johnnygoging: so harley and ivy are lesbians. open relationship lesbians. lesbians of opportunity, as it were.
while I'm kinda neutral on that, I think it's getting dangerously close to the point where DC is trying to be edge to the point of trying too hard and being fucking lame.
in that last arkham knight trailer, Batman actually says "it's time to go to war." that's already too far but maybe they can get away with it. but if Batman starts resorting to guns (rubber bullets lol) and killing people, they will have officially jumped the shark with Batman by making him a plebe just like everyone else.
so scared of Marvel and there is no need.
all they have to do is hold true on their franchise guys while they create something new *that's good* with their B players.
j0ekerr: What is this? A comic book discussion in my thread It's more likely than you think.
They can do all that, but they can never take away our head canon!
To me Pamela Isley will always be a not-really-gay lesbian, but rather a woman who is with girls only because men are filth. Doesn't stop her from secretly craving a dicking from time to time and hating herself for it (for many, many reasons) which in turn leads to more man-hate. It's a vicious circle which I personally think works perfectly with the character.
Harley is... well she's Harley, anything goes with her really, I don't care, but she will always be first and foremost jaysexual. When given the choice between men, women, a shark, or a Thanagarian tentacle-beast, she will always choose her pudding.
The militaristic side of Batman's one-man war on crime has been explored since Frank Miller (before he went bonkers), often referring to members of his extended Bat-family as soldiers, with "good soldier" being the best compliment he can ever give any of them. For nearly 30 years many authors have expressed their idea that Batman is fighting a war, one he knows he can't win, but that he can't retreat from. The main difference is that this is a no-casualties war.
Anyway, I don't think you have to worry too much about things going over the edge by being too "edgy". That was already tried in the 90's and everyone still cringes when thinking about it. The excessive swords (mostly katanas), the bigger-than-a-man guns, the pouches... the constipated faces!
**shudder**
EndreWhiteMane: Let's all play....
Spot the Looney! j0ekerr: Lesson one,
how not to be seen. I liked your interpretation of Ivy, that was spot on, thanks for that.
I disagree with your ideas on Batman, though. No disrespect to Frank Miller or his achievements but people give him too much leeway and weight when it comes to Batman. He might have ushered in a new era but Batman is not the Batman he was in 1986. We've had some significant cultural additions and improvements since then which have made something better. TAS cannot be ignored. Now, I think some people take issue with that because it was a cartoon and therefore ideologically and emotionally neutered, but anyone who watched knows it was no average cartoon and you don't need dirt to make something look rough. I'm fine with grittier spins on Batman but they should take care not to mess with what makes him good and interesting.
If there was a time when Batman would go on like that, about soldiers and the like, I think maybe its relevance has passed now as we have moved on to something better, and at this point it'd only be a step backwards and a layer of cheese.
The disciplined and hardened nature of Batman which is involved with what you're talking about, in my opinion would suffer from being colored olive with a military shtick.