Batman R.I.P. Discussion (Spoilers!)

[Captain Canuck]

are they planning to release RIP in soft cover? or are they just going to keep it in hard cover like the current release of the Killing Joke.

 

[ProjectX2]

are they planning to release RIP in soft cover? or are they just going to keep it in hard cover like the current release of the Killing Joke.

It will eventually be released in soft cover format.

 

[Zombipanda]

I just read #655-683 (excluding Ostrander's issues - which may or may not be good - and the ludicrously pretentious Joker 'issue').

The Ostrander issues were pretty unremarkable. I agree with the pretentiousness of the Joker issue, but it was nice to see a writer flexing outside the comfort zone. It was more failure than success, but that's the risk you always run when you try something different. The implications of Joker's super-sanity and transformative state was an interesting spin on the character (which I'll get back to later), but the ham-fisted, genre prose didn't really add anything. It didn't come off as parody or a sly riff on genre. It just came across as ham-fisted, genre prose. And the art was horrifically bad.

• The Joker. I hate the 'serial killer' who mutilates himself with cleavers. It's a needlessly horrific portrayal, and it's what Zsasz is for and it's why Zsasz isn't as popular as Joker. Joker is, no matter his incarnation, a flamboyantly dressed, theatrical super criminal. He is not the guy from SAW. He is not John Doe from SE7EN. Yes, THE DARK KNIGHT's joker is gruesome with his scarred face, love of knives, and even has elements both from SAW (in his moral set-pieces) and John Doe (in his lack of identity and insanity and endless creativity), but he was still flamboyantly dressed and theatrical. RIP's Joker was not. He was Hannibal Lector, making subtle hints and cutting people up with a scalpel. Sure, he had his moments, but he was a grotestque. But what's truly terrible, is that his inclusion, is not only wholly unnecessary, but actually damaging to the story. The Black Glove was an awesome villain, who looked lie he truly could win this and deserved to. As soon as the Joker came on, he became a bit part in yet another Batman vs the Joker type of story. It became a riff on THE KILLING JOKE pointing out that Batman and Joker are 'kinda similar'. The idea of Batman's insanity beginning by trying to understand the Joker's insanity is fine - it can work with any of his villain's, but Joker's a good one to use here - but that should've been that and it should've transformed beyond that. And it did. The Joker's return only regressed it and removed the originality of the work. He really should've just left him out. The entire 'club of villains' had enough characters to fill any role Joker needed to fill. In fact, the Bat-Ghostmen guys did a lot of that. Joker was unnecessary, and actually diminished the Black Glove's menace. Put it this way: when Joker appeared, who immediately though, "Oh, Black Glove! You've made a mistake trusting the Joker! He'll kill you all!" Who thought that? I did. And Morrison did. And that's the problem - Joker showed up, out of the blue, and immediately was full of more menace than the Black Glove. Joker showed up, and the Black Glove became the henchmen. All that, and for such an original storyline, having the big bad be the Joker again kinda ruins it.

All your points are interesting, but this is the only one I'm going to have a chance to comment on just now. I agree with most of it.

I thought the build-up to the Joker's climax was fairly well done. The one rule the Joker follows is that his nature is always a mirror of Batman's present psychology. That's a very DKR take on the character and it was nice to see it used in present continuity. I think it's the purest way to approach the character. I was excited about the way Morrison built to the idea of a "Devil Joker", with the shooting of the Joker cutting the elastic tether between him and Batman, sending him springing into a new sort of instability. I think a proper execution of this idea could have partially redeemed the prose story. I even think there's a nice window into Hurt's character by having the Joker trump him at the end. Hurt is brilliant. He's methodical. He's patient. But he's also full of pride. He's obsessed with theatricality to a degree that it sabotages his own plans; and despite all the care he's put into his examination of Bruce, he's still the guy on the outside looking in. He's not deep in the mire. He's a flamboyant director who moves his actors around like chess pieces. There's a certain irony in that, by having the Joker get shot in the opening salvo of the run, he's doomed his own plan. It's a strong symmetry, and it speaks to a weakness in the character that we aren't privy to for most of the run.

I don't think the problem was in the Joker foiling the Glove. But you're entirely right in that Morrison's Joker was pretty unremarkable. The story hinges on this new Joker being a whole new breed of mad dog. It hinges on the idea that this man who's been manipulating Batman his whole career has created a new breed of monster that he simply can't control. It would have been brilliant, tight storytelling if the Joker had turned into what we promised, but he didn't. That said, I don't know where the hell I would have gone with a "Devil Joker", but I wouldn't have made him the lynch pin of the story unless I was sure he could sustain its weight.

The Joker didn't live up the expectations, and since the integrity of the story was so dependent on him, it really did cripple the whole thing.

 

[E]

Does the "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader" discussion go in this thread?

I just read it the other day and enjoyed it a lot. Particularly the ending, when he was saying goodnight to the Batcave and giant penny and everything. It was sad and sweet, even if it was a little sappy.

 

[Bass]

All your points are interesting, but this is the only one I'm going to have a chance to comment on just now. I agree with most of it.

I thought the build-up to the Joker's climax was fairly well done. The one rule the Joker follows is that his nature is always a mirror of Batman's present psychology. That's a very DKR take on the character and it was nice to see it used in present continuity. I think it's the purest way to approach the character. I was excited about the way Morrison built to the idea of a "Devil Joker", with the shooting of the Joker cutting the elastic tether between him and Batman, sending him springing into a new sort of instability. I think a proper execution of this idea could have partially redeemed the prose story. I even think there's a nice window into Hurt's character by having the Joker trump him at the end. Hurt is brilliant. He's methodical. He's patient. But he's also full of pride. He's obsessed with theatricality to a degree that it sabotages his own plans; and despite all the care he's put into his examination of Bruce, he's still the guy on the outside looking in. He's not deep in the mire. He's a flamboyant director who moves his actors around like chess pieces. There's a certain irony in that, by having the Joker get shot in the opening salvo of the run, he's doomed his own plan. It's a strong symmetry, and it speaks to a weakness in the character that we aren't privy to for most of the run.

I don't think the problem was in the Joker foiling the Glove. But you're entirely right in that Morrison's Joker was pretty unremarkable. The story hinges on this new Joker being a whole new breed of mad dog. It hinges on the idea that this man who's been manipulating Batman his whole career has created a new breed of monster that he simply can't control. It would have been brilliant, tight storytelling if the Joker had turned into what we promised, but he didn't. That said, I don't know where the hell I would have gone with a "Devil Joker", but I wouldn't have made him the lynch pin of the story unless I was sure he could sustain its weight.

The Joker didn't live up the expectations, and since the integrity of the story was so dependent on him, it really did cripple the whole thing.

See... I don't think the story hangs on the Joker at all. I don't think Joker had any real relevance. And, while I hadn't got the 'reactive psychosis' thing, I think that's idiotic. This is Morrison's bizarre thought on the Joker having this reactive super insanity (which is borne out of a desire to make all the bizarre takes on Joker be in the same continuity), even though one of the key elements of Joker is his stubborn "I'm funny and I'm right" mantra.

So I get what you're saying, I just think Morrison's got him all wrong.

Does the "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader" discussion go in this thread?

I just read it the other day and enjoyed it a lot. Particularly the ending, when he was saying goodnight to the Batcave and giant penny and everything. It was sad and sweet, even if it was a little sappy.

It shouldn't. It should have it's own thread. The first issue was damned good.

 

[E]

This thread is great. I like all the questions and theories and whatnot.

I still don't know who Hurt is. The Devil? Thomas Wayne? The actor? Evil Bruce Wayne?

I think Hurt is supposed to be....the devil? Maybe? I'm not sure.

Points for attempting to innovate, but ultimately head scratching and disappointing.

"Hurt's" history and backstory are unbelievably awesome.

Bruce Wayne basically created Hurt/Thomas Wayne.

Hurt is essentially Darkseid. That's crazy.

 

[ProjectX2]

Zorro In Arkham is still genius.

RIP is still my favourite part of Morrison's Batman run.