[quote]Next question is one that concerns…consequences for actions; I guess is a good way to put it. The reader based their question in the context of Battle for the Cowl #2, which showed Jason going around doing horrible, horrible things – shooting Damian, stabbing Tim in the chest … not to mention that he has killed people. Yet, he’s a regular character in the Batman universe, and while you can’t say he’s someone that Batman looks the other way on, there’s been a feeling that Jason is afforded a level of “tolerance” by Batman and the others who routinely beat people unconscious for, in comparison, minor crimes. I think most readers can still remember Jim Shooter’s edit that if Chris Claremont and John Byrne were going to have Phoenix kill a star system’s worth of people, she had to die. Long question short, does that feeling still apply? Is there the sense in the DC offices that since Jason has killed, he cannot be a hero, and must therefore be either hunted, jailed, or on the run all the time…

DD: Let’s take this one from the very beginning. When a story is going to be told where we feel that a character crosses a moral line, we just don’t put that in arbitrarily. We think through how that affects everyone around him, and what the long-term ramifications of that action will be.

The perfect example of that was when Wonder Woman killed Max Lord. We thought that all the way through – we saw how that affected the relationship between Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. We saw what happens when that relationship breaks down, and how that affected the entire DC Universe, as well as how it was ultimately resolved. We saw those causes and effects all the way through. Or another case – Identity Crisis – we saw those events, the effects of those events, and how they played through the DC Universe. Every time that we try to do a major story where we feel a moral line has been crossed, there are always ramifications because of it. Things that you’re mentioning with Jason – of seeing him kill – are all potential stories for the future. Unless he doesn’t make it out of Battle for the Cowl, these are all story beats that we’d like to see play out throughout the DCU, and they’re all fodder for future storytelling.

NRAMA: But it seems that saying it’s fodder for future storytelling seems almost to be a convenient way out, almost a hand off to some future team that’s not involved in the story or decision that saw the character cross that moral line…

DD: The way it is is that we don’t set things up arbitrarily – I think you’re asking me what the end of Battle for the Cowl in regards to Jason and the ramifications two years from now…

NRAMA: Not really – looking at Jason as a specific case, he’s been killing since he’s come back, and he’s been given a pass on it for the … months of comic book time since Judd’s storyarc that brought him back…

DD: And he’s showing his true colors. He confronted Batman upon his return, he toyed with the idea of being a hero, he failed at being a hero, Bruce Wayne is no longer there, and Jason sees an opportunity where he can take what he wants and show his true colors in the process.

NRAMA: Okay – it’s just a much longer view then – he tried to be a hero, initially, he failed, spectacularly in Countdown, and now he’s apparently failing again…

DD: Right. And that leads to something I can never say enough – we’re in the business of periodical storytelling. We are telling serial stories with our characters – these are continuing stories and adventures, and more importantly, everything that happens is building upon things that happened before, Naturally, things that are happening right now becomes fodder for future stories, and by that I mean, not for the people who follow us, but for things that we want to act upon right now, or else we would not go to lengths to set up things that we think will have potential for future stories.[/quote]

Were is good old Thomas Elliot during all this? Still in “prison”?

I’m english canadian, and I’m with you! Whaddya know? We found bilingual unity through violence! :D

And after reading the Daniel bits, it seems I was right after all. The complete opposite of what I thought would be fun is what seems to be happening. :D

amen

[code]http://comics.ign.com/articles/972/972153p1.html[/code]

[quote]IGN Comics: I guess there’s no better place to start our discussion than Jason Todd. In the recent past his characterization has wavered quite a bit. We’ve seen him played as both a grim-and-gritty antihero and well-meaning yet misguided hothead. Here we see him portrayed as more of a full-blown villain than ever before. Can you talk about your take on Jason in Battle for the Cowl?

Daniel: Jason in his own mind thinks that he’s taking the necessary steps to combat the evil in Gotham City. In his mind he’s not doing anything wrong, he’s fighting fire with fire. The big difference between Jason and Bruce is their approach. Jason was always a little bit more on the reckless, daring side, and he obviously has a screw loose after coming back from the Lazarus Pit. When you do come back from the Lazarus Pit, you’re not one hundred percent right in the head, and Jason really wasn’t all that right in the head to begin with. What I like about his character is that he really believes in the way he’s going about his business, and in his mind he’s right. In his mind he’s not a bad guy.[/quote]

[quote]GN Comics: There’s one fantastic line in particular where Jason claims that Bruce took him under his wing to prevent him from becoming another one of his enemies. We all remember that great introductory scene of a young Jason stealing the hubcaps off of the Batmobile, and I think it says a lot about Jason that he’d think of Bruce’s motivations as being selfish.

Daniel: Right. That says a lot about Jason’s own inflated ego, conceit and self-importance. Obviously his captions may not necessarily really be the truth.
[/quote]

The Batman mythos is a fucking mess.

The DC Universe as a whole is only a few steps behind that.

I still think Bruce either wanted Jason to be an atagonist to Tim and Dick so either one would pick his mantle or wanted him to live a normal life and he didn’t approve (the old, I’m not good enough? I’ll prove you wrong!). When you think about it if Jason really wanted anyone dead, Damien or Tim, he’d shoot them in the head after the initial wounds, chop them to pieces, feed the pieces to dogs and burned their poop. Assuming the first shot killed his target is sloppy for someone who has been working as Batman for weeks now.

@Wyntermute: I’m Frech Canadian, I feel like slapping anyone who pronunces rogue as rouge.

This really could’ve been an interesting story and a chance to do things differently and not play off of the same old song and dance of Jason Todd is a crazy guy and the bat brothers have to prove whose more of a Wayne. But that’s exactly what we’re getting. They should’ve left Jason dead if they didn’t know what to do with the character or give him a chance to evolve here. And Bruce shouldn’t have died if DC couldn’t deliver a strong enough story to go with his death. This is all filler material and here I thought it was DC’s big meat hook.

Other RR related question, why is Tim fighting Spoiler??

If RR is NOT Tim, the story will be a little more interesting for me. But if Tim does become Red Robin while Dick becomes the new Batman…meh, that’s kinda predictable.

The whole crispy-head thing was the reason I picked up the book, thinking (erroneously, obviously) that this was a game changing event and would set a new course for the character. Maybe leading to the Future Titans storyline, etc. Guess not.

That one still pisses me off.