Should Grant Morrison have been allowed to End BATMAN?

[Quinnhop]

Most of his works have their own clearly defined beginning and end, so even if it's not technically the "end of Batman" it can probably be read that way. See: New X-Men.

[TZDEKA]

Nah. I actually prefer it the way it is, with Morrison's run continuing into the new 52, because it means that his run will actually have repercussions. I doubt any of the development the characters have received or the new stuff like Incorporated would continue into the new 52 if not for this, so I think it's better the way it is. I'd really rather his run continue into the new 52 with minor changes and continue to have some influence on how things are with Batman. That is, unless he suddenly at the very end totally derails everything. I guess there's a small chance of that.

[Lancerman]

I don't really think that Morrison is being kept from writing whatever he wants to write.

He likes writing superheroes within the constraints of continuity. A big part of his Batman run was him exploring the continuity in different ways. I doubt he cares much that a neccessary function of the genre he loves to write in forced him to make some adjustments. It's the game he willingly signed up for. If he wanted to go no holds barred he could have pitched something to Vertigo or wet independent. The rules don't change for him.

[The Nuke]

You're assuming he's got a story like that he wants to tell and isn't being allowed.

No I was asking if he should have been

[Sunbird]

Considering the reboot was the effective end to decades of stories a lot stories and characters should have had proper endings. A massive missed opportunity.

[hypotherion]

No I was asking if he should have been

...I don't understand. Your question is "Should Grant Morrison have been allowed to End BATMAN?". "Allowed" implies that something stopped him, which gets back to Jake V's point.

[nepenthes]

It's a reasonable question, not sure why people seem to be having issues with it

In a sense, "there will be Batmen and Robins until at least 1,000,000 AD" (Batman #700) is something of an ending. For that matter, the same thing could be said about the last page of FC #7 or "Tell him Gotham's in trouble. And tell him he'll need this," from RoBW #6.

Exactly, Batman & Robin will never die. But there can be an ending to Bruce Wayne's part and personally I'd lLOVE to see how Morrison plays this.

[bat39]

Considering the reboot was the effective end to decades of stories a lot stories and characters should have had proper endings. A massive missed opportunity.

Then again, before the reboot DC kept claiming that Batman would be 'untouched' and carry on like business as usual. No one anticipated the pretty significant retcons and erasures (not to mention the compression) Batman's been subjected to lately.

[ArnoldoAAD]

I don't really think that Morrison is being kept from writing whatever he wants to write.

I think Action Comics #9 begs t differ
DC really let him loose on that one

[Jake V]

No I was asking if he should have been

There's no reason to believe he's not "allowed" to do anything.

Should DC have tasked Morrison with writing a "last" Batman story? I don't think you get a writer's best work when you're telling them what to write.

[clownprince01]

I don't mind if it was Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder or anyone else. But I believe all the main DC characters, not just Batman, should've been allowed to have some kind of ending. Didn't have to be something definitive like Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow or The Dark Knight Returns, but some kind of story that more offers closure other than a sudden DCU-wide reboot. Either that or replace Flashpoint with something akin to Kingdom Come and then do a cold hard reboot.

One problem I have with comics is that there are far too many origins and nowhere near enough endings.

[Dr. Hurt]

But Grant Morrison did kill Batman. He gave him a final case to investigate, the death of a god, and then he put him in a final death trap, his own mind which he escaped, and then he faced the god of evil and paid the price. Morrison even gave him his last rites, which was a nice review of his entire history, right before he died. And then we saw what would happen if Bruce died, so we got BftC, and Dick becoming Batman.

But this is comics, so you cant kill someone like Bruce Wayne forever. So how do you kill him? You kill him in a way that feels permanent to the people inside the universe, and that's what happened, but then you bring him back.

[thwhtGuardian]

It's a reasonable question, not sure why people seem to be having issues with it



Exactly, Batman & Robin will never die. But there can be an ending to Bruce Wayne's part and personally I'd lLOVE to see how Morrison plays this.

It doesn't seem too reasonable to me because as others have pointed out the question assumes that GM wanted to tell a Batman The End kind of story but DC stopped him from doing so. There's nothing to say he planned such a story and nothing that proves that he wasn't allowed to do it.

Would I like to see him tell a final Bruce as Batman story? Definitely. But he doesn't need to be "allowed" to do that, if he called up the front office of DC tomorrow and said," I'm doing my take of DKR and What ever happened to the Caped Crusader." you can be sure DC would be down with that like white on rice.

[Batzarro#1]

i doubt Morrison could have wrapped it up in one book, he'd probabily need 3 books to set it up

i lost alot of love for Morrison after RIP. It was hard to enjoy as a stand alone book, too much multi-coloured Batman and the jumping around in time was confusing.

Enjoyed The Black Glove though

[carabas]

i lost alot of love for Morrison after RIP. It was hard to enjoy as a stand alone book, too much multi-coloured Batman and the jumping around in time was confusing.

That might have been because R.I.P. was in no way at all anything remotely resembling a stand-alone story, nor was it intended to be one.

It's like losing a lot of love for Tolkien because "Th Two Towers" didn't really work as a stand-alone novel.

No I was asking if he should have been

Well, I'm pretty sure he did end Batman and then somenbody else carried on past the ending as has been done in corporate superhero comics foras long as they have existed.

And yes, he totally should have been allowed to do this.

What do you mean exactly by a "real ending' anyway?