What I love most about Morrison's Batman

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

There are two key attributes Of Morrison's Batman I truly love.
1) He's not psychotic, neurotic, damaged, or mental. He is, if anything "Hyper-sane".Just as Morrison's Joker is So insane he can reinvent himself at will; Morrison's Batman is so Sane he has complete mastery of his own mind.

2) He doesn't have the idiotic (IMO) near-atavistic dislike of guns. This never made sense to me. Why would a man who had done as much as the Batman has to rid himself of all weakness, retain an irrational hatred for an inanimate object? Especially when he pals around with a guy who uses a midevil equivalent without issue (Green Arrow)

Whereas many writers portray Batman as obsessive, Morrison portrays him as driven and implacable. Where others see a lost little boy allowing a childhood trauma to define him, Morrison sees a man who has used a childhood trauma to redefine himself.

[NickFury90]

PLUS, he has a "sci-fi closet", and he completely differentiates himself from his Gotham persona. "Don't tell my friends in the GCPD about this."

[Mundungus]

I need to go back and pick up the stuff that happened after Batman and Son.

[nightwing45]

There are two key attributes Of Morrison's Batman I truly love.
1) He's not psychotic, neurotic, damaged, or mental. He is, if anything "Hyper-sane".Just as Morrison's Joker is So insane he can reinvent himself at will; Morrison's Batman is so Sane he has complete mastery of his own mind.

No one can be a complete master of their mind to the extent that a severe emotional trauma won't cause them to become psychotic. If you read enough psychological studies; you'll realize that everyone has a psychological disorder of some kind, psychologists just use criteria to nitpick who is normal borderline personality from those who are worse off.

2) He doesn't have the idiotic (IMO) near-atavistic dislike of guns. This never made sense to me. Why would a man who had done as much as the Batman has to rid himself of all weakness, retain an irrational hatred for an inanimate object? Especially when he pals around with a guy who uses a midevil equivalent without issue (Green Arrow)

So, if your parents were killed right in front of you; you saw the flash of the barrel; the bullets ripping through them. You are saying you wouldn't develop a hatred of guns? And arrows aren't the same thing.

Whereas many writers portray Batman as obsessive, Morrison portrays him as driven and implacable. Where others see a lost little boy allowing a childhood trauma to define him, Morrison sees a man who has used a childhood trauma to redefine himself.

Morrison writes him as an imbecile whose only trait through out the entire run is over the top feats of illogical stupidity and rotten characterization. He's pissing all over the O'Neil/Adams-Englehart/Rogers Batman and acting like he's paying homage to it.

It's fine if you like Morrison's pseudo Moore style; personally I think Morrison can write better stories than Moore when he doesn't get lost in the weirdness and symbolism like he has in this series and like he did in All-Star Superman and New X-Men.

[mrjohnstrange]

No one can be a complete master of their mind to the extent that a severe emotional trauma won't cause them to become psychotic. If you read enough psychological studies; you'll realize that everyone has a psychological disorder of some kind, psychologists just use criteria to nitpick who is normal borderline personality from those who are worse off.


Irrelevant, we're talking about a fictional character in a comic book. No one can fly, no one can run faster than the speed of sound.


So, if your parents were killed right in front of you; you saw the flash of the barrel; the bullets ripping through them. You are saying you wouldn't develop a hatred of guns? And arrows aren't the same thing.

Maybe? I'd probably hate murderers? Oh, hang on, I already do. It's impossible but I'd like to think that someone like Batman would "get over it" and not be all "eeeek!! it's a gun!" as if he's a girl who's just seen a mouse run across the kitchen floor.


Morrison writes him as an imbecile whose only trait through out the entire run is over the top feats of illogical stupidity and rotten characterization. He's pissing all over the O'Neil/Adams-Englehart/Rogers Batman and acting like he's paying homage to it.

It's fine if you like Morrison's pseudo Moore style; personally I think Morrison can write better stories than Moore when he doesn't get lost in the weirdness and symbolism like he has in this series and like he did in All-Star Superman and New X-Men.

Could you give some examples of Bruces illogical stupidity? I'm not sure that you've even read Morrisons Batman.

[dumbstruck]

My favourite parts were the fill-in issues that Morrison didn't write.

[ryerye17]

I don't. I didn't understand Batman RIP and the lead-in issues.

I just like Superheroes to fight. Not too many psychological things

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

No one can be a complete master of their mind to the extent that a severe emotional trauma won't cause them to become psychotic. If you read enough psychological studies; you'll realize that everyone has a psychological disorder of some kind, psychologists just use criteria to nitpick who is normal borderline personality from those who are worse off.

Sounds like something a psychologist would say. After all, if everyone's a little crazy, then everyone has to pay 200bucks an hour for therapy. More seriously, trauma can be overcome. Maybe Batman simply gave himself therapy.


So, if your parents were killed right in front of you; you saw the flash of the barrel; the bullets ripping through them. You are saying you wouldn't develop a hatred of guns? And arrows aren't the same thing.

No, I don't think so. I would however hate the guy who killed them. And yes, a bow and arrow is almost exactly the same thing as a gun and a bullet. A Bow, like a gun, is a device designed to safely accelerate a projectile to lethal speeds while at the same time aiming said projectile. Guns don't kill people bullets do. Arrows as well. If you've ever seen what a broad head arrow does to a deer you'd know what I mean. The only major difference is that a bow and arrow use stored mechanical force, while a gun uses stored chemical force.

[Sn4tcH]

No one can be a complete master of their mind to the extent that a severe emotional trauma won't cause them to become psychotic. If you read enough psychological studies; you'll realize that everyone has a psychological disorder of some kind, psychologists just use criteria to nitpick who is normal borderline personality from those who are worse off.

And then they declare everyone as bipolar and make them pay hundreds upon thousands of dollars for constant check ups and medicine. That's besides the point. You're assuming that Batman takes place in the real world, and the OP was comparing him to the Jokers "super-sanity". And since it's been shown that "super-sanity" does exist in the comics, then it's not too far of a stretch for Batman to achieve something similar.


So, if your parents were killed right in front of you; you saw the flash of the barrel; the bullets ripping through them. You are saying you wouldn't develop a hatred of guns? And arrows aren't the same thing.

Again, you're making the mistake of presuming Batman takes place in some sort of reality. I could bring up the example of The Wrath. A character who's parents were shot down in front of him, and his response was to load up on guns, make a costume, and try to kill the police.

Morrison writes him as an imbecile whose only trait through out the entire run is over the top feats of illogical stupidity and rotten characterization. He's pissing all over the O'Neil/Adams-Englehart/Rogers Batman and acting like he's paying homage to it.

The only moment I can think of that Batman's acted truly stupid is how he blindly accepted that Damian was his child. Otherwise, he's acted OVERLY intelligent in most cases, to the point where one could complain that Morrison writes him almost unstoppable. Hence the nickname, Bat-god.

It's fine if you like Morrison's pseudo Moore style; personally I think Morrison can write better stories than Moore when he doesn't get lost in the weirdness and symbolism like he has in this series and like he did in All-Star Superman and New X-Men.

And... I agree with this.

[nightwing45]

Irrelevant, we're talking about a fictional character in a comic book. No one can fly, no one can run faster than the speed of sound.

It's not irrelevant when it comes to a readers sensibility. We can swallow that Superman can do everything John Byrne established because of pseudo scientific explanations. Is it all bullshit? Hell yes, but we as a preference put it a side and enjoy the story. But, the circumstances in which Bruce was traumatized doesn't establish a preference where we can say he is a hyper state of sane and he knows what he is doing; there is no such thing as a hyper state of sanity. When his parents were murdered; he was traumatized and he has forever linked guns as a symptom of his pain. And you are quite wrong; not everyone gets over their trauma. Some people never, ever recover from emotional traumas because either they don't try too, or the problem is too deeply rooted in their psyche.


Maybe? I'd probably hate murderers? Oh, hang on, I already do. It's impossible but I'd like to think that someone like Batman would "get over it" and not be all "eeeek!! it's a gun!" as if he's a girl who's just seen a mouse run across the kitchen floor.

He doesn't go EEEK, it's a gun! He gets extremely violent with gun carrying criminals. He even goes as far as maiming them. As it has been shown in Dini and Timm's Batman Animated Series and the actual comics; guns elicit a violent response from him because they make him face his pain, which he has shown he is not ready to deal with.



Could you give some examples of Bruces illogical stupidity? I'm not sure that you've even read Morrisons Batman.

.....Taking a mortar to the chest and showing no signs of injury; ripping out of his bat suit, which is structurally reinforced in the joints making such a feat impossible. Telling us the readers that he planned his whole bout of insanity so the Black Glove would reveal himself, and that he didn't believe that the Black Glove was Satan, or his father, but an actor he once hired to pose as his civilian identity while he was on a case.

All of that was illogical stupidity at it's finest. As I said before when Morrison is not delving into the bat-shit insanity and weirdness; he can make Moore look imbecilic in comparison with brilliant work like JLA: Earth 2.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

It's not irrelevant when it comes to a readers sensibility. We can swallow that Superman can do everything John Byrne established because of pseudo scientific explanations.

Then why can't a sane Batman be explained via "pseudo-psychological" explanations?
Maybe his intensive study of meditation, coupled with his extensive knowledge of psychology allowed him to face his trauma and defeat it in a symbolic battle within dream like state of meditation. Kinda like the Thorgal ritual?

But no, that wouldn't make anywhere near as much sense as solar radiation giving god like powers to an extraterrestrial from a completly different evolutionary lineage who just happens to look exactly like a human.


But, the circumstances in which Bruce was traumatized doesn't establish a preference where we can say he is a hyper state of sane and he knows what he is doing; there is no such thing as a hyper state of sanity.


Shhh, don't tell anyone, but there is no such thing as a kryptonian.



He doesn't go EEEK, it's a gun! He gets extremely violent with gun carrying criminals.

And Yet has no issue working with gun carrying cops.


He even goes as far as maiming them. As it has been shown in Dini and Timm's Batman Animated Series and the actual comics; guns elicit a violent response from him because they make him face his pain, which he has shown he is not ready to deal with.

Of course, a man who spent ten years turning himself into the ultimate crime-fighter would never,ever deal with a mental tha tcould make him act irrationally.

[OverMaster]

And Yet has no issue working with gun carrying cops.


Actually, for all of Batman's dislike for guns, he has been shown to be an accurate shooter and well trained in the use of firearms, for years before Morrison's run. He studied to be a FBI agent in his youth, where I'm quite sure he had to take courses on gun using.

He really, really dislikes them when they are used for murder, but otherwise, while he wishes there were a world without them, he doesn't have a pathological obsession over them.

[nightwing45]

Then why can't a sane Batman be explained via "pseudo-psychological" explanations?
Maybe his intensive study of meditation, coupled with his extensive knowledge of psychology allowed him to face his trauma and defeat it in a symbolic battle within dream like state of meditation. Kinda like the Thorgal ritual?

No, self-hypnosis would only hide the problems not solve them. Spiritual meditations mostly allow the practitioner to gain a means of self control over their mind and emotions; it doesn't mean they can rid themselves of their mental problems.

But no, that wouldn't make anywhere near as much sense as solar radiation giving god like powers to an extraterrestrial from a completly different evolutionary lineage who just happens to look exactly like a human.

We know that plants and ourselves utilize solar radiation to thrive upon; what writers do with Superman is just taking that knowledge and adding a fantasy bent to it. Does it sound implausible? Somewhat, but given how much science keeps discovering new things about the universe it's more plausible than what Morrison has provided regarding Batman.


Shhh, don't tell anyone, but there is no such thing as a kryptonian.

Insinuating I'm crazy doesn't solidify your case in the slightest.


And Yet has no issue working with gun carrying cops.

*Ahem*, in Year One he threw a SWAT officer in FULL RIOT gear straight through a decrypted brick wall, or how about when he messed up the officers in Bruce Wayne: Murderer/Fugitive storylines. Let's not forget he's shown that he tolerates cops and will work with them to achieve the same goals, but when they get in his way he will move through them.


Of course, a man who spent ten years turning himself into the ultimate crime-fighter would never,ever deal with a mental tha tcould make him act irrationally.

Of course, because billionaries are going to be put through psychiatric exams! Next, you'll tell me that Bill Gates pays taxes despite the fact he, like other rich people are cheating on their taxes. :biggrin:

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

No, self-hypnosis would only hide the problems not solve them. Spiritual meditations mostly allow the practitioner to gain a means of self control over their mind and emotions; it doesn't mean they can rid themselves of their mental problems.


I would continue trying to point out the inherent contradiction in your statements, but I get the feeling you would simply continue to ignore them.


We know that plants and ourselves utilize solar radiation to thrive upon; what writers do with Superman is just taking that knowledge and adding a fantasy bent to it. Does it sound implausible? Somewhat, but given how much science keeps discovering new things about the universe it's more plausible than what Morrison has provided regarding Batman.

I could, for example point out that we know far more about the body and the way biology works, than we do about the way the mind works, or that science keeps discovering new things about the way the mind works, but you seem far too sure that you, and you alone, are right to think there would be any point.






Insinuating I'm crazy doesn't solidify your case in the slightest.


Yes, Because that's exactly what I was doing. :rolleyes:

[Sn4tcH]

I think the big problem with most of your arguements Nightwing45, is that most of them can be explained away by in universe sources. And not just Morrison, but multiple authors through all the years.

[mrjohnstrange]

.....Taking a mortar to the chest and showing no signs of injury; ripping out of his bat suit, which is structurally reinforced in the joints making such a feat impossible. Telling us the readers that he planned his whole bout of insanity so the Black Glove would reveal himself, and that he didn't believe that the Black Glove was Satan, or his father, but an actor he once hired to pose as his civilian identity while he was on a case.


Those aren't examples of Bruce being an "imbecile" or performing feats of "illogical stupidity". Taking a mortar to the chest and showing no signs of injury doesn't make him an imbecile, and it doesn't make him illogical or stupid. An act of illogical stupidity would be getting BATMAN!! tattooed on his forehead or reading (and paying for?) Grant Morrisons entire run on Batman just so that you can whine about how much you hate him and his writing on the internet.

I don't remember him saying that he planned his bout of insanity, if you mean the Batman of Zur En Arrh. I thought it was more of a "just in case" type thing, but I could be wrong. As for him not believing the Black Glove was satan, neither did most of the readers. He's a rational sort of fella who'd look for the rational explaination. The Black Glove never presented any kind of evidence that he was Satan, and never even demonstrated any super-human powers or strength. Why would Batman believe that he was satan?

[nightwing45]

Those aren't examples of Bruce being an "imbecile" or performing feats of "illogical stupidity". Taking a mortar to the chest and showing no signs of injury doesn't make him an imbecile, and it doesn't make him illogical or stupid. An act of illogical stupidity would be getting BATMAN!! tattooed on his forehead or reading (and paying for?) Grant Morrisons entire run on Batman just so that you can whine about how much you hate him and his writing on the internet.

I don't remember him saying that he planned his bout of insanity, if you mean the Batman of Zur En Arrh. I thought it was more of a "just in case" type thing, but I could be wrong. As for him not believing the Black Glove was satan, neither did most of the readers. He's a rational sort of fella who'd look for the rational explaination. The Black Glove never presented any kind of evidence that he was Satan, and never even demonstrated any super-human powers or strength. Why would Batman believe that he was satan?


Re-read RIP; the Batman's dialogue speaks for itself. He planned for Black Glove to kidnap him, which is why he had the backup Batman Persona so that he wouldn't be totally helpless. If you couldn't even figure that out; then why did you read it? And I didn't pay for his whole run; I read it through the library. Also, if I hated Grant Morrison so much why do I own JLA: Earth 2? I've already admitted more than once when he isn't going into the weirdness and getting lost in the symbolism he can be superior to Moore.

[Sn4tcH]

Now from my reading of Batman RIP, Batmans dialogue says, "The truth is, I know I was under attack but I could only guess how it would play out, trust preperation to see me through and rely on my allies to keep up."

That doesn't sound anything like having planned his kidnapping, it sounds more like him preparing for anything.

As for his Zur En Arrh persona, he created that, not because of Dr. Hurt (Satan), but because of the increasing ammount of insane costumed villains appearing in Gotham during his first 5 years of being Batman. He was preparing for the worst.

And it just so happens that both paths tie together, one of the many things Batman has done to prepare for anything ends up becoming valuable when his enemies decide to finally attack.

It's not illogical stupidity, it's a back-up plan, one of many that Batman has.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Now from my reading of Batman RIP, Batmans dialogue says, "The truth is, I know I was under attack but I could only guess how it would play out, trust preperation to see me through and rely on my allies to keep up."

That doesn't sound anything like having planned his kidnapping, it sounds more like him preparing for anything.

As for his Zur En Arrh persona, he created that, not because of Dr. Hurt (Satan), but because of the increasing ammount of insane costumed villains appearing in Gotham during his first 5 years of being Batman. He was preparing for the worst.

And it just so happens that both paths tie together, one of the many things Batman has done to prepare for anything ends up becoming valuable when his enemies decide to finally attack.

It's not illogical stupidity, it's a back-up plan, one of many that Batman has.


Exactly, One thing I thought was really telling about the Nature ofmorrisons Batman was his monologue in the coffin. The fact hes thought through allof the finite number of ways to hurt the human body and prepared himself for them all speaks to how through he has been in his preperations. The fact that he would even think to create a backup personality also says a lot about how completly he has mastered his own mind.

[nightwing45]

Now from my reading of Batman RIP, Batmans dialogue says, "The truth is, I know I was under attack but I could only guess how it would play out, trust preperation to see me through and rely on my allies to keep up."

That doesn't sound anything like having planned his kidnapping, it sounds more like him preparing for anything.

As for his Zur En Arrh persona, he created that, not because of Dr. Hurt (Satan), but because of the increasing ammount of insane costumed villains appearing in Gotham during his first 5 years of being Batman. He was preparing for the worst.

And it just so happens that both paths tie together, one of the many things Batman has done to prepare for anything ends up becoming valuable when his enemies decide to finally attack.

It's not illogical stupidity, it's a back-up plan, one of many that Batman has.

I don't have the book in front of me to back up my facts because like I said; I didn't buy the run. All I have is what I recollect of it; I distinctly remember him having more to say then what you have provided. I remember he spoke about how the red and black tiles on the floor were another allusion Dr. Hurt threw at him to try and convince him that he was Satan. But, when he saved Jezebel and she revealed she was on Hurt's side; Batman told them that he already knew. That he realized it when in he and Jezebel were in batcave when they had their private moment. He also began to tear down Dr. Hurt's illusions by revealing to us readers that Doctor Hurt was really an actor that he used to hire to pose as his Bruce Wayne playboy persona during important cases; not Satan, or his father.

Of course; then Batman got on the copter with Dr. Hurt and it crashed and we never learned the truth.

[numberONE]

I read Batman: The Black Casebook (http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=11737) and read Morrison's whole run for the first time (before I'd only read The Black Glove, R.I.P., and other bits, before). I was really confused the first time I read R.I.P., but I must say reading The Black Casebook first sheds a new light on Morrison's run.

[Freakzeek]

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww318/Freakzeek_2009/batmanflash.jpg

[Sn4tcH]

I remember he spoke about how the red and black tiles on the floor were another allusion Dr. Hurt threw at him to try and convince him that he was Satan. But, when he saved Jezebel and she revealed she was on Hurt's side; Batman told them that he already knew. That he realized it when in he and Jezebel were in batcave when they had their private moment. He also began to tear down Dr. Hurt's illusions by revealing to us readers that Doctor Hurt was really an actor that he used to hire to pose as his Bruce Wayne playboy persona during important cases; not Satan, or his father.

I kind of agree with a statement said earlier. If you told me that I was fighting Satan himself, I would suspect it to be untrue as well. Though Dr. Hurt does have one bit of dialogue to explain Bruce's confusion:

"I skinned Mangrove Pierce alive and wore him to Mayhews Party."

Also, Batman said he realized that Jezebel was an enemy when she said "I want you to know I understand." which happened while they were at dinner during their ski trip in Batman 664. The cave scene wasn't until Batman 677.

But I'm still not quite sure what your point is? That Batman was stupid for not realizing that Dr. Hurt wasn't Satan? Even though he was using Pierces body as a vessel? Who would believe that?

[OverMaster]

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww318/Freakzeek_2009/batmanflash.jpg

My inner Paul Dini is crying.

[nightwing45]

I kind of agree with a statement said earlier. If you told me that I was fighting Satan himself, I would suspect it to be untrue as well. Though Dr. Hurt does have one bit of dialogue to explain Bruce's confusion:

"I skinned Mangrove Pierce alive and wore him to Mayhews Party."

Also, Batman said he realized that Jezebel was an enemy when she said "I want you to know I understand." which happened while they were at dinner during their ski trip in Batman 664. The cave scene wasn't until Batman 677.

But I'm still not quite sure what your point is? That Batman was stupid for not realizing that Dr. Hurt wasn't Satan? Even though he was using Pierces body as a vessel? Who would believe that?

No, I'm saying that it's stupid that he took a mortar to the chest and survived; that he tore out of his suit to uppercut the napalm spewing Batman psychotic, and that he acted like a Silver Age plot device. The whole run was written with too much surrealistic idiocy and not enough realistic grounding.

As I have said numerous times already; when Morrison doesn't get lost in the symbolism and weirdness aka suffering from Claremontitis, he can be a very good writer. But, this Batman run I would not put it anywhere near the league of O'Neil/Adams-Englehart/Rogers-Miller/Janson.

[Sn4tcH]

To each his own then, it all made sense to me.

[DetectiveDupin]

IMO Morrison's run is shaping up to be one of the greatest runs ever on Batman, and I've loved every second of it. It's a shame that once comic books become more mature and dense that people who can't understand it throw insults at it. You don't like it, fine. There are many other books available, or you can go buy back issues. Personally I rank him as one of the greatest Batman writers of all-time, and his work obviously shows his love for the character. Batman is a super-hero, and does incredible things like super-heroes do. Morrison writes Batman as he sees him, the most dangerous man on earth. And I really enjoy that. A lot of people act like this is going to be forever, it's not. It's not like he completely destroyed the character too. If anything he's added much more to the mythos and made Batman that much more of a legend. I see a lot of fans of the Nolan franchise as his main detractors, saying Batman should be realistic and shouldn't fight the devil. I'm sorry guys, but you jumped on this train too late. Batman lives in a world where Super beings do in fact exist, and in all probability someone like Batman is much more extraordinary than Superman.

[nightwing45]

IMO Morrison's run is shaping up to be one of the greatest runs ever on Batman, and I've loved every second of it. It's a shame that once comic books become more mature and dense that people who can't understand it throw insults at it. You don't like it, fine. There are many other books available, or you can go buy back issues. Personally I rank him as one of the greatest Batman writers of all-time, and his work obviously shows his love for the character. Batman is a super-hero, and does incredible things like super-heroes do. Morrison writes Batman as he sees him, the most dangerous man on earth. And I really enjoy that. A lot of people act like this is going to be forever, it's not. It's not like he completely destroyed the character too. If anything he's added much more to the mythos and made Batman that much more of a legend. I see a lot of fans of the Nolan franchise as his main detractors, saying Batman should be realistic and shouldn't fight the devil. I'm sorry guys, but you jumped on this train too late. Batman lives in a world where Super beings do in fact exist, and in all probability someone like Batman is much more extraordinary than Superman.


I didn't *jump* on after the Nolan movies; I've been reading comics on and off for almost twenty three years. So, your idea that the detractors of this Batman run are Nolan fanboys is inaccurate.

[Batman was taken]

I love how people who don't like Morrison's run are "too dumb to understand it"
.
Is it not possible to just flat out, not like something anymore?

[NickFury90]

I love how people who don't like Morrison's run are "too dumb to understand it"
.
Is it not possible to just flat out, not like something anymore?

As an unapogically Morrison fanatic, I too hate "Oh, well you just didn't understand it". To be fair, some people just flat out DON'T understand it(God forbid you have to do a little bit of thinking with your superhero comics), but a lot of people just do not like his style of writing, and thats fine. Some people think he's a drug-addicted hackjob and the worst DCU writer in years, other worship the ground he steps on and write books and film documentaries about him.

Love him or hate him, he is what he is, and you shouldnt look down your ****ing nose at somebody because they disagree with your opinion on a comic book.

[Sn4tcH]

Yeah, I'm not accusing Nightwing45 of not getting it. In fact, since he can hold his own in the conversation, that tells me he totally understands it. This is conversation between people who understands what Morrison was trying to do, and disagree on whether or not it was successful.

[DetectiveDupin]

I didn't *jump* on after the Nolan movies; I've been reading comics on and off for almost twenty three years. So, your idea that the detractors of this Batman run are Nolan fanboys is inaccurate.

I didn't say all of Morrison's detractors were Nolan fans, I said it seems to be the majority are. And for the most part, that's true. TDK came out, they bought the latest issue of Batman, and Batman is being killed off (in a way). As upsetting as that was for some, they simply don't understand that the world they ventured into is far more different than the window they were looking into. And my statement isn't inaccurate, you inaccurately read it.

As far as people being too stupid to understand it- I believe that yes, there are some cases where I do not believe someone is intelligent enough to understand Morrison (or Moore's) writing. Usually I come to this belief because those people have very poor grammar and their ability to reason is almost non-existent. I do see people that get it, and simply don't like it. That's fine. There are people who like T.S. Eliot's writing style and don't like Ernest Hemingway's. I am one of those people. But I do not ignore the fact that the man was talented or is a great writer. I don't constantly poke fun or make derogatory remarks to people that appreciate his work. I just simply read what I like.

[DarkBeast]

My favorite part of Morrison's Batman is how he draws out the stupidity of his detractors. There were clear problems with the run, but all too often the detractors simply are not smart enough to criticize Morrison in any very legitimate ways because they simply do not understand what they read. Some of them claim to understand it, but certain baseless or illogical arguments of theirs prove that they really don't. Others admit that they don't understand it, and yet still criticize it very stridently. Really, it wasn't THAT difficult to read, but I guess lots of people are just really used to their writers treating them like babies and spoonfeeding them everything. They don't want to work for ANYTHING, but only want to be passive consumers of entertainment. To each their own, I guess. But it's awfully amusing to me to hear these guys complain; it really touches a nerve with them when it's brought to their attention that they have deficient reading and critical thinking skills. They should be blaming their teachers and their television sets. Instead they blame one of the few comic book writers who actually respects his audience's intelligence to any noticeable degree. Again, Morrison's writing has many imperfections, but it's hilarious to hear his detractors complain about him, essentially, for his expecting them to actually be smart and open-minded enough to enjoy turning unconventional ideas over in their minds and trying to find their own ways of figuring out certain mysterious plot elements.

On the other hand, though I loved the Batman run, it is quite illuminating to read well-reasoned criticisms of it. I'll say that again: the best reviews I've read of Morrison's Batman have been intelligent arguments with NEGATIVE views. Unfortunately, however, these are few and far between. Instead the majority of detractors resort to ad hominem attacks, or discredit Morrison because he's supposedly "lost in a drug craze" or whatever. Quoting Bill Hicks: Hey man, if you got such a problem with drugs, you better throw out almost every album you own, because all those musicians...REAL high on drugs! Same goes for a lot of writers (including screenwriters), actors and directors. (That's not an argument FOR drugs, by the way. Personally, I don't use them. But if you're going to discount a work of art because its creator has used drugs, you're going to be left with a library of pretty boring art.)

No, seriously, my favorite thing about Morrison's run was the way he left so much room for the reader's imagination and detective skills. It was so much fun to scour the issues for clues, even if we never got definitive answers to a lot of the questions: the fun was in the journey, not in the destination. (Although I think a definite drawback of Morrison's run was the lack of satisfying answers or explanations being provided at the end, and I'm not just talking about Hurt's identity. I mean, who was Honor Jackson? Who was the supposed detective who was hired by Martha Wayne's parents?)

I disagree with the threadstarter, though, because I think that Morrison's Batman did display a significant hatred of guns. Think of how many times Morrison's Joker, referring to the events of Batman #655, needled Bruce into screaming that "Batman doesn't kill! I don't use guns!" That was a theme all throughout the run. And I think the real issue is "not killing", not "not using a gun" or gun-like object. A gun is the focal point of this theme because 1) guns kill so easily, and 2) it was a gun that killed the Waynes. This theme is developed when Damian kills the Spook, and then Bruce has to teach him that he shouldn't kill. In issue 666 an adult Damian kills the Lane Batman, and then expresses remorse: "I promised my father I wouldn't kill". You guys can argue about why Bruce would work with Green Arrow or policemen or whatever, but that's beside the point. Green Arrow and the policemen Batman would work with aren't out to kill people, and that's the larger issue: the intent to kill.

The flashback scenes in Batman #673, in which Bruce seems to basically bring about Joe Chills death by means of a gun, seem to go against all of this. But the rationale behind that story--whether it was real or not--have not been explained. That story is the counterpoint to Batman's habitual philosophy, but it's in essence a reference to the fact that in '39s the early '40s Batman WOULD use a gun and kill people. My guess is that Morrison's eventually going to integrate that concept into the current continuity through some sort of inclusive explanation. (Maybe back then the Devil made Batman do it?) Morrison's point is that Batman IS ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, and are all these different explanations for it. Relatedly, at first Morrison's run gave us the explanation that all the crazy sci-fi supernatural '50s and '60s adventures were a product of hallucinations brought on by Bruce and Dick ingesting too many toxic gasses from their enemies. But then at the end of R.I.P., with the probable introduction of the Devil into the mythos, it's like the supernatural made a comeback. Morrison's saying there can be multiple explanations for things, all of which make the Batman mythos more interesting: SOME of the sci-fi stuff WAS the result of hallucinations, but some of the supernatural stuff may have been real as well. The fun, spooky thing is to try to decipher and speculate what was real and what wasn't. On the other hand, if you're a reader who insists on strict explanations for things, then you're not going to like that...which is fine, as long as you actually know what you're talking about, unlike some people.

I.....Taking a mortar to the chest and showing no signs of injury; ripping out of his bat suit, which is structurally reinforced in the joints making such a feat impossible.

No injury? He went into cardiac arrest, passed out for a while, and could barely fight his way out and drag himself away afterwards. And evidently it wasn't impossible for him to snake his arm out of the sleeve of his costume. Why would that be impossible? Difficult, sure, but hardly impossible. However tough the joints are on his batsuit, it sure looks pretty much just like a regular longsleeved t-shirt. Of all the great physical tasks we see Batman performing, THIS one seems impossible to you, that the guy can sneak his arm out of the sleeve of his shirt? The fact that the shirt is reinforced and sturdy would actually make it easier, since the shirt would have a firmness, making it stay in place easier while he snaked his arm up.

No, I'm saying that it's stupid that he took a mortar to the chest and survived; that he tore out of his suit to uppercut the napalm spewing Batman psychotic

You've confused WRITING that you think is stupid with a CHARACTER being stupid.

I don't have the book in front of me to back up my facts because like I said; I didn't buy the run. All I have is what I recollect of it; I distinctly remember him having more to say then what you have provided.

So you pride yourself for being stubborn, insisting you don't need to actually look at the facts to back up anything you say, even though you evidently have a faulty "recollection", and you don't know the difference between "then" and "than". Some rude people might say that you are the one who's kinda "stupid".

Telling us the readers that he planned his whole bout of insanity so the Black Glove would reveal himself

How is having a really complex PLAN to outwit your enemy and survive an attack an instance of "stupidity"? I actually DID NOT LIKE the whole idea of the "back-up personality" of the Zur-En-Arrh Batman. I didn't like it at all. But it's not at all an example of stupidity on Batman's part or on Morrison's. As someone else said, if anything it's an example of over-thinking. By the way, not all "bad writing" is necessarily "stupid", just like not all bad people are necessarily stupid.

and that he didn't believe that the Black Glove was Satan, or his father, but an actor he once hired to pose as his civilian identity while he was on a case.

But isn't it more logical to have suspected that Hurt was an actor (whom he physically resembled, based on the headshot in Batman #677), than to have believed that Hurt was your dead father come back from the dead now behaving EVILLY, or to have believed from the get-go that Hurt was a supernatural force? Are all people who don't believe in the Devil "stupid"? Besides that, you're working from faulty premises because by the end of #681 it was Bruce himself who pretty much told readers "Gee I think Hurt was the Devil" (paraphrasing). It's in Bruce's own words--not Hurt's--that we the readers learn that Morrison really did devise Dr. Hurt to be a stand-in for the Devil. Bruce gets it. The idea that you think Bruce is "stupid" for not believing Hurt was Thomas Wayne is asinine...because Hurt didn't turn out to be Thomas Wayne anyway! That's like saying "Gee you're stupid if you didn't think Battle for the Cowl was going to end with Tim becoming Batman!"

All of that was illogical stupidity at it's finest. As I said before when Morrison is not delving into the bat-shit insanity and weirdness; he can make Moore look imbecilic in comparison with brilliant work like JLA: Earth 2.

Really! Morrison's JLA story makes Moore look like an imbecile, huh? HOW, exactly? I agree that sometimes Morrison can out-do Moore, but, really, what is there specifically in that JLA story that makes Alan Moore look like an imbecile? Tell me, oh great one who does not know the difference between "then" and "than"! It's ignorant, sweeping statements like these that discredit your entire argument. You just say something alarming--Alan Moore as an "imbecile"--without giving anything to back it up, and expect thinking people to actually agree with you.

[DetectiveDupin]

My favorite part of Morrison's Batman is how he draws out the stupidity of his detractors. There were clear problems with the run, but all too often the detractors simply are not smart enough to criticize Morrison in any very legitimate ways because they simply do not understand what they read. Some of them claim to understand it, but certain baseless or illogical arguments of theirs prove that they really don't. Others admit that they don't understand it, and yet still criticize it very stridently. Really, it wasn't THAT difficult to read, but I guess lots of people are just really used to their writers treating them like babies and spoonfeeding them everything. They don't want to work for ANYTHING, but only want to be passive consumers of entertainment. To each their own, I guess. But it's awfully amusing to me to hear these guys complain; it really touches a nerve with them when it's brought to their attention that they have deficient reading and critical thinking skills. They should be blaming their teachers and their television sets. Instead they blame one of the few comic book writers who actually respects his audience's intelligence to any noticeable degree. Again, Morrison's writing has many imperfections, but it's hilarious to hear his detractors complain about him, essentially, for his expecting them to actually be smart and open-minded enough to enjoy turning unconventional ideas over in their minds and trying to find their own ways of figuring out certain mysterious plot elements.

On the other hand, though I loved the Batman run, it is quite illuminating to read well-reasoned criticisms of it. I'll say that again: the best reviews I've read of Morrison's Batman have been intelligent arguments with NEGATIVE views. Unfortunately, however, these are few and far between. Instead the majority of detractors resort to ad hominem attacks, or discredit Morrison because he's supposedly "lost in a drug craze" or whatever. Quoting Bill Hicks: Hey man, if you got such a problem with drugs, you better throw out almost every album you own, because all those musicians...REAL high on drugs! Same goes for a lot of writers (including screenwriters), actors and directors. (That's not an argument FOR drugs, by the way. Personally, I don't use them. But if you're going to discount a work of art because its creator has used drugs, you're going to be left with a library of pretty boring art.)

No, seriously, my favorite thing about Morrison's run was the way he left so much room for the reader's imagination and detective skills. It was so much fun to scour the issues for clues, even if we never got definitive answers to a lot of the questions: the fun was in the journey, not in the destination. (Although I think a definite drawback of Morrison's run was the lack of satisfying answers or explanations being provided at the end, and I'm not just talking about Hurt's identity. I mean, who was Honor Jackson? Who was the supposed detective who was hired by Martha Wayne's parents?)


.

A lot of this post was really how I feel about Morrison's run. I love the fact that this is actually a mystery, as opposed to Loeb's attempt with Hush.
You've hit every nail on the head there, Darkbeast, though I feel there are parts of the story yet to be revealed, as Morrison is planning this as a 5 part story, and we are currently on part 4 (Batman & Robin). I don't think Honor Jackson was anyone of significance, if you remember correctly he was a derelict who happened to be there when Bruce and Tim apprehended the Green Vulture. Bruce probably just happened to see him while tripping out. Again, "Honor Jackson" may be a play on words, as in honor someone named Jackson, but I have yet to come across someone with any connections to this in my research.

The detective I'm sure was Dr. Hurt, probably going through another alias.

[AJM]

http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww318/Freakzeek_2009/batmanflash.jpg

Why do you keep posting hideous, irrelevant, amateur fan-art? It's getting a bit boring.

[DetectiveDupin]

Why do you keep posting hideous, irrelevant, amateur fan-art? It's getting a bit boring.

I don't see how those panels are funny either. THAT is much more confusing than Grant Morrison's Batman.

[nightwing45]

No injury? He went into cardiac arrest, passed out for a while, and could barely fight his way out and drag himself away afterwards. And evidently it wasn't impossible for him to snake his arm out of the sleeve of his costume. Why would that be impossible? Difficult, sure, but hardly impossible. However tough the joints are on his batsuit, it sure looks pretty much just like a regular longsleeved t-shirt. Of all the great physical tasks we see Batman performing, THIS one seems impossible to you, that the guy can sneak his arm out of the sleeve of his shirt? The fact that the shirt is reinforced and sturdy would actually make it easier, since the shirt would have a firmness, making it stay in place easier while he snaked his arm up.

The suit he wears is a kevlar thread/carbon nanotube fiber suit with reinforced joints; for him to tear throught the suit, he would have to possess enough strength to tear through the kevlar thread AND the carbon nanotube fiber. Don't believe me? Here's a link on Batman's suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batsuit#Basic_suit

That debunks your idea that Batman can rip through his current basic suit. But, on the same token; it proves you and Snatch are right, that he would survive the mortar. So, 1-1.


You've confused WRITING that you think is stupid with a CHARACTER being stupid.

No, I haven't confused anything; I'm talking about CHARACTERIZATION, aka how the character is portrayed...


So you pride yourself for being stubborn, insisting you don't need to actually look at the facts to back up anything you say, even though you evidently have a faulty "recollection", and you don't know the difference between "then" and "than". Some rude people might say that you are the one who's kinda "stupid".

What was this comment for? To rile me? Argue the facts if you can; if you can't, then back out of this topic.


How is having a really complex PLAN to outwit your enemy and survive an attack an instance of "stupidity"? I actually DID NOT LIKE the whole idea of the "back-up personality" of the Zur-En-Arrh Batman. I didn't like it at all. But it's not at all an example of stupidity on Batman's part or on Morrison's. As someone else said, if anything it's an example of over-thinking. By the way, not all "bad writing" is necessarily "stupid", just like not all bad people are necessarily stupid.

It is stupid when there is no distinction that Batman could have known what would happen to him. It was like saying I'll hypnotize myself and program in a back up persona just in case a psycho actor/ the devil decides to wipe my Batman persona from my mind...

Seriously, it was dumb.


But isn't it more logical to have suspected that Hurt was an actor (whom he physically resembled, based on the headshot in Batman #677), than to have believed that Hurt was your dead father come back from the dead now behaving EVILLY, or to have believed from the get-go that Hurt was a supernatural force? Are all people who don't believe in the Devil "stupid"? Besides that, you're working from faulty premises because by the end of #681 it was Bruce himself who pretty much told readers "Gee I think Hurt was the Devil" (paraphrasing). It's in Bruce's own words--not Hurt's--that we the readers learn that Morrison really did devise Dr. Hurt to be a stand-in for the Devil. Bruce gets it. The idea that you think Bruce is "stupid" for not believing Hurt was Thomas Wayne is asinine...because Hurt didn't turn out to be Thomas Wayne anyway! That's like saying "Gee you're stupid if you didn't think Battle for the Cowl was going to end with Tim becoming Batman!"

Morrison threw doubt on the Devil notion by having Batman explain to us who he thought Dr. Hurt really was; his goal was to keep us guessing. You think he just went, "Gee, I'm going to come out and say Dr. Hurt was really Satan when I don't believe in the concepts of religion, or Satan."?

If you do, you seriously don't understand Morrison; because he has stated his disrespect for organized religion, and how he believes it has polluted peoples minds from experiencing all of the wonderful things out there for us to explore.


Really! Morrison's JLA story makes Moore look like an imbecile, huh? HOW, exactly? I agree that sometimes Morrison can out-do Moore, but, really, what is there specifically in that JLA story that makes Alan Moore look like an imbecile? Tell me, oh great one who does not know the difference between "then" and "than"! It's ignorant, sweeping statements like these that discredit your entire argument. You just say something alarming--Alan Moore as an "imbecile"--without giving anything to back it up, and expect thinking people to actually agree with you.

Let's see; a giant octopus stage show for the end of Watchmen supplementing bad dialogue and an overwritten plot versus a tight, non-linear plot that had a lot of subtext about the nature of good versus evil, and how neither side can dominate one another. Not to mention the awesome artwork of Frank Quitely. I can't see how Alan Moore wins this.

[T Hedge Coke]

[A] giant octopus stage show for the end of Watchmen supplementing bad dialogue and an overwritten plot.

Which, to be fair, was hilarious and entirely the point, at least the point of our blond superman's arc and characterization.

I'm not sure Earth 2 had anything deeper to say than The Killing Joke; that is, that either has much to say other than, here is evil, here is good, here is morally-ambivalent hunger, look they punch each other. Whereas, The Ballad of Halo Jones or St. Swithin's Day clearly had more motivation to add something to the greater cultural conversation.

But, seriously, how do you know he was wearing that particular batsuit? How do you know it wasn't one of the silk ones? Or that it was all busted up so that he could slip his arm out and have somewhere to put it?

And, again, heart failure followed impact to chest, even allowing for armor. He suffered. But, because he's Batman, he survived. Because, that's the thing about Batman.

Batman thinks of everything.

[Mikey Brown]

Wow, Morrison hates religion? JLA Earth 2 is better than Watchmen? Ok, no more reading this guys posts for me. Im not sure if hes making these posts on purpose or what but if I keep responding, Im gonna get banned!

[drinkblatzbeer]

It's fine if you like Morrison's pseudo Moore style; personally I think Morrison can write better stories than Moore when he doesn't get lost in the weirdness and symbolism like he has in this series and like he did in All-Star Superman and New X-Men.

i do find it a bit ironic, that, barring final crisis, you've listed all his highest profile works...

maybe your distaste, especially for the all-star supes and batman (as i do agree his x-men pretty much fizzled out quick), has more to do with being uncomfortable with someone taking such an offbeat stance on characters who are such "fixtures", than on the quality of his work itself???

[Sn4tcH]

The suit he wears is a kevlar thread/carbon nanotube fiber suit with reinforced joints; for him to tear throught the suit, he would have to possess enough strength to tear through the kevlar thread AND the carbon nanotube fiber.

The Batsuit is far from a set thing. That description is probably ripped from some sort of source books as well as some stuff from the comics. Yet, you can find multiple times where Batman has rips in his suit, and there's nothing but skin underneath.

It is stupid when there is no distinction that Batman could have known what would happen to him. It was like saying I'll hypnotize myself and program in a back up persona just in case a psycho actor/ the devil decides to wipe my Batman persona from my mind...

Again, in the book itself it is stated that he didn't create Zur En Arrh because of Dr. Hurt. He created it as fail safe against the costume villains that were popping up during his first few years as Batman. The fact it never got utilized before then is just part of the story.

Let's see; a giant octopus stage show for the end of Watchmen supplementing bad dialogue and an overwritten plot versus a tight, non-linear plot that had a lot of subtext about the nature of good versus evil, and how neither side can dominate one another. Not to mention the awesome artwork of Frank Quitely. I can't see how Alan Moore wins this.

And there is such a thing as a wrong opinion.

[Captain Jim]

I didn't say all of Morrison's detractors were Nolan fans, I said it seems to be the majority are. And for the most part, that's true. TDK came out, they bought the latest issue of Batman, and Batman is being killed off (in a way). As upsetting as that was for some, they simply don't understand that the world they ventured into is far more different than the window they were looking into.

I don't agree with this at all and I wonder on what basis you've arrived at this conclusion.

[DetectiveDupin]

I don't agree with this at all and I wonder on what basis you've arrived at this conclusion.

I came to this from talking to various people via the web, bookstores, comic book shops, youtube, forums ect. and just listening and reading what most of these people had to say and noticed a pattern. That usually is how someone comes to a theory- observation, researching data, and a theory.

[mrjohnstrange]

Morrison threw doubt on the Devil notion by having Batman explain to us who he thought Dr. Hurt really was; his goal was to keep us guessing. You think he just went, "Gee, I'm going to come out and say Dr. Hurt was really Satan when I don't believe in the concepts of religion, or Satan."?

If you do, you seriously don't understand Morrison; because he has stated his disrespect for organized religion, and how he believes it has polluted peoples minds from experiencing all of the wonderful things out there for us to explore.


Wait... what? I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that Morrison had Batman not believe that Dr Hurt was really Satan because Morrison himself doesn't believe in Satan? So he wrote a book about Batman & Satan but in the book refused to acknowledge that it was Satan because of his disrespect for organised religion?

[Mikey Brown]

If I can get back on topic here, the thing I like about Grant`s Batman is it is like no other Batman story I have read. He embraces the fact the story takes place in the DCuniverse. Other writers usually dont mention things outside of Gotham. Grant knows that there is something special about Batman. Ive always wondered in a universe with people flying around and having super powers, what the use of a non powered human who dresses like a bat was. Thats why writers usually ignore this and just focus on Gotham and noir stories. I like both but Id rather read Morrison.

[nightwing45]

Wow, Morrison hates religion? JLA Earth 2 is better than Watchmen? Ok, no more reading this guys posts for me. Im not sure if hes making these posts on purpose or what but if I keep responding, Im gonna get banned!

He said it in a past interview when speaking of All-Star Superman, and his works leading up to talking about Final Crisis. Do you think some one who practices chaos magic, and lives a life based on counter culture beliefs loves religion?

If you do, then I've wasted more time arguing with you than I thought...

[T Hedge Coke]

Do you think some one who practices chaos magic, and lives a life based on counter culture beliefs loves religion?

If you do, then I've wasted more time arguing with you than I thought...

"Counterculture beliefs," now? Really? As if there's a monocounterculture? Or as if chaos magick or any form of spirituality or experimentation means you can't love or appreciate religion?

[Mikey Brown]

Like I said, Im just gonna stick to the topic. But feel free to keep doing what you are doing nightwing. Ill just keep focusing on the topic.

[carabas]

Morrison threw doubt on the Devil notion by having Batman explain to us who he thought Dr. Hurt really was; his goal was to keep us guessing. You think he just went, "Gee, I'm going to come out and say Dr. Hurt was really Satan when I don't believe in the concepts of religion, or Satan."?

If you do, you seriously don't understand Morrison; because he has stated his disrespect for organized religion, and how he believes it has polluted peoples minds from experiencing all of the wonderful things out there for us to explore.Really? Because I have read almost everything he has ever written, and he just loves to use religious themes. He has used Satan-figures numberous times.

And he removed all doubt regarding Hurt's true nature in an interview after R.I.P. was finished: he is the Devil.

[DetectiveDupin]

Really? Because I have read almost everything he has ever written, and he just loves to use religious themes. He has used Satan-figures numberous times.

And he removed all doubt regarding Hurt's true nature in an interview after R.I.P. was finished: he is the Devil.

Even Final Crisis used Devils-"Darkseid, Mandrakk, Dr. Hurt-they're all Devils"-Grant Morrison shortly after the last issue of Final Crisis.

In Nightwing45's defense, it does say in the dust jacket of every Grant Morrison book the he is a spokesman for the "counterculture" movement. But I do not believe he hates religion, he writes Superman like he might as well be Jesus anyway.

[Mikey Brown]

I think we all need to quit feeding the troll.

[DetectiveDupin]

I think we all need to quit feeding the troll.

You're right. Let's get on with the point of this thread, appreciation for Grant Morrison's Batman.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Something else I love about Morrison's Batman.
He has his own rocket, and it launches from under a fountain.

How cool is that?

[NickFury90]

Something else I love about Morrison's Batman.
He has his own rocket, and it launches from under a fountain.

How cool is that?

and then he parachutes down from a freakin' rocket and kicks Ninja Man-Bats in the face.

[DetectiveDupin]

Something else I love about Morrison's Batman.
He has his own rocket, and it launches from under a fountain.

How cool is that?

I love how Damian was so impressed with that.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

and then he parachutes down from a freakin' rocket and kicks Ninja Man-Bats in the face.

And how cool, is any comic with NINJA MAN-BATS!

[NickFury90]

And how cool, is any comic with NINJA MAN-BATS!

A comic that has Batman fighting Ninja Man Bats juxtaposed against other comic book panels!

See, we got on topic real quick.

[carabas]

Something else I love about Morrison's Batman.
He has his own rocket, and it launches from under a fountain.

How cool is that?It certainly shows what tv series Morrison liked as a kid.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

It certainly shows what tv series Morrison liked as a kid.
Which one is that?

[carabas]

Thunderbirds are go. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKKVoR1X5lM)

[Captain Jim]

I came to this from talking to various people via the web, bookstores, comic book shops, youtube, forums ect. and just listening and reading what most of these people had to say and noticed a pattern. That usually is how someone comes to a theory- observation, researching data, and a theory.

Hmm, everything I've read on the web, and had verified by my own retailer, is that the movie had essentially zero impact on Batman comic sales. The handful of people who had not read comics before but were motivated to check them out because of the movie gravitated to trades, not the monthlies.

And the responses I've read here from people who don't care for Morrison, by and large, have not suggested to me that they are new readers.

Speaking for myself, I disliked RIP pretty strongly, and I've been reading Batman comics since 1958.

[Duy]

Hmm, everything I've read on the web, and had verified by my own retailer, is that the movie had essentially zero impact on Batman comic sales. The handful of people who had not read comics before but were motivated to check them out because of the movie gravitated to trades, not the monthlies.

And the responses I've read here from people who don't care for Morrison, by and large, have not suggested to me that they are new readers.

Speaking for myself, I disliked RIP pretty strongly, and I've been reading Batman comics since 1958.
I disliked RIP's resolution very, very strongly, but to be honest, I can say that of a lot of Morrison stories.

[DetectiveDupin]

Hmm, everything I've read on the web, and had verified by my own retailer, is that the movie had essentially zero impact on Batman comic sales. The handful of people who had not read comics before but were motivated to check them out because of the movie gravitated to trades, not the monthlies.

And the responses I've read here from people who don't care for Morrison, by and large, have not suggested to me that they are new readers.

Speaking for myself, I disliked RIP pretty strongly, and I've been reading Batman comics since 1958.

That's just what I've thought from my own experiences. And once again, I didn't say all, I said the majority. But like I said, I have strong feeling that most that do not like it simply don't understand it, and I know there are some that do and just do not like it. I think most people either really enjoy Grant Morrison's work or absolutely hate it. I really enjoy it, to the point where I think this is going to be one of the most important and greatest Batman runs in history. To each his own, is probably the best way to say it.

[Captain Jim]

I have strong feeling that most that do not like it simply don't understand it.

Perhaps some, but most? I think that's a pretty arrogant and judgmental comment.

[DetectiveDupin]

Perhaps some, but most? I think that's a pretty arrogant and judgmental comment.

It is, but for the time being I feel that it is true because most of the detractors I have experienced complain about it not making sense.

[Sn4tcH]

Perhaps some, but most? I think that's a pretty arrogant and judgmental comment.

I uh... kinda agree with him. The most common complaint I hear about Batman RIP (and Final Crisis) is "I don't get it." Which, whatever, it's fine not to understand or get something.

Edit: With Batman RIP you're dealing with A spiritual entity who's taken the form of a stunt man that stood in for Bruce's father, multiple allusions to Batman in the silver age, a new Joker that's totally different, Batman dressed in purple as his drug crazed alter ego that was created by hypnosis. It's real easy to accept that a lot of people have no idea what's going on. With Final Crisis, he exercised a new form of story telling, that personally, I didn't think was very successful. But again, it's okay to not understand things that could be best described as new experimental forms of storytelling in the comic book format.

[Ninja Man-Bats]

Batman of Zur En Rahh, with a baseball bat :evilsmile:
JH Williams 3
creepy Batmite from the 5th dimension
a evil Joker again, forked tongue, versus the devil
Ninja man bats!

this is psychotic stuff, how batman should be

[Duy]

Batman of Zur En Rahh, with a baseball bat :evilsmile:
JH Williams 3
creepy Batmite from the 5th dimension
a evil Joker again, forked tongue, versus the devil
Ninja man bats!

this is psychotic stuff, how batman should be
I absolutely agree.

Except that there's something to be said for execution, and in at least two whodunits (Club of Heroes and RIP), all whose set-ups I absolutely loved, the reveals fall flat on their faces.

[Teatime Brutality]

I think what I love most about Morrison's Batman is the central idea that every era counts and that all the different changes in style and tone add up to a portrait of one man's changing psychology.

It's obviously very important to be able to flip a switch in your head and ignore that idea completely when you need to, or you'd lose the ability to appreciate earlier stories as distinct works, but having this conceit that it's now 'all one big story' and it all matters is a great way in to reading or rereading older material.

Before Morrison's run then Batman felt to me a bit like there was a small and somewhat improverished list of stories that actually 'counted' (most of them not especially to my personal taste). But now...if the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh and the Club of Heroes can take on a background character from Robin Dies at Dawn, then anything can happen.

It opens up the history of the character...not necessarily for reuse or reference. I'm not saying I'm reading "Asylum of the Futurians!" in Batman #229 and thinking, "I wonder what Grant would do with this?" (although...), or having any expectation that it'll ever be referenced anywhere ever. I'm saying that with the fictional assertation in place that all that stuff is part of the life of the character we're reading today, it gives it an urgency. And the idea that all these different styles of storytelling and story correspond to a changing individual conciousness gives us a new framework from which we can stand back and see the character in a different way.

That's what I love most about Morrison's Batman. It's enriched everyone else's.

[nepenthes]

I think what I love most about Morrison's Batman is the central idea that every era counts and that all the different changes in style and tone add up to a portrait of one man's changing psychology.

It's obviously very important to be able to flip a switch in your head and ignore that idea completely when you need to, or you'd lose the ability to appreciate earlier stories as distinct works, but having this conceit that it's now 'all one big story' and it all matters is a great way in to reading or rereading older material.

Before Morrison's run then Batman felt to me a bit like there was a small and somewhat improverished list of stories that actually 'counted' (most of them not especially to my personal taste). But now...if the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh and the Club of Heroes can take on a background character from Robin Dies at Dawn, then anything can happen.

It opens up the history of the character...not necessarily for reuse or reference. I'm not saying I'm reading "Asylum of the Futurians!" in Batman #229 and thinking, "I wonder what Grant would do with this?" (although...), or having any expectation that it'll ever be referenced anywhere ever. I'm saying that with the fictional assertation in place that all that stuff is part of the life of the character we're reading today, it gives it an urgency. And the idea that all these different styles of storytelling and story correspond to a changing individual conciousness gives us a new framework from which we can stand back and see the character in a different way.

That's what I love most about Morrison's Batman. It's enriched everyone else's.

i see exactly what you're saying here and agree it adds volumes to not just the individual arcs plus overall run at hand, but also the ongoing concept of Batman in general. he genuinly feels evolved as an idea now.

nice blog btw

Batman of Zur En Rahh, with a baseball bat :evilsmile:
JH Williams 3
creepy Batmite from the 5th dimension
a evil Joker again, forked tongue, versus the devil
Ninja man bats!

this is psychotic stuff, how batman should be

well put!


hey everyone, i am doing a college course in england and i would like to no as much as possibal about batman, this may seen random but i really need your help, please reply ASAP!!!1 thank you x:smile: :smile:

yeah...?

[Teatime Brutality]

i see exactly what you're saying here and agree it adds volumes to not just the individual arcs plus overall run at hand, but also the ongoing concept of Batman in general. he genuinly feels evolved as an idea now.

nice blog btw


You said something interesting the other day about Batman not being one story but lots of little stories, which is absolutely true. What went on in the Morrison Batman run (explicated by its prologue in 52 and its epilogue in Last Rites) was a sort of imaginative exercise in pretending it wasn't like that, and that the whole seventy-year run was a purposeful epic that was meant to be exactly the way it was.

Nonsense, of course (unless you find his "the DCU is sentient!" theory convincing) but it makes for a thrilling way to read Batman, sparking off all sorts of wild ideas, blowing the dust off, and inviting the reader to engage more with the long-range development of themes and ideas than with what isn't or isn't in continuity this year.

Ta about the blog! :)
It's even Bat-relevant this week (but only with another uber-geeky update to my chronology (http://teatimebrutality.blogspot.com/2009/10/hello-hello.html))

[DetectiveDupin]

I think Morrison has written the best Batman since Frank Miller's Year One. I honestly love this run, it's one of the greatest things to happen to the medium in years.

[Yawn]

I loved that it was a huge mystery and Dick is finally given his due and is no doubt A list(I always thought he was though)


Negative:Batgod,the Morrison weirdness that doesn't always work.The comic book guy behavior of fans when someone doesn't like something The Morrison does.

[Sn4tcH]

The comic book guy behavior of fans when someone doesn't like something The Morrison does.

This goes both ways, be fair. Half the people start screaming "GENIUS!" While the other half is yelling, "HACK!"

[Duy]

This goes both ways, be fair. Half the people start screaming "GENIUS!" While the other half is yelling, "HACK!"
Then you have people like me, yelling "Genius" for his ideas and groaning when he executes (most of) them.

[DetectiveDupin]

This goes both ways, be fair. Half the people start screaming "GENIUS!" While the other half is yelling, "HACK!"

I definitely scream Genius, haha.

[Lew Moxon]

I think what I love most about Morrison's Batman is the central idea that every era counts and that all the different changes in style and tone add up to a portrait of one man's changing psychology.

It's obviously very important to be able to flip a switch in your head and ignore that idea completely when you need to, or you'd lose the ability to appreciate earlier stories as distinct works, but having this conceit that it's now 'all one big story' and it all matters is a great way in to reading or rereading older material.

Before Morrison's run then Batman felt to me a bit like there was a small and somewhat improverished list of stories that actually 'counted' (most of them not especially to my personal taste). But now...if the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh and the Club of Heroes can take on a background character from Robin Dies at Dawn, then anything can happen.

It opens up the history of the character...not necessarily for reuse or reference. I'm not saying I'm reading "Asylum of the Futurians!" in Batman #229 and thinking, "I wonder what Grant would do with this?" (although...), or having any expectation that it'll ever be referenced anywhere ever. I'm saying that with the fictional assertation in place that all that stuff is part of the life of the character we're reading today, it gives it an urgency. And the idea that all these different styles of storytelling and story correspond to a changing individual conciousness gives us a new framework from which we can stand back and see the character in a different way.

That's what I love most about Morrison's Batman. It's enriched everyone else's.

I have to agree with this point. I'm rereading Morrison's run from Batman and Son through RIP, and the thing that I have enjoyed the most is certainly those hints that stories in previous generations of comics actually happened in some form. Though as you say, it doesn't always work and some stories would probably need to be tweaked a little to fit into the current Bat universe. Morrison seems to be at his best in Bat comics, either when he's doing a stand alone story like 666, or when he's reinventing older storylines. I'd like to see Morrison try a rewrite of the entirety of Batman 1, just to see what it'd look like. The worst part of the run for me is Batgod. Though, I'd be okay if the implication was that Bruce has evolved into Batgod over time, but I'm not sure that that is the implication. I'd prefer it if he started out as some combination of Miller's Year One style Bats and the one who was presented in the golden age.

What I still don't understand is Morrison's idea that Bruce started at 19, education wise it doesn't really work. It seems contrived to keep Bruce younger than 40. I can buy that someone training in various forms of fighting could conceivably be quiet good, this is doubly true for someone with Wayne resources. But in terms of forensics and the vast detail of knowledge Morrison's Wayne seems to have, it's difficult to believe that he could have learned everything he needed to know that quickly without attracting undue attention. I know Bruce is a genius, but if he was at college level by age 13 at the latest, wouldn't everyone remember? Hence making the "dumb playboy Bruce" routine exceedingly difficult?

I'm not sure how much that concept actually plays into the works themselves, but since the views of the author are usually reflected in the works themselves, it's still worth mentioning as problematic.

[DetectiveDupin]

I have to agree with this point. I'm rereading Morrison's run from Batman and Son through RIP, and the thing that I have enjoyed the most is certainly those hints that stories in previous generations of comics actually happened in some form. Though as you say, it doesn't always work and some stories would probably need to be tweaked a little to fit into the current Bat universe. Morrison seems to be at his best in Bat comics, either when he's doing a stand alone story like 666, or when he's reinventing older storylines. I'd like to see Morrison try a rewrite of the entirety of Batman 1, just to see what it'd look like. The worst part of the run for me is Batgod. Though, I'd be okay if the implication was that Bruce has evolved into Batgod over time, but I'm not sure that that is the implication. I'd prefer it if he started out as some combination of Miller's Year One style Bats and the one who was presented in the golden age.

What I still don't understand is Morrison's idea that Bruce started at 19, education wise it doesn't really work. It seems contrived to keep Bruce younger than 40. I can buy that someone training in various forms of fighting could conceivably be quiet good, this is doubly true for someone with Wayne resources. But in terms of forensics and the vast detail of knowledge Morrison's Wayne seems to have, it's difficult to believe that he could have learned everything he needed to know that quickly without attracting undue attention. I know Bruce is a genius, but if he was at college level by age 13 at the latest, wouldn't everyone remember? Hence making the "dumb playboy Bruce" routine exceedingly difficult?

I'm not sure how much that concept actually plays into the works themselves, but since the views of the author are usually reflected in the works themselves, it's still worth mentioning as problematic.

It is a comic book.

No, but really Bruce had been getting kicked out of various schools hasn't he? Wasn't most of his education self-education?

[Lew Moxon]

It is a comic book.

No, but really Bruce had been getting kicked out of various schools hasn't he? Wasn't most of his education self-education?

I realize I'm nitpicking. But even self education takes time, and I'm not sure how much time 19 years give Bruce. An eight year old can't teach himself forensics.

[nepenthes]

yeah 19 seems way too young. I like the younger Bruce seen in Batman Begins, still somewhat unfocused, raging, travelling and learning around that age. Then he returns to Gotham aged around 26 as seen in Year One. Adopts Dick Grayson around 28, who leaves at 31, takes on Jason at 32, who dies at 34, Tim Drake at 36 and now 41 when zapped by Darksied.

[Lew Moxon]

yeah 19 seems way too young. I like the younger Bruce seen in Batman Begins, still somewhat unfocused, raging, travelling and learning around that age. Then he returns to Gotham aged around 26 as seen in Year One. Adopts Dick Grayson around 28, who leaves at 31, takes on Jason at 32, who dies at 34, Tim Drake at 36 and now 41 when zapped by Darksied.

That chronology seems to work better IMO

[Sn4tcH]

I saw this on here before, and it's what I've been basing a lot of edited Batmite Continuity off of:

YEAR ONE
*Batman Year One

YEAR TWO
* The Long Halloween begins

YEAR THREE
* The Long Halloween ends

YEAR FOUR
* Dark Victory begins

YEAR FIVE
* Dark Victory ends

YEAR SIX
* Robin: Year One, JLA: Year One

YEAR SEVEN
* Teen Titans: Year One

YEAR EIGHT
* Batgirl: Year One/O'Neil Adams era begins

YEAR NINE
* O'Neil/Adams Era, Tales of the Demon

YEAR TEN
* Englehart/Rogers era, Strange Apparitions

YEAR ELEVEN
* New Teen Titans begins, Gerry Conway era Batman/Detective linked

YEAR TWELVE
* Batman and the Outsiders, Nightwing: Year One, Crisis on Infinite Earths

YEAR THIRTEEN
* The Killing Joke/A Death in the Family/A Lonely Place of Dying

YEAR FOURTEEN
* Knightfall/Quest/End/Prodigal

YEAR FIFTEEN
* Contagion/Legacy/Cataclysm/Road to NML

YEAR SIXTEEN
* NML/New Gotham/Officer Down/Muderer/Fugitive

YEAR SEVENTEEN
* Hush/War Games/Infinite Crisis/OYL

YEAR EIGHTEEN
* Batman and Son/Black Glove/RIP/Final Crisis/Battle for the Cowl

I'm sorry to whoever made that time line, but I've forgotten. Anyway, I try to ignore dates, Gordon's hair color, and Gordon's rank when I'm working on the time line. I say he was between 21 - 26 when he started being Batman.

[DarkKnghtJared]

I think one of the great things about Morrison's run is that, in the same vein as Johns has been doing with Superman and GL, he's taking all these wierd silver age ideas and making them viable for a modern audience. If someone told me three or four years ago that one of the best Batman arcs of the past few years would have been spawned from such a silly idea as the Batmen of All Nations, I would have laughed directly at their face.

There are questions that haven't been answered, but I do recall reading that his run on Batman is supposed to be, in Morrison's mind/best case scenario, the first part of a trilogy, with Batman & Robin being the second.

[nepenthes]

I like that timeline Sn4tch. in my own version i'd add the trippy years in the 60's. it's basically the same though

YEAR ONE - age 24
Batman Year One

YEAR TWO - age 25
The Man Who Laughs
Full moon Rising
The Long Halloween begins

YEAR THREE - age 26
The Long Halloween ends
Dark Victory begins

YEAR FOUR - 27
Dark Victory ends
Legends of the Dark Knight stories end
Robin: Year One (if Dick is 14 when he begins this makes him 27 now)
JLA: Year One

YEAR FIVE - 28
Goofy Dick Sprang era begins, 1950's in real time
Teen Titans: Year One
Batgirl: Year One

YEAR SIX - 29
Batman visits Zur En Rah etc.
Trippy Black Casebook era, 1960's
Batgirl Year One

YEAR SEVEN - 30
O'Neil Adams era begins, early to mid 70's
Tales of the Demon

YEAR EIGHT - 31
O'Neil/Adams era
Son of the Demon (this makes Damian 10 years old now)

YEAR NINE - 32
Englehart/Rogers era, Strange Apparitions, mid to late 70's

YEAR TEN - 33
Finds Jason Todd in alley (age 17)
Gerry Conway Doug Moench era, Batman/Detective linked. early to mid 80's
New Teen Titans begins

YEAR ELEVEN - 34
Crisis on Infinite Earths
Batman and the Outsiders, Nightwing: Year One
The Cult, Jim Starlin and Max Collins era

YEAR TWELVE - 35
A Death in the Family (Jason dies at 19), Killing Joke
A Lonely Place of Dying (15 when Tim begins makes him 20 now)

YEAR THIRTEEN - 36
Knightfall/Quest/End/Prodigal

YEAR FOURTEEN - 37
Contagion/Legacy/Cataclysm/Road to NML
NML begins

YEAR FIFTEEN -38
NML ends
New Gotham/Officer Down/Muderer/Fugitive

YEAR SIXTEEN - 39
Hush/War Games/Infinite Crisis/OYL (this may be a bit squeezed)

YEAR SEVENTEEN - Bruce is 41 years of age
Batman and Son/Black Glove/RIP/Final Crisis/Battle for the Cowl

[Lew Moxon]

Also, I loved the mystery of the black glove/Dr Hurt's identity. In retrospect, the idea that Dr. Hurt is some satanic figure, or more bluntly the devil himself seems rather obvious. Yet I enjoyed all the the speculation immensely. I enjoyed all the theorizing, Dr. Hurt being Thomas Wayne/Thomas Wayne Jr./Alfred's employee/Bruce Wayne's alterego in a fight club like scenario. Speculation is fun. Plus some of the theories sound like good ideas in and of themselves. Like one persons idea that RIP would end with Bruce coming to terms with fact that he had killed in the beginning of his career. (39 comics would be brought back into continuity more or less in their entirety under that scenario.) I'm not sure it'd work for Morrison's concepts, and some would cry blasphemy for Bruce to have ever killed anyone, but I still think that idea would make for a great story.

[direction9]

This goes both ways, be fair. Half the people start screaming "GENIUS!" While the other half is yelling, "HACK!"

to be fair, no one cares when people don't like what morrison's doing. but when people mischaracterize it and intentionally misrepresent it, then there's a problem.

[Lew Moxon]

"Man Who Laughs" status as part of the cannon is complicated by the Clown at Midnight. When Morrison shows us all the voices of Jokers past, the "first Joker" voice sounds much more similar to the one in Batman 1 rather than in the remake. Meaning that the original story is probably part of the cannon Morrison is working with, if one believes all the voices the Joker goes through are actual former voices, prior to the new clown from hell persona shows up. But if that's the case, Richard Grayson was present in the second year, which sort of messes up The Long Halloween. Of course, one could argue that the events we saw were simply badly remembered, and the truth is a combination of "Man Who Laughs" and the original story it was based off of. Or that the voice has nothing to do with what actually happened. Morrison seems to be fond of the idea that Grayson was around in the second year, since the flashbacks in Last Rites imply it. Of course, in that story Bruce's mind is literally being manipulated, so the flashback's legitimacy is questionable. This kind of would work, if one could work around Dark Victory and Long Halloween. I like the Long Halloween, so I'd hate to strike it down.

[DarkKnghtJared]

"Man Who Laughs" status as part of the cannon is complicated by the Clown at Midnight. When Morrison shows us all the voices of Jokers past, the "first Joker" voice sounds much more similar to the one in Batman 1 rather than in the remake.

I think Man Who Laughs is similar enough to Batman 1 to consider it. If you want to get that technical, then you'd be figuring out continuity by the length of Batman's ears.