Batman was never going to or supposed to physically die- and probably won't give up the mantle of Batman either.
The freaking arc opened with a page where Batman screams directly at the reader "YOU'RE WRONG! BATMAN AND ROBIN WILL NEVER DIE!"
Considering that Morrison goes out of his way to show that Batman is ALWAYS right, it's kind of hard to get the impression he ever set out to kill him.
Plus Bruce Wayne is still Batman in Final Crisis... check out 682.
Originally posted by tjcoady
Batman was never going to or supposed to physically die- and probably won't give up the mantle of Batman either.The freaking arc opened with a page where Batman screams directly at the reader "YOU'RE WRONG! BATMAN AND ROBIN WILL NEVER DIE!"
Considering that Morrison goes out of his way to show that Batman is ALWAYS right, it's kind of hard to get the impression he ever set out to kill him.
You realize Robin has died before and that "Batman" isn't necessarily "BruceWayne", right?
Originally posted by tjcoady
Of course I do.It doesn't change the fact that when Morrison is being metatextual, he can be kind of obvious.
And just because he was obvious doesn't mean that you happen to interpret it correctly. Simply keeping Batman and Robin around doesn't mean he's keep Wayne alive. It may have been the lamest death a long running superhero has ever gotten but I'm fairly certain that Bruce is dead. Besides there's a story arc coming up called "Battle for the Cowl". What exactly do you think might cause that?
Originally posted by jumpmann
Morrison has stated over and over that he plans to put Bruce Wayne in a position that "worse than death", and that he doesn't believe in outright killing characters.
I doubt he is dead..
Bruce Wayne has gotten out of worser situations then this and has survived..
Besides its going to about whether or not people except
Spoiler:
Dick Grayson as the new Bats
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And just because he was obvious doesn't mean that you happen to interpret it correctly. Simply keeping Batman and Robin around doesn't mean he's keep Wayne alive. It may have been the lamest death a long running superhero has ever gotten but I'm fairly certain that Bruce is dead. Besides there's a story arc coming up called "Battle for the Cowl". What exactly do you think might cause that?
It's not a death. Batman, Bruce Wayne Batman, is shown alive afterwards, in Batman 682, being tortured by the evil gods.
From 20 questions for DD:
NEWSARAMA: "So – fundamentally, “Batman R.I.P” did not end in Batman #681?"
Dan Didio: "Correct. We have the two parts that we’re in the middle of now, and they lead us into Final Crisis #6 which gives us a definite conclusion to the Batman story"
Soooooo....Didio and Morrison alike define the word conclusion as "to be continue"? Because as I remember Batman #681 DID say it was a conclusion to R.I.P.
This thing is total mess! Countdown all over again. Even worse...they dragged Batman.
The obvious question here is this....
Why didn't Batman #681 said "to be concluded in Final Crisis"? Why wasn't Final Crisis #2 NOT a R.I.P. Tie-in to R.I.P? Am I missing something?
So basically the R.I.P. ending...or conclusion will take place @ Final Crisis? Well, I guess everyone that was praising how issue #681 (supposly ended) will actually HAVE to read Final Crisis in order to get the REAL ending of R.I.P.
Where I come from this is consider a disorder and a complete mess. Sorry, I call it as I see it. Honestly, anyone see this as logical?