Batman: Year Two

[The Laughing Fish]

I've read Year Two over the past few days. It's about Batman joining forces with the underworld to take down the Reaper, a vigilante who has returned to terrorize Gotham. After barely surviving an attack by the Reaper, Batman not only decides to start using firearms, but he joins forces with Joe Chill - the man who killed his parents all those years ago.

I've got to say I thought it was a little bland. The title 'Year Two' feels like a cash-in on Frank Miller's Year One story since the this comic doesn't really have any connection to that tale. It was kind of intriguing to see how Batman decides to take a gun - especially since it was the same one that Joe Chill used to kill his parents - when he felt he had been outmatched by an enemy who is a much darker reflection of who Batman is. But otherwise, it's kind of average. It definitely feels like a "What If?" story; what would have happened should Batman starts to use a gun, although he stays true to his character by preferring to avoid using it as much as he possibly can. I guess my favourite part of the book is when Batman brings Chill to the place where Chill murdered his parents, unmasks himself and is prepared to kill Chill before the opportunity is taken away from him by the Reaper. Other than that, it's not really memorable.

[riddler]

Year three was much better received, involving the first robins, although it doesn't remain in the same contemporary period.

[The Dark Knight]

After barely surviving an attack by the Reaper, Batman not only decides to start using firearms, but he joins forces with Joe Chill - the man who killed his parents all those years ago.

I'm all for bold plot choices, but this one has always rubbed me the wrong way. In contrast, the 'Venom' plotline hits the right notes. A desperate Batman who failed to save a young girl's life takes to steroids and loses his mind as a result.

[The Laughing Fish]

After barely surviving an attack by the Reaper, Batman not only decides to start using firearms, but he joins forces with Joe Chill - the man who killed his parents all those years ago.

I'm all for bold plot choices, but this one has always rubbed me the wrong way. In contrast, the 'Venom' plotline hits the right notes. A desperate Batman who failed to save a young girl's life takes to steroids and loses his mind as a result.

Batman's alliance with Chill is a reluctant one. In the book, it constantly eats him up inside that he is working with his parents' killer, but he sees it as a necessary evil until the Reaper problem has been resolved. It's not necessarily the best take on Batman confronting Chill though, I thought the Brave and the Bold episode was a lot better than this. That episode was about Batman tracking down Chill and Phantom Stranger and the Spectre betting on Batman's morality - will he succumb to deadly revenge or have the willpower to bring Chill to justice? Batman eventually came to his senses upon beating Chill, and didn't cave in into killing him. In Year Two though, it was left ambiguously that Batman could've killed him at any moment had the Reaper not interfere.

Anyway, there was a sequel called Full Circle, which I read recently. Here, the Reaper returns, but his secret identity happens to be Chill's son, Joe Jr, who apparently reunited with his father shortly before the events of Year Two, and had witnessed Batman threatening Joe Snr before his father was murdered by the original Reaper. Predictably, Joe Jr wanted revenge over Batman. Again, I thought the plot was rather "meh", but I thought the ending was good; upon realizing who the new Reaper was and he had a son too, Batman decides to end their continuous cycle for revenge for the sake of their 'sons' (Robin and Chill Jr's kid).   

[The Dark Knight]

I have the view, I think, that while Batman is a tortured soul, he wouldn't have it any other way. He's been this person for too long. It's all he knows, and what he is now comfortable with. His parents murder is a constant, something burned into his psyche and always at the forefront of his mind in one way or another. It's his comfort. Memory is more powerful than the experience itself.

Therefore, no Joe Chill, or Jack Napier, take your pick, equals no Batman. No war on crime, gadgets, fast cars or devotion. He has to hate the killer of his parents in concept. And I'm sure he does. But he can't turn back time ala Superman in the 78 film. But I think if really given the choice - he wouldn't take it. He'd keep things as they are. Let his parents rest in peace and accept the harsh reality. He's a melancholy personality who decides to forego close, loving relationships.

Great men are forged in fire. It is the privilege of lesser men to light the flame. Chill/Napier being that lesser man.

[Silver Nemesis]

It's not necessarily the best take on Batman confronting Chill though, I thought the Brave and the Bold episode was a lot better than this. That episode was about Batman tracking down Chill and Phantom Stranger and the Spectre betting on Batman's morality - will he succumb to deadly revenge or have the willpower to bring Chill to justice? Batman eventually came to his senses upon beating Chill, and didn't cave in into killing him.

That was a great episode. It was largely adapted from the Golden Age story 'The Origin of the Batman!' (Batman #47, June 1948) which was essentially the same plot as Year Two, minus the Reaper/Caspian storyline. Batman doesn't team up with any criminals in Batman #47, nor does he use any guns. But he does track down Chill and reveal his true identity to him.

I think Year Two improved on the Golden Age version in a couple of regards. For one thing, Bruce unmasks himself in front of Chill in Batman #47, but doesn't plan ahead of that. His secret identity is only preserved because Chill gets killed in the very next scene. Whereas in Year Two he intended to shoot Chill immediately after unmasking himself. It doesn't make much sense why he'd reveal his identity to Chill in the Golden Age version of the story, then just let him go.

I think it was also better to have the Reaper be the one to eliminate Chill. In the original version, a bunch of criminals murdered him once Chill revealed he was responsible for killing Batman's parents. You'd think they'd have demanded to know Batman's true identity first, but no – they just kill him. It's a little too convenient.

In Year Two though, it was left ambiguously that Batman could've killed him at any moment had the Reaper not interfere.

It is ambiguous, but my interpretation is that he would have killed him. By that point he'd already unmasked himself in front of Chill, so there was no going back. Then there's the Reaper's line, "I didn't think you were a killer... I see now I was wrong."

I imagine Bruce would have killed Chill and then regretted it for the rest of his life.

But I think if really given the choice - he wouldn't take it. He'd keep things as they are. Let his parents rest in peace and accept the harsh reality.

I think he would choose the other life initially. But then he'd realise how much good he'd done as Batman, and how those positive actions hinged upon the tragedy of his parents' deaths. So he'd go back and undo the change, similar to what happened to Barry Allen during the Flashpoint storyline. Ultimately he'd accept what happened. But given the option, I think he'd do anything to spend just one more day with his parents.

[The Laughing Fish]

Insightful post there, Silver! 

I think Year Two improved on the Golden Age version in a couple of regards. For one thing, Bruce unmasks himself in front of Chill in Batman #47, but doesn't plan ahead of that. His secret identity is only preserved because Chill gets killed in the very next scene. Whereas in Year Two he intended to shoot Chill immediately after unmasking himself. It doesn't make much sense why he'd reveal his identity to Chill in the Golden Age version of the story, then just let him go.

I think it was also better to have the Reaper be the one to eliminate Chill. In the original version, a bunch of criminals murdered him once Chill revealed he was responsible for killing Batman's parents. You'd think they'd have demanded to know Batman's true identity first, but no – they just kill him. It's a little too convenient.

I suppose you cold argue the same thing for the Brave and the Bold episode - when Chill was about to tell all of the rogues who Batman was, all of the rogues took turns in hitting Chill without bothering to ask who Batman really is.

In Year Two though, it was left ambiguously that Batman could've killed him at any moment had the Reaper not interfere.

It is ambiguous, but my interpretation is that he would have killed him. By that point he'd already unmasked himself in front of Chill, so there was no going back. Then there's the Reaper's line, "I didn't think you were a killer... I see now I was wrong."

I imagine Bruce would have killed Chill and then regretted it for the rest of his life.

I was thinking the same thing too. I guess it was telling how Batman matured in the end of the Full Circle story where he realises both he and Chill Jr.'s desire for vengeance became a deadly cycle that had to be broken to set an example for Robin and Chill Jr.'s son.

[Silver Nemesis]

I suppose you cold argue the same thing for the Brave and the Bold episode - when Chill was about to tell all of the rogues who Batman was, all of the rogues took turns in hitting Chill without bothering to ask who Batman really is.

True. In fact if anything, the Brave and the Bold version was even more convenient, because Chill was killed by the ceiling collapsing on him. But then there's that rather sinister suggestion at the end of the episode that the Spectre may have had a hand in it... That really is a great episode. 

I was thinking the same thing too. I guess it was telling how Batman matured in the end of the Full Circle story where he realises both he and Chill Jr.'s desire for vengeance became a deadly cycle that had to be broken to set an example for Robin and Chill Jr.'s son.

Right. Bruce's confrontation with Chill is one of those key events in his early career. It's the ultimate test of his no kill rule. In order to understand the value of that rule, he has to make the mistake of breaking it – or at least come close to breaking it – at some early point in his career. Hence the Golden Age Batman carrying a sidearm during the first year of his crusade, or the Batman in Year Two intending to do something similar when he plotted to kill Chill.

[The Laughing Fish]

I have the view, I think, that while Batman is a tortured soul, he wouldn't have it any other way. He's been this person for too long. It's all he knows, and what he is now comfortable with. His parents murder is a constant, something burned into his psyche and always at the forefront of his mind in one way or another. It's his comfort. Memory is more powerful than the experience itself.

Therefore, no Joe Chill, or Jack Napier, take your pick, equals no Batman. No war on crime, gadgets, fast cars or devotion. He has to hate the killer of his parents in concept. And I'm sure he does. But he can't turn back time ala Superman in the 78 film. But I think if really given the choice - he wouldn't take it. He'd keep things as they are. Let his parents rest in peace and accept the harsh reality. He's a melancholy personality who decides to forego close, loving relationships.

Great men are forged in fire. It is the privilege of lesser men to light the flame. Chill/Napier being that lesser man.

I thought I'd come back to this. There is actually precedence that Batman would want to change destiny if he had the chance. I recently got my hands on a copy of the 500th issue of Detective Comics that was published in 1981. The main story that commemorated this issue was "To Kill A Legend", written by Alan Brennert and Dick Giordano.

In this story, the Phantom Stranger offers Batman the chance to prevent his parents' murders in another dimension. Feeling affected by a recurring nightmare of Joe Chill killing Thomas and Martha Wayne, Batman accepts the offer and travels with Robin to the other dimension and discovers that superheroes and supervillains don't exist in this world. Batman wants to save his parallel self and ensure a life of happiness that he never had, while Robin argues that interfering with fate will deprive the world of its great and only hero. Batman learns that Chill was hired by Lex Moxon to assassinate the Waynes and threatens Moxon to not go ahead with the hit. But this only inspires Moxon to kill Chill and hire another hitman to take out the Waynes. Later, Batman hunts down a dying Chill and learns that the hit on the Waynes is about to take place. Meanwhile, Robin witnesses the Waynes getting mugged and nearly intervenes after a change of heart until Batman arrives on time and defeats the hitman, crying out "You're not going to win this time! This time...I didn't fail them".



After altering destiny, Batman and Robin gladly return to their own dimension. In the epilogue, the mugging incident changes the parallel young Bruce Wayne for the best. He goes from being a spoiled brat into a studious and athletic individual; grateful for the Batman for saving his life and his parents. It's heavily implied that he will still become Batman himself; taking on a path based on mystery and gratitude rather than guilt and vengeance.

A pretty cool story.

[The Dark Knight]

I am aware of that tale, and I still hold firm in my opposing view. I guess it comes down to 'my Batman'. The interpretation we all have inside our head. I think the B89/BR Batman would have the mentality I expressed on June 11. The Burton Wayne is effectively a hermit, and when he ventures out into public it's usually for a specific reason. And then he'll duck back to his mansion. It's going to be very hard indeed to alter that mindset and soul. I'm sure he likes it that way, and finds his solitude comforting, and is happy in his own reflective way.