> > in that interview talking about hurt/black gloves identity being biggest reveal of year/decade or whatever (I cant find it), did he specifically say "been there since the beginning of Batman' or just the more vague `beginning'. Because, while all the blogosphere was guessing about early Batman characters being BlackGlove/Hurt (alfred, thomas wayne, thomas wayne junior, batman himself, joe chill) maybe Morrison did really mean `the beginning of time' and was letting us know the reveal- that Hurt is the Devil in disguise- it a criptic manner. I wouldn't put it past him.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, that's always been part of the evidence supporting the idea of Hurt as the Devil. I still don't like the idea, but it's at least better in my view than having Thomas Wayne suddenly show up alive, crazy and evil. But my big beef is that we need to have this discussion at all. We still don't know who, and we still don't know why, and until we do those are some big gaping holes in the story.
|
Then again, looking back at other Batman villians we didn't necessarily learn all about them within their first few appearances (Ra's appeared a half dozen times before the 1st mention of a lazarus pit didnt he? We didnt get a Joker origin for 40 years after his debut, Penguin, Riddler & Mr. Freeze's backstory's and motivations have all been changed retroactively. I think other reoccuring batvillains haven't had their origins explained at all, but I'd have to enter reasearch mode to be sure) so I don't really have a problem with the open ended nature of this mystery. Heck, we still don't know who Doctor Claw is 20 years after the Inspector Gadget show finished, doesn't stop it being a good cartoon.
