So couldn't the emergence of the first Robin (and all subsequent Robin's) imply an element of legacy? The development of Robin into Nightwing and even the relationship between Batman and Nightwing or any of the Robins, especially Dick, has suggested a strong father and son dynamic. Elements of legacy and family are strong associations with the Batman character even if you might not consider him a legacy character. It's not much of a stretch to imagine Batman as a legacy character and now it's even easier with Dick wearing the cowl.
Now Pr (and I mean this in the politest manner possible) could it simply be that you don't like Dick as Batman?
I mean I think it's brilliant that Nightwing became Batman, but even if I didn't I'd still recognise the strong themes of coming of age that are so integral to pretty much most of the Batman universe. I think Batman has always been a legacy character, it's just not been as obvious due to the fact we've really on seen Bruce in the official mantle.
it's a fair point, though i'd single out Robin more than Batman as being a legacy character. Dick is wearing the cowl now, but i honestly don't see it lasting forever. Do you?
Whether i like or dislike Dick as Batman isn't the point, though. I am a huge Dick Grayson fan, and have been for some time. Anything that's good for him is fine with me. Whether the cowl is good for him or not, i don't know.
i honestly disagree. the big three have never struck me as legacy characters. i always imagined them as being (almost) constants while the universe around them tended to change.
Oh, yeah totally agree. Perhaps it's more Robin than Batman being a legacy character, which might be why I enjoy it so much. I'm subconsciously rooting for Robin to fulfil his legacy in taking up the cowl even though we all know it won't last.
Although, having said this, of the trinity, I think if anyone is going to be a legacy character, it's Batman. I think what makes him the only legacy character of the trinity is the fact he took on a sidekick. I think, for me at least that element of adopting a young ward, really fleshed out Bruce's character and put him in a more fatherly role. I think without Robin to show Batman as more of a parent, Batman is never old enough to be viewed as more than just a child playing dress up.
I'm not diminishing Batman's character. He's one of my favourites. I just think that he cannot simply be reduced to being "Oh it's young Bruce Wayne under the mask, enacting his fantasies to strike back at the criminal underworld that took his parents." He grows up when you throw Robin into the mix, and when Robin is added, you automatically get a relationship or a least a comparison. I think the most obvious comparison between them is a father/son dynamic and it really plays up the legacy theme.
No character has a history of passing on mantles until they do. Doesn't mean it can't be done. Your point doesn't counter what I said, nor how I feel about these characters.
i think by dick taking up the cowl when it was needed, he's already fulfilled that part of his destiny. the only thing i would say, though, is that i don't see why the totality of his destiny has to be taking on bruce's mantle. dick was doing fine as nightwing beforehand. he was widely loved, respected, and thought well of by most heroes. i just think he deserves more than being bruce's replacement. he's a hero in his own right.
that's true, and i agree.
i agree about that part completely. it enriches the batman character having robin around. definitely.
never said it couldn't. you are talking about people who have been in those roles for going on what, sixty, seventy years? alan wasn't gl for that long, nor was jay the flash. it's just not the same thing imo.
I think the reason why the idea that "The Trinity aren't really legacy characters," and the countervailing theory that this is simply something that hasn't been tried before both make sense is because of Silver-Age leftovers. When DC inaugurated the Silver Age, most of the characters who would become major JLA players shifted who they were: Green Lantern, the Flash, the Hawks, the Atom, and so it made them more malleable in being seen as "legacy" characters. The same thing happened to characters who sort of lost their publishing history: Starman is a prime example, so that it's easy to flow from Ted to Jack to Courtney.
But the "The Trinity" (I hate that term) didn't change: Batman was still Bruce Wayne, Superman was still Clark Kent, etc. So for them, it's hard to perceive them being different people, while at the same time recognizing it's possible to change them.
Maybe that's the reason why the attempts to make legacy Green Arrows and Aquamans never really stuck: they both survived the transition without too many changes, and so it's hard to see them as anything other than Oliver Queen or Arthur Curry.
Plus, when Diana, Clark, or Bruce dies, you KNOW they're coming back, so it's hard to accept anyone else as a place-holder, as seen in the "Four Supermen" storyline and that, like, three week period when Hippolyta was Wonder Woman.
(Note: apply this theory re: "Why Azreal sucks so, so much."
How were Alan Scott and Green Lantern synonymous ? How was Jay Garrick and Flash synonymous ? Point me any other arguments other than the fact that they were the first/only ones during that time. Flash and Green Lantern are legacy characters. They don't have any definitive traits that make them the 'definite/only Flash' or the 'definite/only Green Lantern' like Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman do. That's not to say that they don't have their own already established characterization that sets them apart from one-another, but they aren't what makes the concept of Flash/Green Lantern what they are. (the last part is especially important, since you might confuse one with another)
__________________
“Perhaps this is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to leave.”
I would ****ing love to write this book. It such a good idea. I love it how D.C. are addressing the potential problem of repetitive story telling, by bringing dead and B list characters to the forefront. Its kind of like starting the Ultimate Universe but in the "true" continuity. This way we get "new characters" (Whom are actually old and B list versions of D.C. iconic cast) react to re-imagined/ modernized conflicts. In other words we get to see how new characters would deal with some of the more renowned adventures. I.e. instead of having Bruce , Clark, Dianna, Wally and Kyle face off against Star Conqueror we get to see Dick, Valour, Donna, and Hal deal with an evolved "meta physical subconscious virus" that metabolizes nightmares, and has infected Daniel the new version of Sandman etc.
I'll be happy if they replace the guardian, cyborg, green arrow and congorilla for Black Canary, Vixen, Firestorm, and Zatanna. I don't care for any of them. They lack personality, power, contribution to the team and above all else Ollie is a douch!! They could have choosen a better team. To be honest, I really like Mcduffie's line up. The team was diverse, and had potential. When you think about it, his team was one of the most powerful JLA incarnations. You had two green lanterns (Hal and John), Zatanna, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Firestorm, Black Canary, Dr. Light, Steel, Vixen, Red Tornado, Red Arrow, Hawkgirl, Plasticman, Batman. Thanks to a-lot of people who complain about the team this is what we get. But, whatever, i'm still going to give it a try because I'm a huge Grayson, Hal, Donna, and Starfire fan.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 24th, 2009 02:50 PM
:
