Replacing Batman’s been done before. Many changes have been made to characters over the years. More often than not, they don’t stick.
1 Like
I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree on this one. It seems like it’s more of personal taste. What I’ll say is this, if you’re comfortable with changing and updating Bruce to be something new and radical, then changing the man underneath the mask isn’t that radical. Now, I’m totally fine with leaving the Batman title to Bruce under the conditions of having the Batman title taking a break while new characters like Batwing get the chance in the spotlight. But I simply just don’t think the title of Batman is as sacred as you seem to think it is.
Thank you for reading my post and sharing your opinion. I appreciate it. 
I agree it’s been done before. But nowadays it seems like some people just don’t think it’s something you can do. Which I find very strange. What are your thoughts on changing mantels. Doesn’t just have to be Batman.
2 Likes
It depends on the execution. I’m in no way opposed to mantle-passing as a concept, I’ve seen it done well. But when you’ve got a character like Batman, who’s also a cultural institution, messing too much with what people expect often backfires. It can work, but you’ve got an uphill battle winning over fans who have extremely set ideas about who these characters, both literally and figuratively, are.
3 Likes
Yep, we can just agree to disagree. That’s cool. To each their own.
I think if anything, I probably am downplaying how sacred the mantle is in contemporary culture, but I’ll stop there. I don’t want to get flagged for comparing religion and comics. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
3 Likes
Lmao. Thanks for stopping by Desade. Hahaha
Superman and Batman are not merely the two most popular DC heroes. On top of that, they’re two of the earliest. They’re the genre’s strongest tie to its 1930s origins. They are the first true comic book superheroes. Furthermore, they (along with Wonder Woman) survived the cancellation of most superhero books circa 1950. They survived Fredric Wertham and the Comics Code Authority. They survived every reboot. Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne are DC Comics.
4 Likes
Okay. That doesn’t really change my opinion. I mean, one of my main points was centered around how long these characters have existed with almost no change. After 80 years, I’m ready for something new. I’d like to see a new character to be able to try out the mantel. 
Then read a different series. There’s a reason why Barry Allen could replace Jay Garrick: Jay’s books were canceled, and he completely disappeared from DC titles for years. Replacing him was not a betrayal of the company’s roots. Same thing with Green Lantern.
2 Likes
I answer this question here in my original post. 
Those things have already been explored in stories such as Knightfall, Battle for the Cowl, and Superheavy. Ultimately, they don’t last long because the change doesn’t lend itself to more than a year’s worth of stories at most. No one else is as interesting as Bruce Wayne in the role.
4 Likes
I’ll say it a million times if I have to: Terry McGinniss. It’s a great example of a lasting character who is beloved by fans and shows that if DC gets the right writers and fans come to the property with an open mind; great things can happen.
All of those instances which you listed of Bruce being replaced are pretty well-reviewed arcs. I know I enjoyed them (sans maybe Superheavy, but I honestly hadn’t been keeping up with Batman at the time). Maybe it’s not that no else is as interesting as Bruce Wayne as much as it is that no one else has been given as much of a chance as Bruce Wayne. Imagine if all our favorite heroes hadn’t been given some time when they first started out to find their ground and tone.
IN AN ALTERNATE FUTURE TIMELINE.
Plus, I personally don’t like Terry. He’s a Spider-Man knockoff.
2 Likes
That is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. I’m just trying to prove that it is possible given the right set-up, writing, characters, etc.; Bruce is replaceable as Batman. Whether or not this specific instance is a parallel universe is kind of irrelevant to what I’m saying. I’m just showing it’s possible. While you may not personally like it; the lasting fan base, high review scores, and financial success shows a broader picture of the character being enjoyed.
The issue with Terry is that Bruce is still there. He is actively part of the Batman Beyond Team. Terry wouldn’t be at the place he is without Bruce. Terry hasn’t really replaced Bruce. Bruce is still there. Bruce gives Terry all the knowledge he needs to know. Terry wouldn’t have survived half of his time as Batman without Bruce and the knowledge and experience he gives Terry.
1 Like
Bruce can still be a part of whatever story line I’m hypothetically pitching. I don’t think I’ve had Bruce die in a single one of my hypotheticals. In fact, I pretty vocally supported the idea of Bruce remaining in the picture in an Oracle-esque role here 
Original Post:
My Response:
It’s entirely relevant. It’s the very thing that makes Batman Beyond tolerable. Note that when the DCAU subsequently made Justice League, Timm and Co. didn’t use Terry as Batman. They knew that he was acceptable only as a character separate from the present day continuity. In the present, Bruce Wayne is Batman. That’s because he’s the real Batman, and anyone else is just a fill-in.
It’s one thing to have a few stories about Sherlock Holmes Jr. or James Bond’s replacement as Agent 007 or something like that, but you can’t just toss away the original character from now on.
1 Like
I guess I misunderstood your point. You want a new Batman, but you’re ok with Bruce helping out as such? How does that make this new Batman new? They’re just doing exactly what Bruce says.
Superheavy was a fun arc because Jim had no idea how to be Batman. He had Julia there to help him, while she pretended not to know the original Batman, but that was it. He went off of what he could do and the things he had seen Batman do before him.
For the record, I’m just trying to get an understanding of what you’re looking for here. I love Bruce as Batman and I don’t want him stepping down anytime soon. But I also love the tons of supporting Bat characters that should be able to hold their own, but don’t.
2 Likes
The thing is, as said, this has already been done before. Several times at this point, so it runs the danger of just being a retread. But if it was just temporary, I’d be okay with it. I liked the Superior Spider-Man series quite a bit.
3 Likes
No offense, but I don’t know if I trust someone who outright says they don’t enjoy the show to explain what makes the show “tolerable.” Maybe your projecting based on your own biases towards the character of Terry.
I think the main thing I struggle with your argument is this whole claim that Bruce Wayne is the only “real Batman.” Whenever I ask anyone who has this argument why, the answer is always along the lines of, “Bruce has always been the character. He’s been that hero for 80 years. Batman doesn’t exist without Bruce.” You even say it in this post here:
But, that doesn’t mean much to me. It’s just a fallacy: an appeal to tradition. The idea that because something has always been one way it has be that way in the future. And anything that challenges this tradition is wrong. It’s flawed logic. I respect you opinion and understand that characters like this who are beloved can be sensitive subjects. But, what you’re saying here just isn’t really an argument of any of the core points I made in my original message. It even feels like you didn’t even read based on the fact that you are asking questions I very clearly state in my opening post. Thank you for participating and sharing your opinion.
1 Like