Arkham's Profile

I thought Bird was the word. I know I'd love to give this book the bird.

Good one :D Flip it hard!

The highlight of this series has been reading your reviews. It just lets me know I'm not insane, and there still are sane people out there.

I'm glad to know you take some sort of comfort from them! It's been horribly disappointing, and I hate seeing artists who are actually quite good in their own right take the majority of the blame for an absolutely terrible script. Her bad writing is dragging down so much, and it's a shame to see so many people bypass the problems with her writing to focus on the art, when it's the writing that's really killing this series and its characters. Convenient scapegoat for Fitzmartin though.

Hey, I'll take whatever positive I can get at this point. We will get a new artist a few issues from now, so let's see if people will blame the art then too.

It'll be interesting to see the reactions. I'm still not entirely sold on the general feeling they seem to be going for with this as it seems ill-suited for a serious Tim Drake solo. That being said I could have done Rossmo's art if the story was spectacular, but Fitzmartin has already shown us her inability to tell a story regardless of who her artist is or the characters she gets to handle. If they want a good Tim solo, they need to ditch her first.

Oh absolutely they need to get Chuck Dixon, James Tynion, Chris Yost, Fabian Nicieza, or Devin Grayson to take over the writing

Actually you're the only reasonable one here that even tho I disagree, I see how you wouldn't like it as much. You didn't contradict yourself like the others did.

This is a really good analysis of what worked and didn't work in the story for you. I enjoyed reading it, thanks. Love your point about the three Batmen. It could be something we see from Johns and Fabok in the next 5'ish years! I'm also curious to read Zero Year, now.

They are teasing a more sadistic Joker, the whole three jokers was to play mind games with Batman, and help build his legacy but the comedian has now healed Batman through Chill and so now wants to be the only pain and the deepest pain he can feel. I love the the idea that joker hates not being the main source of Batman deepest pain, so much so that he helps Batman find closure, and heal that wound. This is next level sadism by Joker and that's a genius/clever idea. Builds up for the future.

Also I don't get how does he make sense to compare Hickman run on Xmen to this 😂. That's like comparing GL run with this self contained story.

The Joker was already sadistic to begin with, we didn't need another story to show how sadistic he is. And I'd say that the Joker has done much more to harm Batman in other stories than in this story. Batman as a character hasn't even changed from beginning to end of this story. No character even goes through any changes in this story, which is why it's so unremarkable. Also the comparison was using Hickman's Avengers, and it was a metaphor that might have gone over your head.

I used it to say that there are ways to tell an interesting story and then put the toys back in the playbox which is what this 3 jokers book was. Nothing changed in Batman mythos from before the book than after the book ended. You can change up story telling conventions and tell an interesting story, but for me this story was just basic Batman and Joker duality story. Wow, we haven't gotten that before in any story right?

How does the fact Joker wife and son still alive not change the mythos or future of Batman? How does him healing and forgiving Joe Chill in his last moments (which gave him full closure) and putting it behind his back not adding anything. Also the fact Jason is thinking about healing and moving on from Red Hood is something different. Also didn't he finally kill joker?Isn't that adding to the mythos? Also wanting to heal with someone but lacks the strength to heal independently is strong writing

But this next level sadism adds to the joker lore. Also what makes joker so sadistic are these moment in comics, spitting the word sadistic around is more than just a word, you have to earn it and this joker earned his sadism by healing Batman (which adds to the mythos of who actually healed him). Wanting to be his biggest and deepest pain.That's 100% Joker and that's how he should be written giving reasons why he's the baddest and alpha evil, saying a guy is sadistic isn't enough.

Oh the fact this Joe Chill actually has a reason why he killed Batman parents is adding to the lore. Originally it was thought that it was a random guy that thought it was cool to kill two parents which makes no sense whatsoever, it was so random obviously he had a good reason to kill and let the kid live. It has to add up, and this book offers that. It's an interesting new take, it's a realistic take. You can hate it but saying this comic added nothing to the lore is bs.

Joker's wife and son being alive will not have any impact on the DC universe whatsoever, and it shouldn't have an impact on the Batman at all. They are characters that do not matter in the grand scheme of things. I said in my review that him forgiving Joe Chill is cool, but it is unoriginal. He did that exact same thing in many other media including other comics.

Jason looking to move on from Red Hood has been explored so many times as well in Red Hood series, in Batman series. And let me tell you why it won't happen. It won't happen because DC knows that the Red Hood concept sells, which is why Jason will always resort to Red Hood. And how is this next level sadism from Joker? He wants to be Batman's greatest pain? That was already clear ever since Joker killed Jason the first time.

Also it's clearly a sequel to killing joke and previous books. It's not supposed to be completely different. If Geoff Johns completely changed the mythos people will eat him alive and say that didn't happen, that's silly and fan fiction, it's forced and so on. So adding to the lore is a hot take lol. Also the fact this Batman for once in his life is a good parent and isn't just an asshole is a breath of fresh air lol.

Batman already has been facing his demons with the Joker for decades and it has been clear in numerous stories that Batman and Joker will always be a duality. Why do we need another story to show that the Joker is Batman's top archenemy/problem/pain? How does that change Batman as a character? And Red Hood killing the Joker? Cool, there's a Joker still alive at the end of the story.

If there were no Jokers alive at the end of the story, or if Batman was able to overcome his obsession with the Joker or their connection, that would have worked so well. I'll reference Arkham Knight, which is not the best Arkham game, but it handles the Joker/Batman relationship so well. Batman is able to overcome Joker's obsession and lock Joker away from his mind forever, overcoming one of his greatest fears. That is how characters should progress, not just the same thing happening

So the fact that the joker can find out about his kid and wife isn't interesting 😂 or his son can become a hero or turn a villain by Joker is not an appealing idea lol, to me it has a lot of potential for the future of dc do they ever decide to capitalize on it. Who you kidding. It adds a lot of promise, and impact on the future of dc if they go with it. But hey let's shut down every interesting idea that can come with this because I can't think myself.

So you want a story about jokers not to be about Batman but rather him moving on from joker 😂. Boy you should never write a comic.

Cool I guess that's your opinion. In my opinion, the Joker having a son who can become a hero is a really dumb idea. And it has been done in the past that a villain's son/offspring is a hero. And making them into a big deal just ruins the mystery surrounding the Joker. Obviously from a money perspective, the idea of oh my god the Joker's son is alive? We gotta tell a story about him. But from a creative standpoint? that idea doesn't have a lot of merit in my opinion.

Joker Killing Red hood isn't the sadest part of his life, it's his parents death that still haunts him, and it's in every freaking book where he never moves on from his parents death and they do it perfectly here. He's no healed because he's done with Joe Chill and he's in peace with him, that's what always haunted him and what made him fear. Not red hood, he's still alive and killing people that's just one level, what this comedian did is genius and clever, he won after all. Now it's all him.

And to your last point about Batman moving on from the Joker? Yes I'd love that. I read fiction, not just comics in general, to see story progress and move forward. Why do I want to keep seeing him fight the Joker? When I know at the end of the day the Joker will just escape and live to harrass Batman again. If you want a realistic take as you claimed above, Jason would have killed the Joker at the end as well. I would have liked that more than the ending of this series.

Is it bad for me to want Batman to move on from the Joker? The Joker is an overused character that DC knows sells, so he will be in as many Batman stories as possible. Ironically if they shelved the Joker for a couple years or killed him for a couple years, his story of his return would probably sell more than the stories that they keep telling about the Joker.

But this is three jokers story, how can he move on from the joker? If he killed him, he will be haunted by it forever, he can never escape the joker. That's the point, that's why he's his greatest nemesis. DC can do stories without joker, this story will have no impact on the fact joker will never be used, this book will be too silly and overlooked if that's why it's saying lol. It's contradicting cuz it's all about the history of the two villains.

But in this story he moved on from Joe Chill. That's great progress for Batman lol. Are you saying he will forgive joker for the things he did and move on? That makes no sense. The fact dc can use any villain has nothing to do with joker being his greatest or not. Every hero has his greatest villain. It's not a new concept.

Batman should not kill the Joker. That should be reserved for Jason or be totally out of Batman's control. I never said that Batman should kill the Joker. This story would have worked so much better if the Joker died is what I'm saying. Provide some finality to this Batman joker duality and never ending battle. They've been at it for nearly 100 years. If you want to keep reading joker stories for the next 100 years without an end in sight then good for you, that's your opinion.

That's why when jason killed the first joker, I was very happy he did so. Its the one major thing Jason has done since he has been back and killing joker might allow him to move on from that dark spot in his life

So you're saying kill joker for good? Sorry for saying this but are you dumb?

Yes, I'd love it if DC had the guts to kill the Joker for good or at least a decade. Why do we need so many joker stories? In the past year we've gotten Joker in dozens of stories. Yes he is an important character, but characters can get overused.

Let people miss the joker or let writers have time to come up with better stories with the joker. Killing him or shelving him for a couple years would allow for that. And it would allow for Batman and the Bat family to progress their characters away from the just more joker after joker story

From what you've said it sounds like you're sick of the Joker, which is fine. Just don't read stories about him. He's not in every DC story let alone every Batman story, he's easy to avoid. Yeah he's in the black label a lot but most the stories he's in are good. It was obvious they weren't going to kill him in this when the artist said it could be canon.

True, the black label stuff has been good. Can't deny that. What I mean by joker oversaturation is what's been going on in the main Batman title, this title, Justice League when it was written by Snyder, Death Metal, Dark Knights Metal as well. Even in doomsday clock, Joker played a role in that. And that's the problem is that DC comics seem to rely on the Joker always being part of Batman stories, which is a problem

They should give any other villain a boost. Besides the Joker, the most recent villain that's gotten a huge boost was Bane in Tom King's run

I see what you mean. I do think after the disappointing joker war and this story joker should have a few years break for underrated villains like mad hatter but nothing as long as a decade.

Yes, my ideal Batman run would work more along the line of Detective where arc would alternate between new and old villains. 6 issues to tell a story for an old villain, while using the next 6 to introduce a new villain or a new story for Batman. So that will keep the reader guessing as to who the next Batman villain or story is. If you keep using the same villain over and over again, with the same story basically, it does get repetitive and readers start to drop books

Never had a plan for Rebirth indeed. So true. I remember loving and being so excited by DC Rebirth Special and each of the promising new arcs that were clearly meant to spin out of it. Well, I re-read it after reading this issue and was flabbergasted that not a single thing in that comic book resulted in anything at all, apart from that dang button. (Remember Diana's brother Jason? Yeah, me neither.) Literally nothing came from that Special apart from the utterly disappointing Doomsday Clock.