Batman >> View Post
Post By
Blue Jay

In Reply To
Starwolf

Subj: Re: Brown's death should have changed Batman!
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 08:09:09 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Why I think Leslie Thompkins should have *still* killed Stephanie Brown
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:01:38 pm EDT

Previous Post

Okay, first thing. I don't think Leslie Thompkins *should* have killed Stephanie "Robin IV" Brown as some sort of warped point to Bruce about the dangers of costumed vigilantes.

I think she should have done it and NOT have it retconned away. I think this should be a VERY painful thing for Bruce, Tim, Alfred, Dick, Barbara and pretty much everyone in the Bat-family who knew, respected and trusted.

Tim, most of all, should say things like "I want to wave a magic wand so this never happened... but I can't."

Basically, Leslie killing Stephanie through deliberate lack of treatment is a bad thing. And bad things happen. And, time travel and Infinite Crisis notwithstanding, they can't un-happen. Leslie killing Stephanie should stay one of those things *because* of the rage it caused us all as fans.

They can really go somewhere with this, especially in Robin's book. What if Leslie is captured or turns herself in? How will the Bat-family react to that? How will Stephanie's father, the Cluemaster, react to that? I'm pretty sure I know how the Joker will react: "How DARE someone else kill Robin? *I* kill Robin! IT'S MY THING!!!"

> Okay, first thing. I don't think Leslie Thompkins *should* have killed Stephanie "Robin IV" Brown as some sort of warped point to Bruce about the dangers of costumed vigilantes.
>
> I think she should have done it and NOT have it retconned away. I think this should be a VERY painful thing for Bruce, Tim, Alfred, Dick, Barbara and pretty much everyone in the Bat-family who knew, respected and trusted.
>
> Tim, most of all, should say things like "I want to wave a magic wand so this never happened... but I can't."
>
> Basically, Leslie killing Stephanie through deliberate lack of treatment is a bad thing. And bad things happen. And, time travel and Infinite Crisis notwithstanding, they can't un-happen. Leslie killing Stephanie should stay one of those things *because* of the rage it caused us all as fans.
>
> They can really go somewhere with this, especially in Robin's book. What if Leslie is captured or turns herself in? How will the Bat-family react to that? How will Stephanie's father, the Cluemaster, react to that? I'm pretty sure I know how the Joker will react: "How DARE someone else kill Robin? *I* kill Robin! IT'S MY THING!!!"

I think a better more important issue should have been Batman figuring out that he has become unstable. Seriously, what kind of person is Batman when he keeps putting kids without any training in dangerous situations? Instead of facing up to this issue DC pulls a page out of Women in Refrigerator Syndrome and passes the buck to Leslie Thompkins. They also retcon Robin 2's death so that now Batman is free of blame as well.

On the other hand to be fair DC has had a big problem with sidekicks and Batman since day one because if Bob Kane had had his way Robin would never have been created and Batman would never ever have had a partner. This issue over the years has caused big problems. It is like there are two kinds of Batman, one with a partner and one without a partner and DC has been struggling to keep the two separate Bats as one entity which unfortunately has never really worked. Usually the results of such a fusion always end badly. Such as DC getting upset at Batman spending too much time with his partner so they then decide to kill off Batman's partner. Either that or have Batman almost never really need a partner and usually function better without a partner.

I really do not see there having been any logical reason for killing Robin 2 and Stephanie Brown if it in the end their deaths did not really affect Batman. Seriously, why introduce characters just to kill them off with meaningless deaths?