>>24727
>but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
It does, because again the definitive version will keep changing.
>the version people actually like
>since everyone knows Superman flies and to have him not fly already makes him "different" from what people expect from Superman
I see you define definitive version as the popular one, but as explained above new versions being added and they end up gaining popularity over the old ones so there's never one static definitive version. It will always keep changing, meanwhile the original version will always stay as the original and the source for these later versions, not matter how much they keep deviating from it.
>they aren't the best Batman stories ever. They aren't the "definitive" version of the character
Good version also doesn't equal definitive one, because just like with your earlier definition based on popularity, new better version will come out and considered as the best one.
>Bill Finger has done many excellent stories
>doubt. png
The cringey one-liners, the nonsensical metaphors ("like an avenging black cloud"), illogical causation and effect (batman tells Joker to "stop" so Joker stopped despite having no means to make him stop or persuade him to do so, or Joker "accidentally" and out of nowhere got pushed against a building which in turn pushed the knife into his chest and yet he doesn't die) which were all prevalent in Batman. Not to mention, how the genius paired a character that was inspired by Robin Hood with a rich character.
>All the stories are short standalone things
There aren't, as we both know they kept changing Batman and adding things to it while disregarding previous stories as these were published consistent and connected issues. Take for example how Batman tries to kill Joker in certain issue, then in the following one where he Joker almost burned Robin to death he doesn't and in the issue afterwards Batman once again tries to kill him, it doesn't make any sense and it's ridiculously inconsistent.
>There doesn't need to be much of a continuing plot
True, but again Batman did have changes which means there was a continuing plot, just not coherent one.
>He's more of a serial killer than a mass murderer
Doesn't make it a lot better, he already killed 10 people including a fucking judge and chief police in his first two stories while attempting to kill Robin twice, he should've gotten the chair already by the first story!
>His plot armor works with the tone the stories have
No, they don't! The dissonance between grave scenarios and the happy-go-lucky attitude is what make this world setting so asinine! In the first story of Joker, after Joker killed people and was about to kill Robin, Batman rhymes as he is chasing him or in later story Batman making a joke about hurting Joker after he almost burned Robin to death and there's that time where Batman and Robin broke the 4th wall and made a joke about the plotarmor of Joker who is serial killer that keeps escaping and killing people, truly amusing and not disturbing in any way.
>Again, this works perfectly well with the tone the stories present
See above
>it's not presented as a child soldier situation
Obviously, he wouldn't admit it (unlike the plotarmor of Joker). It's about what
actually happen in these stories and they do prove this point; Dick is barely an 8-year-old, trained an entire year to fight criminals (and sometimes even kill them) which results in life threatening situations and he get severely beaten and one time (maybe it happened more than once, most likely) almost died!
>Batman was "dark," and it was certainly darker than some later stuff
> It just wasn't as goofy as comics thought of as "goofy.
It's basically bad and unaware black humor.
> it became that relatively quickly, as the creators caught on to what sold and shifted things in that direction
I would hardly say that Joker killing 10 people and keep trying to murder Robin as a shift in direction.
>but it wasn't "dark" by modern standards of "dark" comics
At least they keep the serious tone.
>You've just stated story elements you don't like and said it's objectively bad writing
No, I've made arguments, not statements and explained myself, maybe I should've been more detailed as I am with my arguments above.
>No, Batman having a sidekick is not objectively bad writing
Of course, it's not, but again in this setting when an 8-year-old boy get harshly beaten by adults, finds himself almost getting killed every now and then and indeed almost got killed while supposedly having more easy-going attitude to the story and being belong to the superhero genre where justice prevails and superheroes supposed to be good people, by all means it is objectively bad writing.
>looking at the impact Robin has had
I'm not certain about it, for character that solely created to be kid friendly and is Batman' right hand, he doesn't seem to be popular as should be (which brings us back to how popular based definitive version keep changing, he appeared in barely one failed Batman movie and sorta in the end of Nolan trilogy). Even in the days where he was inseparable from Batman, he wasn't that popular and people mostly cared about Batman, it seems that in the end of the day Robin is just an accessory for Batman. If anything, Robin is more popular when he is part of a team, rather than being Batman' sidekick.
>It also has nothing to do with my point
You falsely connected quality and definitive version with popularity, so by these parameters Batman is truly the best superhero, which he clearly isn't. Furthermore, according to this judgement, currently Nolan Trilogy is the best Batman media or maybe it's the new movie... who knows.
>Yeah but ain't nobody got time for that[Expand Post]
If you find time to write in IBs, you can find time for more productive things.
>I didn't say I solved anything
You tried to excuse it, and by that either solving the problem or apparently denying its existence in the first place.
>those are the reasons that Joker always ends up surviving. While you think it's all stupid
Because they're.
>you're disregarding execution entirely. The effectiveness of any of these stories is all in the execution, and not purely in the plot elements. A plot element that works in one tone, for example, may not work in another
There can't be good execution, if the base of the plot is flawed! Execution is inherent to the plot and if the plot is badly written and doesn't make sense then so will be the execution. Again, the idea that Joker can just keep escaping from prison and killing people forever is completely dumb and contradicting to the basis of superhero genre where the good guys are able to defeat the bad guys, and no arresting Joker and sending him back to prison just so he can escape and kill again is not defeating him!
>Batman had to find the other person who framed him
>had to
No, he didn't! Just like no one pulled a trigger back to his head forcing him to become a superhero! Batman is just a deranged selfish asshole who never got over his parents' death' and fail to commit fighting injustice and prevent additional tragedies like his own.
>It was just explained to you
>I'm just telling you what his motivation was
And I explained to you why that's plain dumb and insane, even you admit that it does >but even then, it was controversial to people who actually read it .