http://batmanexaminer.insanejournal.com/ ([identity profile] batmanexaminer.insanejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2009-07-05 03:29 am

The Batman Family doesn't behave at weddings

The first time Dick Grayson tried to get married, the priest blew up before he could complete the vows. The Batman Family finds this funny.



First let me give you some context...



So naturally everyone this time around is in anticipation on if the priest will finish his sentence...



Then everyone JOKES ABOUT IT!!!!



I would expect more from Donna Troy...



REALLY Tim???

Still "What kind of weddings do you people go to" is one of the funniest lines of the comic.



You would think that the death of a minister who was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, marrying the wrong people would be treated more sensitively.

[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 01:38 pm (UTC)(link)
The best friend had other motivations than psycho-lesbian jealousy - she was trying to avenge her father who'd taken the fall for financial illegal stuff Emily's father had committed (Emily's father being long dead in the story, so that's why she attempts to get Emily condemned instead of directing her vengeance at Emily's father).

A kid who's lost at least two fathers, is used as a chesspiece by a guy motivated by parental loss?

The kid only lost one father, his. His mother's other husbands both died during the honeymoons, and IIRC he's not mentioned as having been as close to them as he was to Dick. As for Dick's behaviour regarding the child, his sympathy toward him and the fact that he genuinely cares for him is shown and told both rather clearly imo; where do you see he tries to manipulate the child?

[identity profile] icon_uk.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, thanks for the correction on the motivation, though if there weren't some attraction, why not just kill Emily and/or her kid? The former would be efficient, the latter would be the cruellest thing she could do.

The kid only lost one father

Yes, but wasn't the kids father her first husband? I imagined he was, and that still means the kid has had to go through the process of preparing to have a father figure twice more, and lose them almost instantly. For anyone with even nascent abandonment issues, that's going to hurt, and Dick is now the third.

where do you see he tries to manipulate the child?

Dick "woos" Emily, and deliberately goes out of his way to curry favour with the kid. Dick forms an emotional bond with an orphaned child he clearly intends to abandon from the outset, that's emotional manipulation to me.

[identity profile] sistermagpie.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 02:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Dick forms an emotional bond with an orphaned child he clearly intends to abandon from the outset, that's emotional manipulation to me.

God, yes! And this from another orphan who points to the stability he got with Alfred and Bruce as being probably the best thing in his life? And wtf with telling somebody "Oh, this whole courtship's been a scam. I just needed to find out if you were a murderer. But I'll stay with you if you want!"

What kind of a person would agree to that? Even the "only if you don't have any more secrets" is pathetic--the guy married you out of false pretenses and is staying with you out of a belated case of manners, lady!

I can only believe that Dick's hallucinating this whole story due to that alien creature that's crawled onto his head and is sucking out his brain. He's really in a coma the whole time while Bruce fights to get it removed.

[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 02:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I can only believe that Dick's hallucinating this whole story due to that alien creature that's crawled onto his head and is sucking out his brain. He's really in a coma the whole time while Bruce fights to get it removed.

*nods*

Yes, this could work for me.

[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 02:07 pm (UTC)(link)
She wanted Emily to be condemned as a criminal for crimes she hadn't committed, so that's why she didn't try to kill her. As for why she didn't try to kill Emily's son, I assume that maybe she doesn't want to murder a child? (That, and it'd have been too dramatic a theme for the story the author wanted to write.)

I disagree with your interpretation that a stepfather is automatically a father figure, though to be fair I don't remember how old he's supposed to be (obviously he wouldn't react the same way if he was five or eight - I don't think he was written as older than that). Dick would be the third replacement father figure, but the fourth on the whole.

Okay, I don't remember the "deliberately". Dick's a friendly person, so it seemed rather natural to me. Obviously, since you find the premise of the story flawed, you're going to find his behaviour with the child at best insensitive, since he's not thinking about the future all that much; but I think it's worth keeping in mind that in the story he's at first attempting to unmask Emily and then protecting/proving her as an innocent, so in that way he's already being concerned about the kid. I'll need to reread.

On the subject on them not sleeping in the same bed, I always thought Emily thought Dick was gay, and she respected that either he couldn't tell her either he hadn't admitted it himself. It made a lot more sense to me than their abandonment issue discussion. (About your mention of Emily being needy: that scene was the closest the story came to stating it, but I thought that discussion made it fairly obvious. So it's implied at that point.)

[identity profile] icon_uk.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 02:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, I don't remember the "deliberately". Dick's a friendly person, so it seemed rather natural to me.

He IS friendly and open, which is WHY this story reads so wrong to me, since the very notion of this plan should have anathema to him.

Obviously, since you find the premise of the story flawed, you're going to find his behaviour with the child at best insensitive, since he's not thinking about the future all that much; but I think it's worth keeping in mind that in the story he's at first attempting to unmask Emily and then protecting/proving her as an innocent, so in that way he's already being concerned about the kid. I'll need to reread.

Concern for the kid I can almost buy, it's his method of doing so I have such an issue with.

On the subject on them not sleeping in the same bed, I always thought Emily thought Dick was gay, and she respected that either he couldn't tell her either he hadn't admitted it himself.

Ummm... she's already MARRIED him, I sincerely doubt she thought he was gay. Or if she did, what the hell does that say about her?

It made a lot more sense to me than their abandonment issue discussion. (About your mention of Emily being needy: that scene was the closest the story came to stating it, but I thought that discussion made it fairly obvious. So it's implied at that point.)

If you mean the "other secrets" bit, I didn't get the slightest trace of gay subtext there, she'd just found out that the man she married had lied consistently about their very marriage status, which way he swings is almost irrelevant compared to that.

I found it easier to imagine that Emily was having issues with sex so soon after the loss of ANOTHER husband (though clearly NOT with marriage) and Dick was using that to come across as being solicitous to her feelings.

[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com 2009-07-05 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)
He IS friendly and open, which is WHY this story reads so wrong to me, since the very notion of this plan should have anathema to him.

Dick values justice - and catching criminals and protecting innocents - over being honest. For all that the "You Have To Marry Your Target" plan was worth, it fit into the pattern of things superheroes do to protect people; they have secret identities, they spend their lives lying.

Ummm... she's already MARRIED him, I sincerely doubt she thought he was gay. Or if she did, what the hell does that say about her?

That she has serious abandonment issues and that she needs someone in her life; she didn't take that long to get into other relationship after her husbands died. That she loves Dick and that she's okay with 'no sex' being the compromise in their relationship.

If you mean the "other secrets" bit, I didn't get the slightest trace of gay subtext there

No no no, I meant their discussion in the kitchen, when she brings up the issue that he's sleeping on the couch and maybe they should see a marriage counselor; that's when Dick starts bull-shitting his way into saying things like 'he cares about her so much that he's afraid of losing her, lalala, abandonment issues, lalala, he lost his parents when he was a child lalalala' (don't ask me to make sense out of that scene) and Emily is immediately understanding and suddenly drops entirely the idea of a marriage counselor. I don't think there's gay subtext there either, and all I can do when I read it is wonder why on earth she doesn't acknowledge the possibility that her new husband who apparently never touched her might be gay.

I found it easier to imagine that Emily was having issues with sex so soon after the loss of ANOTHER husband (though clearly NOT with marriage) and Dick was using that to come across as being solicitous to her feelings.

I like this idea, but it's negated by Emily being the one to suggest they see a marriage counselor since they don't sleep together. I'm not sure if she actually says "sex", but the not-sharing-a-bed thing bothers her quite a lot.