CBR REVIEW: Batman #0

[CBR News]

Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo bring a rare look at Bruce Wayne before he became Batman in "Batman" #0.


Full article here.

[LooneyKoala]

I wasn't actually too pleased with this issue. It's not that I disliked it or anything, I just didn't find it as good as the rest of the series has been.

[jamiegroovement]

enjoyed the initial story, interesting possible arc about the history of gotham in a non owly way. found the back up confusing only in terms of age of robins... dick seems same age...

[sipuss]

The whole "continues in 2013" pissed me off a little - didn't expect thing like that in #0 issue. The backup was pretty cool, though.

[ajinkris]

I thought this issue was amazing. The writing by James Tynion was particularly stellar. I understand the reviewers points about two somewhat disconnected stories, but she must not be fully aware of what this issue means in the grand scheme of things. This is a precursor to Snyder/Capullo's next brutal arc, Death of the Family. Giving five brief but deep glimpses into the raison d'etre of each Bat member is the perfect setup. It makes you love them, it makes you care. I can't wait to see the hell issue #13 is going to bring upon them. Call me sick, but hey, that's what happens when you love Snyder's work :3

EDIT: Also, about the complaints regarding the separated stories, they're all about the Bat members before they became Bat members. I saw the unifying theme right away. That final panel, as the reviewer stated, was a huge gut punch for me.

[CmX]

Great issue! My favorite New52 #0 I've read so far.

[JokersNuts]

I'm a huge Snyder fan, but his Batman stuff is really hit or miss for me. Some issues are excellent (like issue 12) and some are pretty frusterating (like the Mr. Freeze debacle and this lukewarm issue 0) -

[spiderrmonkey]

Anyone else get the feeling that the flashback Red Hood story will end up being a precursor to the present day Joker and his story? I'm not sure how canon the Joker-Red Hood connection was in the old DCU, but the new/old Red Hood just strikes me as slightly Jokeresque.

[Dr. Hurt]

>Batman fights the RH gang but "something is missing". Setting up the RH for the upcoming Joker story. And a mediocre introduction of the Robins.
>4/5 stars.

Dude seriously?

[tylenoljones]

>Batman fights the RH gang but "something is missing". Setting up the RH for the upcoming Joker story. And a mediocre introduction of the Robins.
>4/5 stars.

Dude seriously?

You just have to understand the scale they use to rate comics. They say it's a five star system, but the first two stars are never used (except for Liefield quality comics), essentially making the scale three stars, with a four being right in the middle :)

You should check out comicvine's reviews, which are even worse. A quick glance at their page reveals that 90% of the comics released nowadays are 4 and 5 star reads. Literally the only things they gave 3 stars to this week were Wolverine & The Xmen and Batman and Robin. Everything else: 4 or 5 stars.

[JasonTodd428]

I suppose the reviewer here missed the time stamps on both stories. I would say that clears up any possibility of confusion as far as the timeline of the two is concerned. In any case I enjoyed both stories although I liked the backup far more than the main one.

[Red_10]

I suppose the reviewer here missed the time stamps on both stories. I would say that clears up any possibility of confusion as far as the timeline of the two is concerned. In any case I enjoyed both stories although I liked the backup far more than the main one.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone could be confused by the timeline here. This was one of the best zero issues I've read, but that's not really saying a lot.

[MrRoussis]

I love how this is tease to the Joker story.. Red Helmet... poisoned cake... awesome work.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Isn't this interpretation of Red Hood vastly different than what we've seen before?

From what I thought I knew I don't think I like this new interpretation, it screws with the Joker/Batman relationship.

I was always under the impression that Red Hood was just a two-bit gimmick criminal, like a Flash Rogue, until the accident. This interpretation is already into mass killing, so what does a vat of chemicals add to the story?

[tylenoljones]

Isn't this interpretation of Red Hood vastly different than what we've seen before?

From what I thought I knew I don't think I like this new interpretation, it screws with the Joker/Batman relationship.

I was always under the impression that Red Hood was just a two-bit gimmick criminal, like a Flash Rogue, until the accident. This interpretation is already into mass killing, so what does a vat of chemicals add to the story?

I've been wondering the same thing. If he was already headed to becoming the Joker, then really the chemical stuff wouldn't add much to the story. I guess it serves as a kind of point of no return and makes him obsessed with Batman; but if he was already close to / over the edge beforehand then it definitely lessens the impact of his transformation.

On the other hand, if it doesn't turn out to be the real Joker under that hood in this issue, then it makes it seem like the Joker stole someone else's gimmick after he fell into those chemicals.

It's just bad, anyway you look at it.