Should Dick Grayson have another year as Batman?

[Vakanai]

Originally Posted by 40footwolf

The editors thought it would be a good idea. They were right. Does that make you happy?

Not really, I wanted to know why they thought it would be a good idea.

Jesus, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Why? I'm responding, asking questions, and I'd like to think I'm rather polite in my disagreements. Just because I haven't gone 'Dick makes a great Batman and should stay for a few years' doesn't make me 'a brick wall' (and feels a little insulting really).

-The Batman before it was not as entertaining as this Batman. That is reason enough. That is all the reason you need.

Yes, to change Batman to be more interesting. Replacing him though is different.

People don't need to write a thesis on why they like this Batman better just so you can keep shooting them down with "but that doesn't answer my question", even though your question has been answered a billion times over throughout the course of the thread.

But one of my question hasn't been answered. Why replace Bruce when you could change his current depiction?
Not a terrible or trollish question.

-The Batman franchise needed a kick in the ass, badly. This was it. This was the experiment. It's working. Let's do a little role reversal: You explain why NOBODY can be Batman except for Bruce, and you need to do so in a way that will explain how your methods can produce better selling, more entertaining comic books than the ones that are being produced right now.

I really don't need to explain it. The reasons are pretty much the same why only Clark can be Superman or Parker can be Spider-Man, it's just the way it should be, in the long run. Everyone else can only be a temporary run.

-Dick doesn't NEED to be Batman any more than Bruce NEEDS to be Batman. They are comic books. You need to make money to keep making more comic books. If somebody on high said, "Maybe the line would be rejuvinated with Dick in place of Bruce for a little while", that is REASON ENOUGH.

Fair enough. Though you shouldn't get worked up over it (I HATE all caps).

I am waiting to hear your line-wide plan for rejuvenating the Batman line that would warrant equal sales, critical acclaim and popular appeal as this one. You can't just say "write Bruce as being a little more human" because that is not the same thing as a line-wide kick in the ass. It is not even close.

If the only thing that is different is a different Batman, and the main difference between them is personality, then why wouldn't it be close? Can you explain why it wouldn't work?

So...overhaul it for me! Let's see what you come up with.

Look, I think you're getting a bit upset with me. Please, don't.
But sure, I'll play along. I'll overhaul it for you!

Make it more like B:TAS.
There, I'm done.

Originally Posted by Godlike13

That's fine, i can understand that question. Thats different then asking if its necessary or warranted.
I sure the plenty of people that would love to answer why their enjoying the change, and why they feel stoy wise its justified, if that's the question. I'll even start.

That's at least one of the questions, but I don't think anyone has wanted to answer why it might be justified story-wise.

Im enjoying it because i haven't found the Bat side of the DCU to be this interesting in years. A new Batman and Robin kind of lit a fire under everything else. The new dynamic between Dick and Damian is allowing for some quite interesting stories, and having Dick as Batman is just opening new doors IMO. Plus it being Dick Grayson to take up the cowl is something that's been played at before. If anyone one were to take up the Batman mantle it would be him IMO. Bruce raised him, trained him, and gave him a new life. Its fitting IMO to see him take up the name in Bruce's honor, and continue the fight. He certainly has the skills for it IMO.
Not saying he better than Bruce, just different. And right now im finding different interesting.

Very good points and very interesting. These are some of the kinds of things I've been asking for answer wise. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Sn4tcH

Not to mention the whole, "make him more human" thing doesn't work. Whether you or we or whoever likes it or not, Bruce is a brooding dark superhero that's a bit of jerk at times and prepared for any situation. The only times we see any softness is when he's dealing with the members of his "Bat-family".

You can write him as more human, sure, but that would be changing how Bruce is. They've tried to write him as more caring, and it fails every time. The character doesn't permit that kind of change for very long, because the readers expect a certain type of Batman.

I disagree. The character can't permit or not permit how he is or isn't written. As for the being a jerk at times thing, some writers have (probably) written him as not a jerk, and the cartoons seem to do dark but not a jerk pretty well.

Now you can claim "then get better writers", fine, go get better writers that want to write Batman as "more human".

They'll probably use Dick Grayson...

I'll just agree to disagree on that point.

Originally Posted by Jack

So you're in favour of Jay Garrick and Alan Scott being the only Flash and Green Lantern?

Honestly I don't pay any attention to Flash or Green Lantern (least not enough to care).
Though I like Alan's costume better than the other GLs.

Originally Posted by DetectiveDupin

The Batman has been a legacy character ever since the introduction of Robin, same with Superman since Superboy/Supergirl. Robin was always designed to pick up where Batman left off.

I don't think sidekicks count as legacy characters automatically, especially when the common expectation is that they will always remain just the sidekicks, or maybe affiliated heroes, but never take up the mantle. I certainly never thought a Robin would or should take on the Batman cowl. So I'm not sure just having a sidekick automatically makes a legacy character.
Plus I think Robin wasn't always designed to pick up where Batman left off, he was designed to get more kids into comics at the time.

Originally Posted by Captain Jim

Not necessarily trying to cut off debate (though it has gotten slightly off-topic, perhaps), but it seems pretty obvious to me that those who only want to see Bruce as Batman aren't going to have their minds changed by anything they read here.

True. Oh so very true.
But I wasn't arguing that only Bruce could be Batman. I wanted to know why people preferred Dick as Batman right now, and why they felt Bruce can't be written in a similar manner and such. Just wanted to point that out, because I feel people think I'm just trying to whine about how only Bruce should be Batman (though he should) or something.