Final Crisis

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

(it's because 2 requires doubt, angst, and hesitation, things that batman has overcome by this point)

Please! You replied four answers to a post you didn't read. (Two of them were childish trash talk. Literally. With no content at all). You're dying to argue. Go read it already.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

And there are plenty comics where he does use guns, and where he does take lives. Jim Starlin's Batman particularily was rather bloodthirsty.
Not the he killed anybody in Final Crisis.

If you're going to break one of your rules, you might as well do it while taking out ultimate evil and saving the multiverse.

FC takes place in a continuty where Batman never used guns though (I believe Year Two is still non-canon, but correct me if I'm wrong).

The way I see it, the bullet slowly killed until Death took him. Otherwise, why shoot him in the first place?

I agree, with your point about Batman breaking his code when it was really worth it. But I recognize that it's also valid not to like that. I'd like to think of batman as being so tough with his code (as he always is) that he would find a away around even that situation. That being said, it has been claimed that Morrison tried to deconstruct the "bat-god", and this is a good way to do it, by breaking his perfectionism.

It's not as simple as direction9 pretends, there's no right answer. The whole point of Batman shooting Darkseid is asking should he ever say "screw it" and break his code. And a story about the "final crisis" is the perfect place to pop it.

[T Hedge Coke]

The way I see it, the bullet slowly killed until Death took him. Otherwise, why shoot him in the first place?

Because it wouldn't kill him if he'd just leave that poor old man alone.

If he'd get out of Turpin. If he'd quit hurting and puppeting that good man, he wouldn't die.

It's not murder. It's hostage rescue.

But Darkseid, being Darkseid, would rather sit there with his hostage and die than cower or flee.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Batman didn't kill anyone in Final Crisis.

His clones committed suicide.

He shot Darkseid to wound him. All Darkseid had to do was leave Turpin and he wouldn't die from the radiation poisoning. It wasn't a killshot, it was a get-out-of-that-old-man shot.

Darkseid chose to sit there in that body and let the radiation slowly kill him because he's petty. He committed suicide rather than run when threatened.

This is a god who's actively hurting and imprisoning over two thirds of the world at that very moment, who is killing people (ours, his, everyone) actively, and who is responsible for the concept of bullet and gun (how's that for a political statement from Morrison?). Batman didn't kill anyone. He took the tools of the ideas that killed his parents, the things that hurt people, and he turned them back on bad people, bad gods, bad ideas, and he saved lives.

And then he died a thousand times, bounced around time, and came back to fight White Rabbit and muggers and stuff. Because goddammed Batman. But that's other comics.

That's better. No beef then.

[carabas]

FC takes place in a continuty where Batman never used guns though (I believe Year Two is still non-canon, but correct me if I'm wrong).

You are wrong. It takes place in Morrison's continuity where every Batmùan story ever written is true in a way.
And even outside of Year Two, there's plenty of guntoting Batman stories around.

I agree, with your point about Batman breaking his code when it was really worth it. But I recognize that it's also valid not to like that. I'd like to think of batman as being so tough with his code (as he always is) that he would find a away around even that situation. That being said, it has been claimed that Morrison tried to deconstruct the "bat-god", and this is a good way to do it, by breaking his perfectionism.

Would "I could stop you but since I have this childish hangup about guns, I'm just going to let you murder the universe" be better?

It's not as simple as direction9 pretends, there's no right answer.

In this case there is.

The whole point of Batman shooting Darkseid is asking should he ever say "screw it" and break his code. And a story about the "final crisis" is the perfect place to pop it.

He's not breaking any code.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

You are wrong. It takes place in Morrison's continuity where every Batmùan story ever written is true in a way.
And even outside of Year Two, there's plenty of guntoting Batman stories around.


Would "I could stop you but since I have this childish hangup about guns, I'm just going to let you murder the universe" be better?

In this case there is.
He's not breaking any code.

Well... "Morrison continuity". After COIE, like many characters, Batman was left with a "it mosly happened" sort of continuity, even the Killing Joke spear a panel to show so. Unless there are revisions involved, that's always the case. I don't think there was any major contradiction between Morrison and postCOIE.

"I could stop you but since I have this childish hangup about guns, I'm just going to let you murder the universe" is hilarious. he'd have found a way around it.

We'd have a disagreement about not breaking the code, unless by that you mean that, Coke said, Darkseid had the chance of leaving the body.

Btw, why did Darkseid commited suicide, anyway? he doesn't strike me as the type.

[Bdiggs]

And, many people don't like Morrison's "Every Batman story ever written is true in a way" continuity thing, so that would not endear FC to those particular comics fans.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Mixed feelings about that.

I like it. And it was always there since the earliest years after the Crisis. However I feel like the Batman and Superman of the 00s respect little continuity. There should have been a crisis before the revisions of the 00s, so that the "realistic" post-COIE continuity is nicely wrapped up.

[Eric Chang]

i mean with utmost respect this can all be reduced to "i was fooled by countdown/other comics that sucked that aren't final crisis", "i want to know who everyone is and their history to feel like i know what's happening", and "the story sucks"
none of those three really criticize final crisis for anything it actually did.

explain to me how my points aren't legit criticisms on "anything final crisis actually did"..?

I feel bad for people who kept reading Countdown, too, but Final Crisis never told you, on any page, once, to read Countdown. It's nothing FC or any of the talent on FC told you to do. It doesn't make FC bad, but it could turn a person sour on it, sure.

coundown TO FINAL CRISIS??? it does make it bad for a lot of people, because they expected something completely different, for various reasons.

If you obsess on tracking all the references down, yeah. Most casual readers probably don't care about that. I can see, though, if it does bother you, that it could obsessively bother you. (My mom hadn't read a DCU book since pre-Crisis and she enjoyed FC over the course of some flights. It's not impenetrable because you don't know that Liberty Belle used to be Jesse Quick.)

my point was a lot of what makes final crisis enjoyable is how it uses all these characters and references moments in continuity... and your mother has read pre-crisis books? that helps

Didn't seem very superficial to me. Evil Gods conquered the Earth, living in our bodies, puppeting us with greed and sickness and shame. Good gods were killed, superheroes were murdered and enslaved. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Question, some pop stars and kids saved existence, while the Monitors faced their own Devil and were corrupted and lost until their superhero saved them (with Superman, some pop stars, Captain Marvel, and the Jester).

I didn't find his New X-Men superficial either. I found the action actiony and the drama dramatic and the characters to be people.

But if something rings untrue to you, no amount of others enjoying it can make it feel true to you.

i didn't mean superficial the way you think it means... i meant superficial like, the surface story, if you follow me

[Eric Chang]

'au contraire, Darkseid is the platonic incarnation of criminality, shooting at him is like shooting at the collectivity of everybody he fights.

no just no

Similar to Cyclops killing Xavier when he was possessed by Phoenix. That's a corruption of Scott's behavior and and actions.
It is out of character, as in something he would not do if he hadn't been possessed by the Phoenix force.
Same with Jean. She was corrupted by being possessed by the Phoenix force.
And reverts back to in-character (Jean Grey) behavior when she's not possessed by the Phoenix force.

those are good examples of CORRUPTION, not POSSESSION

corruption means under the influence, possession means taken over