At this point, and having been reading comics and, well, stuff, for over 20 years, I have come to the conclusion that if you have to kill a character purely to create drama, you suck at writing simple as that. This is especially true of the kill a loved one trope, which instantly marks you as mostly talent-less writer to me. Marvel has no organic story writing left. It’s all forced marketing and exploitative political correctness and shock value. I am so tired of writers like Nick Spencer’s ham-fisted political hack writing. If there’s one thing that’s driving me away from Marvel at the moment.
Is these artificially created drama’s. Say what you will about the first Civil War series, but at least it gave the heroes a reason why they would be split into two camps. In Civil War II, three heroes have died already, and none of them have given anyone a sufficient excuse to turn against each other. Yet the writer still ham-fistedly tries to show how this issue is splitting the superhero community down the middle and it just comes off as forced and contrive. They already changed the entire Marvel Universe with Secret Wars, and then immediately followed it up with another “everything has changed” event.
Consequently, nobody can invest, because Marvel just turns everything on its head again in a few months’ time so they can just sell a few extra comics. Marvel is going too far with their character replacement. New Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Wolverine. They are dumping classics to get new readers but are alienating fans more than anything. Remember the days when comics ran past 12 issues without going back to number ones? Or when reboots didn’t happen every six months and characters didn’t die and come back over and over again. Good times…
You want to show how “strong” a character she is and her overcoming this horrible thing that happens to her, I have no problem with that. Hell I will welcome it with open arms. But if your brilliant plan to show how “strong” she is as a character is “have her start sleeping with Batman,” then the writers have different definitions of the term “strong”. And no, I am not opposed to having sexuality in these types of animated films. I was fine with the Deadshot/Harley sex scene in Batman: Assault on Arkham, nor am I opposed to Barbara having a sex life. But this is just awkward and off-putting and it does nothing to make her a “stronger character.” I can understand the desire by the writers to portray Bruce and Barbara as flawed individuals. But my issue is that the flaws that would lead to having sex-on-a-roof seem diametrically opposed to Bruce and Barbara strengths.
While the more traditional flaws of emotional coldness and paranoia are grounded in areas where both of them have been proven vulnerable. But I have this major issue with thinking that ultra-rational, cautious and even sometimes paranoid Bruce would engage in such a reckless, risky, and morally questionable action as consummating a physical relationship on a roof in the middle of the night. Not to mention that Jim Gordon is one of his best friends/closest allies, I mean how would that conversation go? “I fucked your daughter on the roof while we were fighting crime.” Bruce is basically like a second father to Barbara, so it seems even more messed up when you look at it that way. The fact that they actually admit they did this solely to add more controversy is the cherry on top for me.
[Editorial Note:] They aren’t just content to write proper stories anymore, but to create artificial controversy where none is needed. And this is extremely off putting for me as a long time comic book fan, and betrays the source material we have come to love and know.