How do we save the Comic Industry

[Bruce Kent]

Sure it is. You let the artist do whatever the heck he pleases, and judge the work based on that. All this "it's beneath him" stuff is arrogant posturing.

And what I'm doing is judging. Your point is...?
Arrogant because I like his work to the point of expecting more from him? Do tell.
Don't be one of those guys that can't take a critic to one of their favourite creators. That's just silly. Especially since Nolan is my favourite director.

[Bruce Kent]

I suppose you're all making the assumption that the character completely represented a desire to have a Robin-figure in the movie. It could have just been that Nolan wanted to have a legacy situation, and since there was no other desirable way to succumb to the pressure to get a "Robin" in there, he threw the name-drop in. It's hard to see how one short line in a movie is "too direct" a way of communicating something.

No, I don't think Nolan went out of his way to make him Robin. He probably created a character that fited the Robin idea and decided to give a treat to the fans. He certainly didn't had to be Robin.
It's too direct because it lacks any kind of subtlety that the other names would provide.

[Jeff Brady]

And what I'm doing is judging. Your point is...?
Arrogant because I like his work to the point of expecting more from him? Do tell.
Don't be one of those guys that can't take a critic to one of their favourite creators. That's just silly. Especially since Nolan is my favourite director.

I don't care that you're criticizing Nolan. I don't care about that. I do care that you presume to know his mind and motives better than he does.

It's too direct because it lacks any kind of subtlety that the other names would provide.

First of all, Nolan is not good at subtlety. Second, the subtlety you're looking for wouldn't mean anything to a vast majority of the audience, to the point of apathy, defeating the purpose of it.

[Bruce Kent]

I don't care that you're criticizing Nolan. I don't care about that. I do care that you presume to know his mind and motives better than he does.

Ridiculous. How am I doing that? I've seen Nolan do very smart things in his movie, expecting that his audience would be able to follow. Almost screeming at the audience "THIS IS ROBIN! LOOK AT HIM!" is beneath what he is able to do.

First of all, Nolan is not good at subtlety. Second, the subtlety you're looking for wouldn't mean anything to a vast majority of the audience, to the point of apathy, defeating the purpose of it.

The same way Thanos used to mean nothing to pretty much everyone. Silly Marvel! It's not like people were interested enough to search it after seeing the movie. And it's not like anyone would find it weird if the character changed his name right at the end of the movie. No one would be interested in that.

[Mat001]

These were comics in the last few years.

Yet somehow, these kids accepted comics from twenty to thirty years ago? It sounds more to me that these kids aren't as interested in comics, as it seems.

You ignore girls, and make a case for the current status quo badly because things are not improving.

Girls and violence varies. Some like it, some don't. There isn't much universal there either. Even back when Wonder Woman was at her peak, I don't think there were as many female readers as there were male.

You ignore the point about how that's patronising and insulting, not to mention that it's not working.

That in no way is patronizing, or even insulting. No more than having film and television ratings are.

If you're a nine year old girl who loves Wonder Woman what choice do you have? Don't say 'back issues' because kids want new stories but they can't read the characters they love.

You keep reading and go from there. One dead horse doesn't make or break things.

They did, and Action, Skywald and all the other stuff because they knew I wouldn't have problems with them. Some kids might be more than a wee bit disturbed on seeing a rape or a skinning in a superhero comic.

And some might not be. There's nothing universal. Action Comics is unlikely to have rape. Detective Comics might.

No, it just means they think superhero comics are openly accessible for everyone rather than teenage boys to middle aged men.

Not really, because they could be just as turned off by Detective Comics #327, if they opened it up. If these parents take their kids to the Batman films, then they shouldn't be surprised at the content of comics.

It really doesn't matter. Those are aspects of his life that wouldn't coincide with the comics, but the same could be said about every character in the book. Just because the Bane in the movie was very different from the one in the comics should we change his name? It was a too direct way of telling people he was Robin that has been heavily criticized for being too direct. I don't have a big problem with it, but naming him Dick, Jason or Tim would certainly be the best option.

If it doesn't matter, why bring it up?

[Jeff Brady]

Ridiculous. How am I doing that? I've seen Nolan do very smart things in his movie, expecting that his audience would be able to follow. Almost screeming at the audience "THIS IS ROBIN! LOOK AT HIM!" is beneath what he is able to do.

How are you doing that? By presuming what's beneath him. Are you reading the things you type?

Screaming to the audience is all he does. This isn't some art house film, it's a summer blockbuster.

The same way Thanos used to mean nothing to pretty much everyone. Silly Marvel! It's not like people were interested enough to search it after seeing the movie. And it's not like anyone would find it weird if the character changed his name right at the end of the movie. No one would be interested in that.

The only thing "Thanos" means to anyone is a big bad for the next Avengers movie. To call Blake Dick/Jason/Tim wouldn't have the same effect while watching the movie, which is the end of the trilogy.

Anyway, we've digressed far from the original topic.

[Darrell D.]

Of course he's nothing to admire, but if you call him a villain you're pretty much saying the concept of anti-hero doesn't exist and that's not true.

True, except The Punisher isn't an anti-hero, at all.
He's just a murderer.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Screaming to the audience is all he does. This isn't some art house film, it's a summer blockbuster.

I disagree about the screaming. And Nolan certainly elevates blockbusters. A bit like the Morrison of blockbuster films.

[sunofdarkchild]

I don't see what the problem with the Robin 'reveal' is. Blake isn't Robin. He isn't going to run around in a red, yellow, and green outfit with pixie boots. It's just a shout out. One that is not meant to only be noticed by people who read comics regularly like Daggert or Zsaz were. And by not saying Dick Grayson he avoided having to bring a circus backstory into the equation. And calling the character Dick or Grason would not be any more subtle. There is no subtle way to call someone Robin or one of his 'identities' and have the entire audience pick up on it the first time.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

How are you doing that? By presuming what's beneath him. Are you reading the things you type?

Screaming to the audience is all he does. This isn't some art house film, it's a summer blockbuster.



The only thing "Thanos" means to anyone is a big bad for the next Avengers movie. To call Blake Dick/Jason/Tim wouldn't have the same effect while watching the movie, which is the end of the trilogy.

Anyway, we've digressed far from the original topic.

Kent has more reasonable angles here, hands down. Nolan is good at being subtle, he's not art house but certainy elevates blockbuster films and "Richard Grayson" is still famous enough. So far, Dick is "the Robin" in every adaptation of Batman. Before the late 80s, the words "Bruce Wayne" were always followed and associated with "and Richard Grayson". It would barely be a head scratcher.

However, this doesn't make the movie any less great, is just one more eester egg some would have loved there.

True, except The Punisher isn't an anti-hero, at all.
He's just a murderer.

I'm with Kent here again. Punisher is an anti-hero. He accomplishes greater good by murdering people that are causing serious damage to society, that's a common type of antihero. There are plenty of books in Google giving fitting descriptions of antiheroes and a good number of them describe Punisher as one.

Think about Jonah Hex or the Man With No Name. Western protagonists tend to pass as heroes because of their almost lawless context, but they are antiheroes, just like Punisher.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

I don't see what the problem with the Robin 'reveal' is. Blake isn't Robin. He isn't going to run around in a red, yellow, and green outfit with pixie boots. It's just a shout out. One that is not meant to only be noticed by people who read comics regularly like Daggert or Zsaz were. And by not saying Dick Grayson he avoided having to bring a circus backstory into the equation. And calling the character Dick or Grason would not be any more subtle. There is no subtle way to call someone Robin or one of his 'identities' and have the entire audience pick up on it the first time.

...

John Daggett is *might* be inspired from Roland Daggett, who is from the animated series, not the comics. In turn, Roland was meant to be Max Schreck.

I agree, that ost of the audience would have picked it up with Dick Grayson. The name is famous enough, the name change scene at the end would be odd enough, and visiting the Batcave is too much of a giveaway.

[glennsim]

...

John Daggett is *might* be inspired from Roland Daggett, who is from the animated series, not the comics. In turn, Roland was meant to be Max Schreck.

I agree, that ost of the audience would have picked it up with Dick Grayson. The name is famous enough, the name change scene at the end would be odd enough, and visiting the Batcave is too much of a giveaway.

There's also the issue of "Robin" being perceived as a girly-name for a boy, and thus explains why he went by John Blake. Other than "Dick" jokes, there's no reason why he would not just go by Richard Grayson all the time. Also, "Robin" was just a first name, whereas he would have had to have been "John Grayson" throughout the whole movie.

[Ish Kabbible]

Girls and violence varies. Some like it, some don't. There isn't much universal there either. Even back when Wonder Woman was at her peak, I don't think there were as many female readers as there were male

Females accounted for close to 50% of the comic reading public back in the 40s and 50s. Archie and Dell comics had huge female support. In the first half of the 50s there were more romance comics then any other genre.

[Darrell D.]

I'm with Kent here again. Punisher is an anti-hero. He accomplishes greater good by murdering people that are causing serious damage to society, that's a common type of antihero. There are plenty of books in Google giving fitting descriptions of antiheroes and a good number of them describe Punisher as one.

Think about Jonah Hex or the Man With No Name. Western protagonists tend to pass as heroes because of their almost lawless context, but they are antiheroes, just like Punisher.

He's the villain of the piece.
The fact that he is killing worse villains than he doesn't diminish that fact, at all.

[Mr. Holmes]

He's the villain of the piece.
The fact that he is killing worse villains than he doesn't diminish that fact, at all.

I think I agree about Punisher's morality, but I think for me, anti-hero is broader than that. He's an antihero because he's the protagonist. In the same way Walter White is an antihero. I guess it's just semantics anyway.