided to hurt Batman. Hurt him so bad he'll never recover. Well, obviously they don't mean death (to Batman) and this plays into Morrison's whole 'biggest change ever' thing.

Yet in that dead man's hand scene when Batman asks him what he is trying to say, Joker points at him and then makes points at himself, with a gesture that could be indicating a gun, and then tips his head as in death. When he tips his head to indicate death or change, it is one of the only panels where they are directly contrasted in the same panel.

So just thinking if the Joker gave it all away and it is simpler then it seems...

Could Batman kill the Joker in the next issue?? And in the process lose his mind and in a sense become the NEXT Joker??

[SpaceBooger]

If Bruce returns in 2010 as Batman... that will mess up the whole Batfamily.
No matter who, Dick or Tim, takes the cowl his character will not be available when Bruce returns. i.e. Damion is Robin.

Also, I can see emphasis on Dick Grayson being a major player since WB has greenlit D.J. Grayson a Smallville type show about Dick.

[LukeRed5]

Ok... Got to admit to this being my first REAL shot at trying to decipher this thing. So if I am way off just ignore it.

:tongue:

In 680 Batman says that he gave it 'all away' in the Dead Man's Hand.

Okay, remember in that scene from DC Universe 0, where Joker says that some very bad people have decided to hurt Batman. Hurt him so bad he'll never recover. Well, obviously they don't mean death (to Batman) and this plays into Morrison's whole 'biggest change ever' thing.

Yet in that dead man's hand scene when Batman asks him what he is trying to say, Joker points at him and then makes points at himself, with a gesture that could be indicating a gun, and then tips his head as in death. When he tips his head to indicate death or change, it is one of the only panels where they are directly contrasted in the same panel.

So just thinking if the Joker gave it all away and it is simpler then it seems...

Could Batman kill the Joker in the next issue?? And in the process lose his mind and in a sense become the NEXT Joker??

Killing Joker would be major. I wouldn't be happy, but at least that is a big major change in the Bat-books and the character himself. However, Bruce becoming the new Joker would suck big time and I would drop the title.

[Chad]

Ok... Got to admit to this being my first REAL shot at trying to decipher this thing. So if I am way off just ignore it.

:tongue:

In 680 Batman says that he gave it 'all away' in the Dead Man's Hand.

Okay, remember in that scene from DC Universe 0, where Joker says that some very bad people have decided to hurt Batman. Hurt him so bad he'll never recover. Well, obviously they don't mean death (to Batman) and this plays into Morrison's whole 'biggest change ever' thing.

Yet in that dead man's hand scene when Batman asks him what he is trying to say, Joker points at him and then makes points at himself, with a gesture that could be indicating a gun, and then tips his head as in death. When he tips his head to indicate death or change, it is one of the only panels where they are directly contrasted in the same panel.

So just thinking if the Joker gave it all away and it is simpler then it seems...

Could Batman kill the Joker in the next issue?? And in the process lose his mind and in a sense become the NEXT Joker??

I haven't been following RIP too closely, but...

The Joker pointing a finger to his head a la a gun and then pulling the trigger - wouldn't that imply suicide rather than homicide? Hasn't Morrison said that the person behind this is someone who has been around since the start and the answer is surprisingly obvious?

To be honest, the best reveal of "criminal mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes" was in Untold Legend of the Batman in which Batman's ultimate foe was revealed to be...

Bruce Wayne.

Or is Bruce Wayne being behind this too obvious?

[JoeKhul]

Killing Joker would be major. I wouldn't be happy, but at least that is a big major change in the Bat-books and the character himself. However, Bruce becoming the new Joker would suck big time and I would drop the title.

A tremendous change.

Don't know if that is it, but I am thinking of what REAL big changes could happen in the Bat-Verse. Especially since we know Batman is going to survive.

Another thing I have for this theory is that Joker is holding the "Dead Man's Hand". The reason it was named that was because the man holding it was shot dead. A DM'sH is just two eight and two Aces (presumed black n the orig version of hand). Batman calls it 'with a twist' cuz Joker throws in the opposite colored suits. These are the ones that Batman references when he says that he figured it out. The opposite colors represent the opposite sides struggling. Life and Death. Good and Evil. Or Cupid and the Devil.

However, Joker says the final fatal finger is missing. Of course the Card is the Joker card. The wildcard that doesn't fit in with any other pre-conceived notions, suits or colors. And on it is a symbol of blood.

Remember that when he first confronts the Joker in the 'dungeon' or Arkham, Joker quickly asks him if he has forgotten him??

Like Batman has figured out everything, but has forgotten about that last card.


Maybe he kills the JOker and doesn't BECOME him, but becomes like him. Mentally broken... shattered. CRAZY!!:eek:

[JoeKhul]

I haven't been following RIP too closely, but...

The Joker pointing a finger to his head a la a gun and then pulling the trigger - wouldn't that imply suicide rather than homicide? Hasn't Morrison said that the person behind this is someone who has been around since the start and the answer is surprisingly obvious?

To be honest, the best reveal of "criminal mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes" was in Untold Legend of the Batman in which Batman's ultimate foe was revealed to be...

Bruce Wayne.

Or is Bruce Wayne being behind this too obvious?

Could be. Truly, at this point I have no REAL ideas of who the Black Glove is. Heck, I am just trying to figure out what the huge change is going to be.

[Red_Knight]

Maybe he kills the JOker and doesn't BECOME him, but becomes like him. Mentally broken... shattered. CRAZY!!:eek:

I'm surprised no one has pointed that out yet, but when Batman attacks the Joker, he flat-out says: "I will kill you." It's blatant, of course, but it would fit Morrison's claim that the story is (to him) to obviously laid out that he has to hide stuff.

[flapjaxx]

I haven't been following RIP too closely, but...

The Joker pointing a finger to his head a la a gun and then pulling the trigger - wouldn't that imply suicide rather than homicide? Hasn't Morrison said that the person behind this is someone who has been around since the start and the answer is surprisingly obvious?

Huh, who else do we know who supposedly shot himself in the head (after Batman put him through "hell")? Huh, I think it happened in 673 or so. Huh, was that person a major figure in Batman's life since the beginning, the guy who almost literally created Batman? Huh.

You're following RIP closer than most people are, I think. I think your senses are in the right direction.

[hurk]

I'm not sure if this has been pitched yet, forgive me if I'm rehashing what's already been said.

What if the big reveal is that Bruce has already become what he despises most--his parents' killer? Joker mentions a couple of times that Bruce shot him, to which Bruce disagrees/doesn't believe.

If you go back to the first issue of Morrison's run (Batman 663?), an impostor Batman is battling with Joker. He pulls a gun and shoots him in the face just as the real Bruce arrives to break things up and toss Joker into a dumpster--except there's no way to tell who's the real Bruce.

What if the Batman who shot Joker WAS Bruce and he doesn't remember yet because of this whole mind-f*ck? Wouldn't that be a tremendous reveal--using a gun and trying to kill (and yes, I'm aware Bats carried a gun back in the day).

[JoeKhul]

I'm surprised no one has pointed that out yet, but when Batman attacks the Joker, he flat-out says: "I will kill you." It's blatant, of course, but it would fit Morrison's claim that the story is (to him) to obviously laid out that he has to hide stuff.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I forgotten about that! How often does Batman say he is going to kill someone??

[LukeRed5]

I foregt which Bat-family books take place after RIP, but they make reference to Bruce missing. If he killed someone, wouldn't Dick, Tim, and the Outsiders be more in shock by this event? Without revealing what happened, it would seem that they would be in shock and not just curious that he's gone missing.

[theclichemaster]

BG is Alfred. Has to be. Alfred introduced Jezebel to Bruce. She just didn't appear from nowhere. Many clues have also been dropped in the art and dialogue to convince me. I'd cite them but don't have the books in front of me, but they are there. The missing pages in the bat diary is also interesting. If you read the solicitations for upcoming issues, it indicates Alfred dies and explains his actions. Then you challenge me, explain the Nightwing series where Alfred is featured so prominently? Well, I can't. Maybe Alfred apologizes and becomes the butler again. But in Batman, clues indicate Alfred.

Here is another one for you--there is no BG. That was just concocted to drive Batman batty. Can't wait for next issue!!!!

[WTF???!!!!???]

The files Gordon received are real.

Alfred is Thomas Wayne, or Alfred truly is Bruce's father.

Dr. Hurt is really the actor charlie who portrayed Alfred from the files Gordon received back in either the 2nd or 3rd issue of R.I.P. or he is the illegitimate child of Thomas Wayne.

The Waynes were not who Bruce thought they were with Dad not being dead after all, thus destroying his whole purpose/reasoning for becoming Batman in the first place as well as coming to grips that he has been living a lie for most of his adulthood.

Think about it....

Alfred in the 2nd issue acted strangely to Bruce's questions about the black glove. He even mentioned that he had that particular case book on "his" desk. Why? I know he was converting files from paper to computer but that particular case book he left on his desk??

1 thing for sure, Alfred is withholding info & he is not exactly who he says he is.

Who is/was Thomas Wayne? This is the real question & the answer will finally break Mr. Wayne.

Joker- "I only want to 'help' you understand... see its everything.. mom, dad, the job.." Joker isn't lying..



Le Rouge et le Noir... damn good clue Morrison left...

[theclichemaster]

The files Gordon received are real.

Alfred is Thomas Wayne, or Alfred truly is Bruce's father.

Dr. Hurt is really the actor charlie who portrayed Alfred from the files Gordon received back in either the 2nd or 3rd issue of R.I.P. or he is the illegitimate child of Thomas Wayne.

The Waynes were not who Bruce thought they were with Dad not being dead after all, thus destroying his whole purpose/reasoning for becoming Batman in the first place as well as coming to grips that he has been living a lie for most of his adulthood.

Think about it....

Alfred in the 2nd issue acted strangely to Bruce's questions about the black glove. He even mentioned that he had that particular case book on "his" desk. Why? I know he was converting files from paper to computer but that particular case book he left on his desk??

1 thing for sure, Alfred is withholding info & he is not exactly who he says he is.

Who is/was Thomas Wayne? This is the real question & the answer will finally break Mr. Wayne.

Joker- "I only want to 'help' you understand... see its everything.. mom, dad, the job.." Joker isn't lying..



Le Rouge et le Noir... damn good clue Morrison left...

You might be on to something Mr. Holmes. Alfred withholding--fits better. You're theories are A. OK.

[Mat001]

I foregt which Bat-family books take place after RIP, but they make reference to Bruce missing. If he killed someone, wouldn't Dick, Tim, and the Outsiders be more in shock by this event? Without revealing what happened, it would seem that they would be in shock and not just curious that he's gone missing.

Nightwing and Outsiders take place afterwards. The Outsiders don't really know what happened other than Bruce hasn't been in contact with them since before this arc started. Dick is right now concerned with Two-Face to worry too much about what's going on in the aftermath of the fight with the Joker, Dr. Hurt, the Club of Villains and the Black Glove.


If you go back to the first issue of Morrison's run (Batman 663?), an impostor Batman is battling with Joker. He pulls a gun and shoots him in the face just as the real Bruce arrives to break things up and toss Joker into a dumpster--except there's no way to tell who's the real Bruce.

What if the Batman who shot Joker WAS Bruce and he doesn't remember yet because of this whole mind-f*ck? Wouldn't that be a tremendous reveal--using a gun and trying to kill (and yes, I'm aware Bats carried a gun back in the day).

Nope. The fake Batman was the one who lost to the Joker and was the one who shot him. Bruce is the one who saved the Joker and then tossed him into the dumpster. But the Joker, ever the nutcase that he is, believes wholeheartedly that Batman shot him. He doesn't understand that Hurt was the one behind the other Batman, the one who had the gun.

Big clue about who was real and fake, Bruce had the white lenses. The fake Batman didn't.

[kalika]

Big clue about who was real and fake, Bruce had the white lenses. The fake Batman didn't.

Almost. The two pager shot of the Joker over the fake (?) batman has a mask with no lenses. But the page where the batman pull out the gun and says, "DIE" shows white lenses. And *both* batmans have white lenses in the shot where the gun goes off and the other is running up behind the shooter.

what ever happened to the fake batman?

[Red_Knight]

[...] Alfred is withholding info & he is not exactly who he says he is.

I think that may well be true. Remember the Wayne dossier the mayor showed Gordon? I'm sure most of the info is fabricated. But I do believe that Alfred is really an actor who once used the stage name "Beagle".

Think about it: The dossier paints the Waynes as drug-addicted swingers. Such a revelation would be a huge blow to Bruce, of course, so I get why the Black Glove would make this stuff up. But why would the Black Glove come up with the idea of Alfred being an actor? That's hardly shocking news, -- unless there's more to Alfred's past career that Bruce could uncover.

In #680, one of the party guests asks Hurt whether the Batman of Zur En Arrh is "[...] another one of your actors". Judging by that statement, I think it's safe to assume that the Black Glove has a knack for using actors in their schemes. (IIRC, many of us have speculated that Hurt himself might be an actor) So... what if Alfred was originally put in the Wayne household to prepare the noble Wayne family for their own danse macabre, courtesy of the Black Glove? It would certainly fit.

I don't think Alfred IS the Black Glove or even playing along. Quite frankly, it's not logically possible. We have read Alfred's thoughts many times over the years, and they were always benevolent towards the Waynes, and especially Bruce. (I know, that didn't stop DC from turning Max Lord evil, but I don't think Morrison will do the same to Alfred.)

I believe Alfred regretted his actions once the Waynes were murdered and he discovered the true nature of the Black Glove. So, he decided to stay with and protect Bruce. In #677 (IIRC), when the "Black Glove" movie poster is up on the screen of the bat computer, we see Alfred putting on a white doctor's glove. Alfred's hand competely obscures the black-gloved one in the poster, but we can still see blood dripping from its fingers. The scene has been discussed a lot, but I think this interpretation makes the most sense. Alfred is guilty; -- he was once a low-level agent of the Black Glove. He has reformed and is one of the good guys now, but the blood of the Waynes is still on his hands, figuratively speaking.


Joker- "I only want to 'help' you understand... see its everything.. mom, dad, the job.." Joker isn't lying...

Exactly.

Bruce still has to suffer the "ignoble betrayal" Hurt keeps raving about, and it's not Jezebel Jet showing her true colors. I'm almost sure of that. I think Bruce will suffer this crushing blow when the truth about Alfred is revealed in #681. We all assumed that the ultimate betrayal would take place in the present, -- but what if it actually happened before Bruce was born? Finding out that Alfred kept him in the dark all these years would crush Bruce. It wouldn't make Alfred a villain, though. It's the perfect solution. I'm almost sure that's what will happen.

[LukeRed5]

I think if it's revealed that Alfred is really Bruce's father (first off we'll find out about it first in the Daily News) it will ruin the character of Batman. Batman's reason for being is the death of his parents. It would be like Superman finding out Krypton didn't explode and he can go back and be with his parents. I hope DC doesn't change this canon.

[dotdotdot]

I think if it's revealed that Alfred is really Bruce's father (first off we'll find out about it first in the Daily News) it will ruin the character of Batman. Batman's reason for being is the death of his parents. It would be like Superman finding out Krypton didn't explode and he can go back and be with his parents. I hope DC doesn't change this canon.

the entire point of the story seems to be dismantling batman, so yeah, taking away his reason for being would be fitting. are you even paying attention?

[LukeRed5]

the entire point of the story seems to be dismantling batman, so yeah, taking away his reason for being would be fitting. are you even paying attention?

I'm reading the story, there is no reason for the snide comment.

[stillanerd]

I think if it's revealed that Alfred is really Bruce's father (first off we'll find out about it first in the Daily News) it will ruin the character of Batman. Batman's reason for being is the death of his parents. It would be like Superman finding out Krypton didn't explode and he can go back and be with his parents. I hope DC doesn't change this canon.

Absolutely. Not to mention ruin the franchise itself, which is why I don't think, even though it's likely Bruce Wayne will "retire" as Batman after all is said and done (at least until next year) that this will be allowed. Likewise, having it be introduced so early in the story suggests it's also a red herring.


the entire point of the story seems to be dismantling batman, so yeah, taking away his reason for being would be fitting. are you even paying attention?

Taking away his reason, yes, but in terms of a continuing franchise, it would ruin indeed ruin the character. Even with all this talk about how this will lead to the final stories of Bruce Wayne being Batman, do you honestly think that's going to last long term? Unlike Green Lantern or Flash, Batman is widely well known outside of the comics and, thanks to almost 70 years worth of existence, is considered one of the greatest comic book characters ever invented. Part of that reason has to do with who he is and his origin, which numerous readers and non readers alike can identify with. Everyone knows Batman is Bruce Wayne and how he came to be Batman and if that is taken away for the sake of having someone else take over, there will be folks who will say that they want to read about the real Batman, not some pretender to the throne. It's the same thing that happened with Knighfall and when Azrael took over the mantle. And that was the whole point of the story: that Bruce Wayne and Batman are inseparable.


I think that may well be true. Remember the Wayne dossier the mayor showed Gordon? I'm sure most of the info is fabricated. But I do believe that Alfred is really an actor who once used the stage name "Beagle".

Think about it: The dossier paints the Waynes as drug-addicted swingers. Such a revelation would be a huge blow to Bruce, of course, so I get why the Black Glove would make this stuff up. But why would the Black Glove come up with the idea of Alfred being an actor? That's hardly shocking news, -- unless there's more to Alfred's past career that Bruce could uncover.

In #680, one of the party guests asks Hurt whether the Batman of Zur En Arrh is "[...] another one of your actors". Judging by that statement, I think it's safe to assume that the Black Glove has a knack for using actors in their schemes. (IIRC, many of us have speculated that Hurt himself might be an actor) So... what if Alfred was originally put in the Wayne household to prepare the noble Wayne family for their own danse macabre, courtesy of the Black Glove? It would certainly fit.

I don't think Alfred IS the Black Glove or even playing along. Quite frankly, it's not logically possible. We have read Alfred's thoughts many times over the years, and they were always benevolent towards the Waynes, and especially Bruce. (I know, that didn't stop DC from turning Max Lord evil, but I don't think Morrison will do the same to Alfred.)

I believe Alfred regretted his actions once the Waynes were murdered and he discovered the true nature of the Black Glove. So, he decided to stay with and protect Bruce. In #677 (IIRC), when the "Black Glove" movie poster is up on the screen of the bat computer, we see Alfred putting on a white doctor's glove. Alfred's hand competely obscures the black-gloved one in the poster, but we can still see blood dripping from its fingers. The scene has been discussed a lot, but I think this interpretation makes the most sense. Alfred is guilty; -- he was once a low-level agent of the Black Glove. He has reformed and is one of the good guys now, but the blood of the Waynes is still on his hands, figuratively speaking.

Exactly.

Bruce still has to suffer the "ignoble betrayal" Hurt keeps raving about, and it's not Jezebel Jet showing her true colors. I'm almost sure of that. I think Bruce will suffer this crushing blow when the truth about Alfred is revealed in #681. We all assumed that the ultimate betrayal would take place in the present, -- but what if it actually happened before Bruce was born? Finding out that Alfred kept him in the dark all these years would crush Bruce. It wouldn't make Alfred a villain, though. It's the perfect solution. I'm almost sure that's what will happen.

I got to say, I like this idea. What would be just as shocking if, not only was Alfred part of the Black Glove under John Mayhew, but that he was told to get the Waynes out of the house in advance due to Joe Chill be hired to "rough up the Waynes a bit." Maybe Alfred could have even recommended they see a movie, being an actor and provided them with a recommendation. What he probably didn't know was that Chill had been ordered to kill them, and once he found out, became riddled with guilt, especially since his employer placed so much trust in him. Such a revelation, that Alfred knew about the Wayne murders in advance and who was responsible for all these years, would indeed be devastating for Bruce and hard for him to reconcile with.

[bannermanonemillion]

Absolutely. Not to mention ruin the franchise itself, which is why I don't think, even though it's likely Bruce Wayne will "retire" as Batman after all is said and done (at least until next year) that this will be allowed. Likewise, having it be introduced so early in the story suggests it's also a red herring.



Taking away his reason, yes, but in terms of a continuing franchise, it would ruin indeed ruin the character. Even with all this talk about how this will lead to the final stories of Bruce Wayne being Batman, do you honestly think that's going to last long term? Unlike Green Lantern or Flash, Batman is widely well known outside of the comics and, thanks to almost 70 years worth of existence, is considered one of the greatest comic book characters ever invented. Part of that reason has to do with who he is and his origin, which numerous readers and non readers alike can identify with. Everyone knows Batman is Bruce Wayne and how he came to be Batman and if that is taken away for the sake of having someone else take over, there will be folks who will say that they want to read about the real Batman, not some pretender to the throne. It's the same thing that happened with Knighfall and when Azrael took over the mantle. And that was the whole point of the story: that Bruce Wayne and Batman are inseparable.



I got to say, I like this idea. What would be just as shocking if, not only was Alfred part of the Black Glove under John Mayhew, but that he was told to get the Waynes out of the house in advance due to Joe Chill be hired to "rough up the Waynes a bit." Maybe Alfred could have even recommended they see a movie, being an actor and provided them with a recommendation. What he probably didn't know was that Chill had been ordered to kill them, and once he found out, became riddled with guilt, especially since his employer placed so much trust in him. Such a revelation, that Alfred knew about the Wayne murders in advance and who was responsible for all these years, would indeed be devastating for Bruce and hard for him to reconcile with.

I like this theory as well. :biggrin:

[JoeKhul]

I
Bruce still has to suffer the "ignoble betrayal" Hurt keeps raving about, and it's not Jezebel Jet showing her true colors. I'm almost sure of that. I think Bruce will suffer this crushing blow when the truth about Alfred is revealed in #681. We all assumed that the ultimate betrayal would take place in the present, -- but what if it actually happened before Bruce was born? Finding out that Alfred kept him in the dark all these years would crush Bruce. It wouldn't make Alfred a villain, though. It's the perfect solution. I'm almost sure that's what will happen.

Nice idea there!

[JoeKhul]

I think if it's revealed that Alfred is really Bruce's father (first off we'll find out about it first in the Daily News) it will ruin the character of Batman. Batman's reason for being is the death of his parents. It would be like Superman finding out Krypton didn't explode and he can go back and be with his parents. I hope DC doesn't change this canon.

Agreed. We cannot have a complete destruction of the batman character. Morrison isn't like that. It will be big, but not stupid!

[Red_Knight]

Nice idea there!

Thanks! It get's better, though. The more I keep thinking about it, the more sense it seems to make.

Remember the scene in #679 (I think) when Hurt talks to Alfred as though he (Hurt) was Thomas Wayne? As I recall, that sparked a lot of debate, too. I think at the end most of us agreed that Hurt was probably a) delusional, or b) "programmed" to think he is Wayne. When #679 came out, no other option seemed logical. Why else would Hurt even try to fool someone who knew the real Wayne as well as Alfred?

IMHO, Hurt's behavior in #680 eliminated both of the options outlined above. If Hurt, for whatever reason, truly believes himself to be Thomas Wayne, why isn't this major reveal touched upon again in any way, shape, or form? The name of Thomas Wayne isn't even mentioned here, and Hurt seems cool, calm, and collected. This leads me to believe that Hurt put on this entire charade to taunt Alfred, maybe to hint at his knowledge of sins past. IMO, he wasn't really trying to fool anybody; -- he was "just playing". I do believe he put on Thomas's bat costume to strengthen the impact when revealing the truth to Bruce, though. (Sounds like something a nasty mind quack would do.)

Re-reading R.I.P., I was surprised to discover that Hurt and the COV actually go out of their way to mock Alfred. When Le Bossu and the gargoyles beat him down in #677, Bossu says: "Farewell, faithful butler!". I know Morrison likes flowery language, but this particular comment always struck me as out-of-place. Why put so much emphasis on the "faithful butler"? IMO, because Bossu knows very well how Alfred first came into the Wayne household and that he wasn't always so faithful.

Later on, in #678 (I think), Hurt says that Bruce may eventually be allowed back into Wayne Manor as his (Hurt's) butler. That comment, too, seemed out of place to me even when I first read it. If my theory is true, it makes sense. It would be another instance of Hurt mocking Alfred life choice and suggesting that only a broken spirit would ever consider a life of servitude.

Anything else I might have missed?

[carabas]

IMHO, Hurt's behavior in #680 eliminated both of the options outlined above. If Hurt, for whatever reason, truly believes himself to be Thomas Wayne, why isn't this major reveal touched upon again in any way, shape, or form?I think that's just Morrison's hyper-compressed style. He's aleady told us what Hurt thinks. No need to waste panels on a repeat version of Hurt's rant.

[HaroldAllnut]

I think that's just Morrison's hyper-compressed style. He's aleady told us what Hurt thinks. No need to waste panels on a repeat version of Hurt's rant.

Next issue will probably deliver on why Hurt thinks what he thinks, as well as what the hell is going to happen to Bruce.

The other night, I dreamt that Bruce was actually, irrevocably Jokerized at the end of #680. Now that would be a ballsy move.

[Valhalla]

I'm still thinking is a Battle for Self between Bats and Bruce.

I also have an idea that it'll be the Joker that saves Bruce/Bats from dying. That would be an interesting twist.

[JoeKhul]

Thanks! It get's better, though. The more I keep thinking about it, the more sense it seems to make.

Remember the scene in #679 (I think) when Hurt talks to Alfred as though he (Hurt) was Thomas Wayne? As I recall, that sparked a lot of debate, too. I think at the end most of us agreed that Hurt was probably a) delusional, or b) "programmed" to think he is Wayne. When #679 came out, no other option seemed logical. Why else would Hurt even try to fool someone who knew the real Wayne as well as Alfred?

IMHO, Hurt's behavior in #680 eliminated both of the options outlined above. If Hurt, for whatever reason, truly believes himself to be Thomas Wayne, why isn't this major reveal touched upon again in any way, shape, or form? The name of Thomas Wayne isn't even mentioned here, and Hurt seems cool, calm, and collected. This leads me to believe that Hurt put on this entire charade to taunt Alfred, maybe to hint at his knowledge of sins past. IMO, he wasn't really trying to fool anybody; -- he was "just playing". I do believe he put on Thomas's bat costume to strengthen the impact when revealing the truth to Bruce, though. (Sounds like something a nasty mind quack would do.)

Re-reading R.I.P., I was surprised to discover that Hurt and the COV actually go out of their way to mock Alfred. When Le Bossu and the gargoyles beat him down in #677, Bossu says: "Farewell, faithful butler!". I know Morrison likes flowery language, but this particular comment always struck me as out-of-place. Why put so much emphasis on the "faithful butler"? IMO, because Bossu knows very well how Alfred first came into the Wayne household and that he wasn't always so faithful.

Later on, in #678 (I think), Hurt says that Bruce may eventually be allowed back into Wayne Manor as his (Hurt's) butler. That comment, too, seemed out of place to me even when I first read it. If my theory is true, it makes sense. It would be another instance of Hurt mocking Alfred life choice and suggesting that only a broken spirit would ever consider a life of servitude.

Anything else I might have missed?

So in this scenario though, who would be the Black Glove though? If it is supposed to be obvious, maybe it is Hurt?? That is obvious (not obvious as in correct, but obvious as in Morrison saying to us, "I've been saying this all along!!"), then the real shocker is not the Black Glove but Alfred's role in all of this?

[vickvega]

Really.Is.Pennyworth. I think these latest theories are correct, and I suspected it very early on, but didnt catch all the clues. Alfred being interested in Damiens DNA is what first got me suspicious. And we havent seen him since he was tied up in the Basement. I gues he was "Acting"?

[carabas]

Alfred being interested in Damiens DNA is what first got me suspicious.Why would that be suspicious? It seems like a very obvious question. The only mystery there is why nobody asked that question ten or so issues earlier.

[nepenthes]

I'm still thinking is a Battle for Self between Bats and Bruce.

I also have an idea that it'll be the Joker that saves Bruce/Bats from dying. That would be an interesting twist.

yeah, and you got that idea from reading 680 where it's raised by Joker himself



Alfred, Robin and Lex Luthor are still top of my list of suspect individuals

[Valhalla]

yeah, and you got that idea from reading 680 where it's raised by Joker himself



Alfred, Robin and Lex Luthor are still top of my list of suspect individuals

There is saving Batman or Saving Batman. :tongue:


Jokers saving usually ends up pretty gruesome. How will he cope if his life is saved by someone like the Joker especially if he is killed doing so.

[Lupek]

I'm late to the game but........

This was an outstanding issue. I could read about Bruce Wayne having a mental breakdown all the live long day. Bat-Mite needs his own series.

[Superboy-Prime]

its the devil.(seriously tho it is)

its not alfred or Hurt(as Thomas Wayne), nor is it Jezebl jet.


Morrison is just leading you guys on, he's blantatly stated numerous times that he's putting red herrings in the book to detract you guys from the real villain.


tis the devil. why? go read Timothy's Callahan annotation of morrisons run.

[thatONEjustin]

its the devil.(seriously tho it is)

its not alfred or Hurt(as Thomas Wayne), nor is it Jezebl jet.


Morrison is just leading you guys on, he's blantatly stated numerous times that he's putting red herrings in the book to detract you guys from the real villain.


tis the devil. why? go read Timothy's Callahan annotation of morrisons run.

If its the devil, than this is when Batman finally has truly Jumped the Shark.

[Superboy-Prime]

Arkam Asylum, read:)

[Jody Garland]

It's not like Batman hasn't met the Devil before. In Batman: Gothic (By Morrison) the villain Mr. Whisper was take to Hell by him. So there is precedence.

[kalika]

I could read about Bruce Wayne having a mental breakdown all the live long day.

This cracked me up.

A lot.

And it will be totally lame if it's the devil. REEALLY lame. I will be uber disappointed.

[AJM]

I started a thread a while ago about the Black Glove being the devil and was pretty much ridiculed for it. But Morrison's run is overflowing with Satanic references, not to mention his other, non-comic clues - "biggest bad guy that everyone on the planet knows," blah blah blah. And then of course there's Gothic, with all it's Hell references too.

I even worked out that in Qabalistic translation - as referred to in #677 - the Joker's dead man's hand can almost mean the number of the beast: it comes to 66, with the final card a mystery (which it usually is in a dead man's hand).

Anyway, i don't want to go over it all again, but there have been plenty of pointers to the devil. And of course it may all tie into Final Crisis so it could have something to with Darkseid too.

I still think it's a possibility, and i really like the idea, but it's one of 3 options i think - i.e. Black Glove = Batman, Joker or The Devil (whatever that may mean)...

[smoothjokes]

This cracked me up.

A lot.

And it will be totally lame if it's the devil. REEALLY lame. I will be uber disappointed.

I'm almost certain the devil remarks are referring to Ra's Al Ghul, he's always been referred to as the Demon and I'm sure the Resurrection of Ra's Al Ghul wasn't made for no good reason.

[Death by Mime]

Look, it can't be the devil because the devil isn't really a character. He's got no definite personality. He's just the embodiment of all evil. And if the answer to "Who's the evil dude behind the plot against Batman and why is he doing it?" is simply "The ultimate evil dude, because he's evil," that's a terrible non-answer. Devil characters only work if you give them a specific name and a persona, like Neron, and since no characters of the sort have turned up in the story, it's not one of them.

Also, the devil wasn't the enemy in Gothic. The enemy was Mr. Whisper, who had made a deal with the devil. The devil just served as a power source. One that would destroy Mr. Whisper unless he provided it with more souls, admittedly, but hardly a character on its own.

[kalika]

I even worked out that in Qabalistic translation - as referred to in #677 - the Joker's dead man's hand can almost mean the number of the beast: it comes to 66, with the final card a mystery (which it usually is in a dead man's hand).

How did you get 66 out of two eights and two aces?

[BoSoxJay]

well in "DC Universe #0" the final card was a blood spattered Joker card.

[AJM]

How did you get 66 out of two eights and two aces?

Batman (or rather Morrison) hinted on page 16 of #677 that the dead man's hand - two eights and two aces, as you know - could hold Qabalistic meaning after pointing out that the hand itself spells out "HA HA" - where 8 = H and Ace/1 = A in simple Pythagorean numerology. In (Qabalistic) Chaldean numerology, H = 5 and A = 1, so therefore "HA HA" also translates as 66. Traditionally, the dead man's hand's final card is unknown, but in this case it was revealed to be a joker, which not only represents the Joker himself but can also be the "wild" card of any value. Maybe a 6? I've no idea, but at least we don't have much longer until we find out.

[Death by Mime]

Batman (or rather Morrison) hinted on page 16 of #677 that the dead man's hand - two eights and two aces, as you know - could hold Qabalistic meaning after pointing out that the hand itself spells out "HA HA" - where 8 = H and Ace/1 = A in simple Pythagorean numerology. In (Qabalistic) Chaldean numerology, H = 5 and A = 1, so therefore "HA HA" also translates as 66. Traditionally, the dead man's hand's final card is unknown, but in this case it was revealed to be a joker, which not only represents the Joker himself but can also be the "wild" card of any value. Maybe a 6? I've no idea, but at least we don't have much longer until we find out.

Whoa.

I'm pretty sure that having to go through mental gymnastics like that is part of the reason Batman went nuts, just sayin'.

[bjtrdff]

Batman (or rather Morrison) hinted on page 16 of #677 that the dead man's hand - two eights and two aces, as you know - could hold Qabalistic meaning after pointing out that the hand itself spells out "HA HA" - where 8 = H and Ace/1 = A in simple Pythagorean numerology. In (Qabalistic) Chaldean numerology, H = 5 and A = 1, so therefore "HA HA" also translates as 66. Traditionally, the dead man's hand's final card is unknown, but in this case it was revealed to be a joker, which not only represents the Joker himself but can also be the "wild" card of any value. Maybe a 6? I've no idea, but at least we don't have much longer until we find out.



SOunds good, if extremely elaborate, but the dead man's hand is just A8, by definition it is known, unless someone else is making up a new one.

I think this is one of those cases where people can play with numbers and analyze after the fact (including the author) but in reality the initial premise was much more straightforward (RIP...deadman's hand).

[carabas]

SOunds good, if extremely elaborate, but the dead man's hand is just A8, by definition it is known, unless someone else is making up a new one.

I think this is one of those cases where people can play with numbers and analyze after the fact (including the author) but in reality the initial premise was much more straightforward (RIP...deadman's hand).You haven't read a whole lot of Morrison, have you? His books tend to be loaded with this sort of stuff.

[JDCLINTS]

Ok IS 680 out now? I know stupid question but when did it come out I have been waiting.

[dotdotdot]

Look, it can't be the devil because the devil isn't really a character. He's got no definite personality. He's just the embodiment of all evil. And if the answer to "Who's the evil dude behind the plot against Batman and why is he doing it?" is simply "The ultimate evil dude, because he's evil," that's a terrible non-answer. Devil characters only work if you give them a specific name and a persona, like Neron, and since no characters of the sort have turned up in the story, it's not one of them.

Also, the devil wasn't the enemy in Gothic. The enemy was Mr. Whisper, who had made a deal with the devil. The devil just served as a power source. One that would destroy Mr. Whisper unless he provided it with more souls, admittedly, but hardly a character on its own.

right. i don't see what is difficult about this. it's definitely a nonanswer, and a sort of mischaracterization of the manner and purpose of issue 666 and the clues throughout the arc

[dotdotdot]

You haven't read a whole lot of Morrison, have you? His books tend to be loaded with this sort of stuff.

and lots of his fans overdo it and miss the forest for the trees lots of times.

[thebhamgunslinger]

Batman (or rather Morrison) hinted on page 16 of #677 that the dead man's hand - two eights and two aces, as you know - could hold Qabalistic meaning after pointing out that the hand itself spells out "HA HA" - where 8 = H and Ace/1 = A in simple Pythagorean numerology. In (Qabalistic) Chaldean numerology, H = 5 and A = 1, so therefore "HA HA" also translates as 66. Traditionally, the dead man's hand's final card is unknown, but in this case it was revealed to be a joker, which not only represents the Joker himself but can also be the "wild" card of any value. Maybe a 6? I've no idea, but at least we don't have much longer until we find out.

man, that is a pretty deeply thought out theory. nice job.

[Don't pee in the (Dead)pool]

Ok IS 680 out now? I know stupid question but when did it come out I have been waiting.

It came out a fortnight ago.

[carabas]

and lots of his fans overdo it and miss the forest for the trees lots of times.True, but in this case, it's right there spelled out on the page. Batman R.I.P. is almost Morrison-For-Dummies.

[dotdotdot]

True, but in this case, it's right there spelled out on the page. Batman R.I.P. is almost Morrison-For-Dummies.

if you mean that the dead man's hand was 666 and the answer is the devil then i have a new copy of morrison for dummies to sell you

[AJM]

and lots of his fans overdo it and miss the forest for the trees lots of times.

Ha ha! I wondered when you'd chip in.

Any new theories of your own?

[Sizzle]

Is it me, or did Talia basically tell Gordon that Bruce Wayne is Batman by saying that Damien is the Batman's son while they were in Wayne Manor?

[carabas]

How do you figure that?

[elias_A]

No idea if anyone has had that idea before, but I think RIP is not about Batman going insane, it's about the Joker imagening what it would be like to be Batman.

I don't see any point in a story trying to "psychoanalyse" Batman. Important parts of what defines Batman is that he is a cool, superior looming presence in the shadows, and that he is a control fanatic with incredible self-discipline who has backup-plans prepared for everything. And we all know that will not change in the long run. The usual character conflict for Batman, for example in the Fugitive storyline, was him realising he was pushing his friends and allied away and needs to open up a bit. What other character development can be done in the limits of the iconic Batman that writers will never be permitted to cross for very long? That Bruce decides to loosen up a bit, take a holiday and enjoys life more? Morrison already did that to a certain extent, so I doubt it will be presented as the "lesson learned" in the end. Or maybe "being a control fanatic can endanger my sanity, but now that I faced that danger from now on I am prepared even for that"? Please.

Nevertheless, this issue works quite well if it's seen not as a psychodrama about Bruce Wayne, but as a postmodern play with our perception of Batman. I found it to be a quite impressive look into insanity. The implications of a hero who always has an ace into his sleeve are turned upside down to discover it's emotional consequences and twist them into a Kafka-like nightmare.
A well-done element is the bright costume Batman wears now: It makes him look vulnarable and recalls dreams like the ones where you find yourself standing naked in front of your class.

But what makes me suspicious is the role of the Joker. While Batman seems to loose his sanity, searching his mind for hypnotic suggestions placed by superior manipulating enemies, the Joker is not that manipulative enemy, but the triumphant master of ceremony that delightfully suggests just to let go and enjoy the crazyness.
Morrison has used the Joker in a similar way in the Arkham Asylum novel. But I'd say that has become a cliche since then. Morrison is probably to intelligent not to realise that. It's fine to use the concept of the Joker too psychologically question the concept of Batman. But the other part of the equation might be to use the concept of Batman to question the Joker.
So here's my theory: The guy wearing the Batman costume (and a Bruce wayne rubber mask) is not Bruce but the Joker, himself a victim of a sense deprivation experiment and/or hypnotic implanted suggestions: He imagines what it would be like to be Batman. And to seriously believe himself to be Batman, he has to take baby steps and see himself as a Batman about to turn crazy. The Black Glove would be a similar inbetween state, a master criminal who's just as much a superior control-freak as Batman.
Right now the (imaginary?) Joker in the comic seems to be proven right, he's the man with all the answers, because in the real Jokers mind that's how it always worked until now. But next issue I expect we will see the guy who looks like the Joker take off his mask and reveal Batman, and vice-versa.

[elias_A]

Oh, and all the ominous hints about "red and black" could just refer to Harley Quinn's costume, meaning that she is the woman posing as Jezebel Jet. Maybe she has staged all this and brainwashed her pudding?

[Sidepocket]

No idea if anyone has had that idea before, but I think RIP is not about Batman going insane, it's about the Joker imagening what it would be like to be Batman.

I don't see any point in a story trying to "psychoanalyse" Batman. Important parts of what defines Batman is that he is a cool, superior looming presence in the shadows, and that he is a control fanatic with incredible self-discipline who has backup-plans prepared for everything. And we all know that will not change in the long run. The usual character conflict for Batman, for example in the Fugitive storyline, was him realising he was pushing his friends and allied away and needs to open up a bit. What other character development can be done in the limits of the iconic Batman that writers will never be permitted to cross for very long? That Bruce decides to loosen up a bit, take a holiday and enjoys life more? Morrison already did that to a certain extent, so I doubt it will be presented as the "lesson learned" in the end. Or maybe "being a control fanatic can endanger my sanity, but now that I faced that danger from now on I am prepared even for that"? Please.

Nevertheless, this issue works quite well if it's seen not as a psychodrama about Bruce Wayne, but as a postmodern play with our perception of Batman. I found it to be a quite impressive look into insanity. The implications of a hero who always has an ace into his sleeve are turned upside down to discover it's emotional consequences and twist them into a Kafka-like nightmare.
A well-done element is the bright costume Batman wears now: It makes him look vulnarable and recalls dreams like the ones where you find yourself standing naked in front of your class.

But what makes me suspicious is the role of the Joker. While Batman seems to loose his sanity, searching his mind for hypnotic suggestions placed by superior manipulating enemies, the Joker is not that manipulative enemy, but the triumphant master of ceremony that delightfully suggests just to let go and enjoy the crazyness.
Morrison has used the Joker in a similar way in the Arkham Asylum novel. But I'd say that has become a cliche since then. Morrison is probably to intelligent not to realise that. It's fine to use the concept of the Joker too psychologically question the concept of Batman. But the other part of the equation might be to use the concept of Batman to question the Joker.
So here's my theory: The guy wearing the Batman costume (and a Bruce wayne rubber mask) is not Bruce but the Joker, himself a victim of a sense deprivation experiment and/or hypnotic implanted suggestions: He imagines what it would be like to be Batman. And to seriously believe himself to be Batman, he has to take baby steps and see himself as a Batman about to turn crazy. The Black Glove would be a similar inbetween state, a master criminal who's just as much a superior control-freak as Batman.
Right now the (imaginary?) Joker in the comic seems to be proven right, he's the man with all the answers, because in the real Jokers mind that's how it always worked until now. But next issue I expect we will see the guy who looks like the Joker take off his mask and reveal Batman, and vice-versa.

Ok, I know comics can be deep but this is not a collage course here. :rolleyes:

[mofo]

Ok, I know comics can be deep but this is not a collage course here. :rolleyes:


actually....im doing a course called "The Graphic Novel" in my university and advised my professor to read Batman RIP...he's liking it so much he said he might make it required reading for the course next (academic) year

:biggrin:

[Duy]

Ok, I know comics can be deep but this is not a collage course here. :rolleyes:
Read Morrison's interviews about All-Star Superman and you can see how you can base a college course on it.

[DavidAllred]

Read Morrison's interviews about All-Star Superman and you can see how you can base a college course on it.

All-Star Superman I could see, but not this RIP story. It's just too porous to be considered good literature in my opinion. I think just defining the plot points would be a task in and of itself.

[Sizzle]

How do you figure that?

Gordon is a detective. He goes to Wayne Manor and finds Talia and Damien. Talia tells Gordon Damien is the son of the Batman, in Wayne Manor amid all this chaos with the Wayne Family.

[carabas]

Gordon is a detective. He goes to Wayne Manor and finds Talia and Damien. Talia tells Gordon Damien is the son of the Batman, in Wayne Manor amid all this chaos with the Wayne Family.Talia being there is a big hint. Talia having her kid tagging alone doesn't really add anything to that, I think.

[nepenthes]

Ok, I know comics can be deep but this is not a collage course here. :rolleyes:

you're not very familiar with Grant Morrison are you. check the notes in the back of the Arkham Asylum anniversary edition next time you're in a store. it's quite absurd actually

[Sidepocket]

No, I am very familiar with Morrison's work and own the collectors edition (with script) of AA.

The thing is, keep the collage courses in the classroom. There are no professors here, this is were we get to sit in our basements and talk about how long Batman's ears should be. If you keep flooding a freaking forum with your 50 page post-modern deconstructionist "look at me I'm Baudrillard" hogwash essays, nobody will have room to breath...just like on Super Hero Hype. Not to mention you cannot spell Analise without "anal".

In short, something that you will hear movie critics say often...ENJOY/HATE THE DAMN MOVIE! :biggrin:

[batgirl2012]

Thank you for the laugh .......Elias A [QUOTE]and brain washed her puddin[QUOTE]........

Surley if the Joker was posing as Batman in the red, yellow, and purple ...how did he get so buff? We all know the Joker aka puddin (chorttle), and love him the lanky, undermuscled way he is....hmmm no that theory just doesnt work for me..... :confused:

[carabas]

The thing is, keep the collage courses in the classroom. There are no professors here, this is were we get to sit in our basements and talk about how long Batman's ears should be. If you keep flooding a freaking forum with your 50 page post-modern deconstructionist "look at me I'm Baudrillard" hogwash essays, nobody will have room to breath...just like on Super Hero Hype. Not to mention you cannot spell Analise without "anal".Anti-intellectualism is never something to be flaunted or embraced, regardles of the venue..

[Ben Reilly#6]

Anti-intellectualism is never something to be flaunted or embraced, regardles of the venue..

Agreed. Sure, Elias_A may have had a weird theory, but it isn't too far off from what some writers would come up with. It's just not Morrison.

To say that a comic shouldn't have a highly psychological plot isn't just an insult to Morrison's work on R.I.P., but an insult to the comic book medium itself.

[Sidepocket]

Anti-intellectualism is never something to be flaunted or embraced, regardles of the venue..

You never watched politics, done business or debates have you? :tongue: