I haven't read comics in a while, so can somebody explain to me what's going on with Catwoman?  I read Wizard magazine and they said that CW got knocked up.

nightwing was there!

i mean batman

even wiki doesn't know who the daddy is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catwoman
ok wiki DOES know who the daddy is, its just written poorly in the article.

I can't tell you how bad this hurts my soul.  Things like this are why I'm doing my project.

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 06, 2007, 09:07:39 PM
I can't tell you how bad this hurts my soul.  Things like this are why I'm doing my project.

Could you elaborate more on this? Why is it a bad thing for Catwoman to have a child? Is it the specific story or just the general idea?

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 06, 2007, 09:07:39 PM
I can't tell you how bad this hurts my soul.  Things like this are why I'm doing my project.

I actually knew this one was going to bug Benton, we are usually on opposite poles on the morality/amorality in comics issue and doing things for shock value. I mean this respectfully, he is a sane proponent of comics getting out of hand (and losing their entertainment value) while I like to think of myself as a sane proponent of comics evolving (and reaching older audiences). Althought here I kind of have to agree with the Gray one for other reasons... nobody ever does babies right in comics. They are always brief plot twists, not characters. This is a chance for DC to either step up to the bat and show they can write a great female character (single mom catwoman) or have the baby conveniently dissapear and catwoman reboot instantly (a la spider-man). Hmm...

5 to 1: Child seems to die, but is just adbucted a la spidermans baby.
4 to 1: Catwoman keeps it, she is written as a fringe superhero with too much on her plate, or else as a "lone cat and kitten" scenario.
3 to 1: Dc actually kills it, they  have been pretty bloody recently...
2 to 1: Child is sent away to be raised by somebody else, like its real daddy or a contact of catwomans..

PS Are things starting to look more and more like pre-crisis DC with Catwoman with a kid and all that?

No offense taken, Lugaru, but I would say that to cast yourself as a proponent of comics 'evolving,' and that being something that I am opposed to would be very inaccurate.  You're right, I have a strong desire for some kind of morality in comics, but I also really want to see comics evolve.  I just don't buy into the modern idea of a 'mature' story having to be an immoral story.  I love the idea of Batman and family following along the lines that some of them did Pre-Crisis.  For example, if I were writing Batman, eventually he and Selena would settle down and have a kid, (together...married....and by heaven they'd know who the darn father is) while Robin would find his place as the new hero of Gotham, WITHOUT abandoning his roots or coming to hate his 'father.' 

For me, a mature story is about complexity, not about foul content.  To have a child out of wedlock and not even know who the father is....that's not my idea of a 'mature' story, it's my idea of a pitiful attempt to capture the attention of a generation of fatherless (in one way or another) children and adults.  I want to see my heroes evlove, but I've yet to see modern comics actually do that...or if they do, it's immediately besmirched.  Aquaman has a wife and a child, child is murdered, wife becomes estranged.  Peter Parker grows up, has a wife and child....well, you knew they weren't going to let that stand.  Batman finds happiness, retires....written out of existence.  Dick, Grayson becoming his own man, written out of existence and recast in a twisted parody of itself.  I don't know, this isn't evoloution to me, it's degredation.

I think if what I want to see ever actually came to fruition, Lugaru, you'd like it too.  I don't want Silver Age stories, I want GOOD stories about heroes, and not about broken men and women who can't even help themselves.

you sound like superman e2, before he went insane.
did i notice that the baby was named helina?  like the real huntress?  selina's daughter from e2.  i feel the same way about helina that grey does about nightwing.

Yeah, actually, I had some hopes for what might be in that story line....and then he went nuts and everything seems to be just about like it was. :(

oh no.  things went much worse.  they had the arrogance and audacity to even say that the original, the first, Superman was dead.  killed off.  who wrote crisis on infinite earths?  wolfman?  he said that's the reason e2 superman was still alive post crisis, respect.  where did that go?
rant over.
speaking of babies, whatever happened to batman and talia's baby boy?

Agreed!  Anyroad, I think the baby was out of continuity, but recently a child who was raised by the League of Assasins showed up on Bruce's doorstep.  It's possible this is his son, but I don't know what became of it.

I agree with a few things you guys are saying here,  but c'mon bent,  youre sounding a bit too hardline for my tastes,  plus if you read the Latest Nightwing Annual you might be able to gain some respect for what has become of Dick Grayson

Perhaps DM, but I just don't have much interest in modern comics.  It just seems too hard to find what I like in them.  Even in the occasional title that might be okay, I find ties to a greater world that seems lost to me.

Just for some storyline clarification the father was Sam Bradley, son of Slam Bradley, who died shortly after his relationship with Selina began. Selina was well aware who the father was, but Sam never had the chance to find out.

i thought batman and catwoman got together and then birds of prey came out of nowhere

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 07, 2007, 08:14:43 AM

For me, a mature story is about complexity, not about foul content.  To have a child out of wedlock and not even know who the father is....that's not my idea of a 'mature' story, it's my idea of a pitiful attempt to capture the attention of a generation of fatherless (in one way or another) children and adults.  I want to see my heroes evlove, but I've yet to see modern comics actually do that...or if they do, it's immediately besmirched.  Aquaman has a wife and a child, child is murdered, wife becomes estranged.  Peter Parker grows up, has a wife and child....well, you knew they weren't going to let that stand.  Batman finds happiness, retires....written out of existence.  Dick, Grayson becoming his own man, written out of existence and recast in a twisted parody of itself.  I don't know, this isn't evoloution to me, it's degredation.

I think if what I want to see ever actually came to fruition, Lugaru, you'd like it too.  I don't want Silver Age stories, I want GOOD stories about heroes, and not about broken men and women who can't even help themselves.

In a way I agree.  I don't personally believe having children out of wedlock is necessarily amoral, or "foul," or what have you.  But I do believe comics writers use it to be shocking, titilating and provocative.  Now a certain amount of that is usefull as a plot device, but used to much it quickly looses it's literary power and just becomes another cheap trick to pique reader's interests.  It's the big stick approach to writing.  If you can't get to compelling any other way, you can always shoot for shocking.  It's soap opera comics.  Meh.

Indeed, I think this whole approach is inherently more appealing to younger readers.  Older readers, and I count myself among them, are probably looking for a more nuanced approach to the life portrayed.

About things losing their shock value: check out ultimates. One of my favorite books but that one recent issue where just about every member of the ultimates kills an opposing super villain, ugh, it ruined the feel of the team for me. I loved them as "real world avengers" but for all of them to turn "authority" overnight was just crappy and a waste of some halfway decent villains in a pretty cool story.

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 07, 2007, 08:14:43 AM
while Robin would find his place as the new hero of Gotham, WITHOUT abandoning his roots or coming to hate his 'father.' 

Take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't read too many books in the last few years. I honestly liked the approach of Dick striking out on his own for a while. He was always the second half of 'Batman &... ' or part of a group with the Titans. Even when he was going solo as Robin, he was still in the shadow of the Bat, so to speak. I could see it making him wonder if he could cut it as a solo hero with no ties to Batman (at least to the public).

And speaking from some experience here, I can 100% see how Dick could come to be rather 'touchy' with Bats for a while. I was named after my dad, so almost everyone around us had all these expectations of how I 'should' be and what I 'should' do, the least of which being my father. That can lead to all sorts of resentment when folks just want to consider you pretty much a sequal to the original person. I've had the same blow up fight with my Dad along the lines of " You want me to be just like you, but I'm not you! ", that Dick had with Bruce. I honeslty feel that it makes for a natural extension of Dick's coming of age for him to buck against Bruce and what Bruce expects, as all young adults do with their parents.

Quote from: BentonGrey on May 07, 2007, 08:14:43 AM
I don't want Silver Age stories, I want GOOD stories about heroes, and not about broken men and women who can't even help themselves.

I got to agree and disagree with that one. I want to see good stories about heroes who fight the good fight and right the wrongs as well. But at the same time, it is good to read about someone who has been broken, who's went down the wrong pathes in life, and then struggles to find their way back. Someone knocked all the way to the bottom of the ladder in life and climbing back up can make for a good story too.

Don't misunderstand me, ND, I have no problem with exploring the rebellion of Robin in stories.  Look at my mecca of comic book-dom, Batman the Animated Series.  In many of those episodes, the strain of their relationship was seen and explored, but in the end, they both realized how important they were to each other.  I mean, I've had the same experience with my father that you've had with yours (in general terms, I obviously don't know your situation), and we fought like cats and dogs.  However, we both grew up and made peace.  I am my own man, but he's still my father, and I haven't cut all ties to him.  (I know that Dick didn't necessarily cut all ties to Bruce, but he did sort of 'disown' him after a fashion).  This isn't so much a moral stance, like many of my other objections to modern comics, but more a personal one.  Dick is one of my favorite characters, and I just can't help but feel that there is a better way to tell that story, espeically since it's already been done in that better way.  (In general terms, once again, as the actual stories haven't been told, only the outline.  This still leaves that approach viable, instead of simply being a re-hash)

As to your second point, once again, I have a tendancy to use a bit too much dramatic overstatement in my rants, but then again, that's what makes them rants.  Anyroad, I think that it can make an incredibly powerful story to show a character pull himself up by his bootstraps, but I don't think that we need to see EVERY character do it, and especially not over and over and OVER again.  Booster Gold should be broken down, and his arrogance and flippancy explored.  He should be forced to come to terms with WHY he's there, and find the heroic spark within him.  Batman should eventually have to face the darkness of his world, and he should be forced to ask himself the question of, 'is it worth it.'  However, these stories should be seminal moments, not repeated month after month, year after year.  Characters should grow, but you don't have to constantly tear them down for that to happen.  Bruce should struggle with detachment, Robin should struggle to find his place, but they shouldn't lose that struggle. 

I've seen enough broken people in real life, I don't need to read about slobs who can't get over themselves to save a life....literally.  What makes heroes heroic is that they rise above the temptations and frustrations of life, consistently pursuing the greater good rather than looking to their own betterment.  They lead good lives, they don't kill, they don't manipulate their family and friends, and they darn well don't have kids out wedlock and act like it's nothing.

I read a story from Giffen's JLA run the other day that was similar to this debacle, but I really enjoyed it.  It dealt with Plastic Man's illegitimate son who had gotten into a gang.  Plas comes to Batman for help in straightening the kid out, 'cause he doesn't have the courage to face the child he left behind.  It was really wonderful in creating an attitude of contrition on Plastic Man's part, he genuiley felt terrible from having abandoned the child, and he told Batman that it was from a time in his life that he wasn't proud of.  This man was a former crimnal, so I can see that his life wouldn't have been exemplary, but he's made himself a better man, and he's trying to fix his mistakes.  I can respect that, I can enjoy stories dealing with that, but I don't want to see people in the midsts of making terrible mistakes and find these treated with ambivalence. 

Whatever your feelings about the moral ramificaitons of having a kid out of wedlock, you've got to acknowledge that this is no way for a child to grow up, not even knowing one of his parents.  Whether or not you believe in marriage, you have to admit that it's got to be hard on a kid to have only one parent around.  I've almost been there myself, and too many of my friends growing up had to go through this, it's not a good thing, but I seriously doubt DC is really going to grapple with the consequences of this, just like Lugaru said.

About things losing their shock value: check out ultimates. One of my favorite books but that one recent issue where just about every member of the ultimates kills an opposing super villain, ugh, it ruined the feel of the team for me. I loved them as "real world avengers" but for all of them to turn "authority" overnight was just crappy and a waste of some halfway decent villains in a pretty cool story.

They've always been Marvel's version of The Authority. Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch just took a working formula (they'd worked on The Authority's best issues) and transposed it into the Marvel universe. Large scale action? Check. Heroes with flexible morals? Check.

Not that I'm saying its a bad thing, mind. I think The Ultimates is a great read, and I know I'll probably drop it when Millar and Hitch leave the book.

one thing i want you to consider about batman, and nightwing, and maybe even catwoman, depending on which origin she currently has.
bruce is broke.  that's his strength and always has been.  even the adam west version explored that.  when he was asked to be mayor of gotham, he turned his back, looked out the window, and said, 'but...ami i worthy?'
whenever his 'son' does anything that isn't in total correlation with batman's path, bruce will not understand the connection.  bruce did not have a father.  batman will get hardcore.  bruce will feel guilty, feel that he has failed, not knowing that is always the way with sons.  dick, however, is not as damaged as bruce.  see, dick has a father!
when nightwing says, 'i'm going!' batman will say, 'then go.'  bruce will then sit by the phone and answer on the first ring, not knowing if dick will ever come back.  dick knows he will be back.  that's the difference.
i don't know if this makes any sense.

I'm of two minds in the morality in comic-books debate. While I enjoy reading about heroes in morally complex situations, in my mind they should still be heroes. They don't have to be perfect; in fact the heroes I enjoy most are the ones who stumble before remembering (or being reminded) of who they really are. I don't even have a problem with heroes killing when it's necessary- after all, they often face worse situations than our soldiers and police officers, and we (mostly) acknowledge that those brave souls sometimes have to kill to save the lives of others.

But the power of these larger than life figures is that, ultimately, they represent what is best about us as a species. They embody nobility, strength and decency. In the rush to create edgy comics, I think some of today's story tellers have forgotten that (I'm not talking about Civil War here, BTW - I still think that was excellent, and I firmly believe that Tony Stark's actions in that story were the start of a long character journey that will ultimately see him realise what he's done and try to redeem himself).

JakeW cites Mark Millar as having written the best issues of The Authority, but I think those issues are a classic example of a writer who totally failed to get the point. In the earlier Ellis issues, the team were people with great power who made a moral choice not to stand by and let a damaged world go on unchanged when they could do something about it. They killed when they had to, not when they felt like it. They were bad-arse, but ultimately noble, dedicated to making the world a better place. Millar cottoned on to the spectacle and the ultra-violence, but completely missed the real motivation and morality behind it, turning the team into a swaggering bunch of superpowered dictators. True, The Authority were never the Justice League, but every writer since Ellis has singularly failed to get what they were supposed to be about.

Quote from: Doctor TOC on May 24, 2007, 03:28:09 AM
JakeW cites Mark Millar as having written the best issues of The Authority, but I think those issues are a classic example of a writer who totally failed to get the point. In the earlier Ellis issues, the team were people with great power who made a moral choice not to stand by and let a damaged world go on unchanged when they could do something about it. They killed when they had to, not when they felt like it. They were bad-[expletive deleted], but ultimately noble, dedicated to making the world a better place. Millar cottoned on to the spectacle and the ultra-violence, but completely missed the real motivation and morality behind it, turning the team into a swaggering bunch of superpowered dictators. True, The Authority were never the Justice League, but every writer since Ellis has singularly failed to get what they were supposed to be about.

Give that man an oversized novelty hat. Ellis' run on The Authority is unarguably better than any of the writers who've had it since (although I do have some hope for Grant Morrison, even though I've not read any of his work on the title in question yet) for exactly those reasons. Millar's run was a lot better than the drossy Robbie Morrison, but without Ellis and without Jenny, it's been a very different title. It's possible that he's simply a lot more talented than Millar et al, but I still enjoyed Red Son. Mark Millar can do good things, but shock for the sake of shock really isn't one of them. We only become more jaded and cynical and anything that could be done well and be treated intelligently has to suffer our low expectations and usually becomes gimmicky anyway as a result. I think that a Catwoman pregnancy could be done very well; but there's a reason that most superheroes don't have to deal with screaming infants: comics are a form of escapism. If you're dealing with that sort of thing in the real world and find five minutes spare, you probably don't want to be confronted with your favourite heroes changing nappies. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm sure you see my point.