NS: New York Times Article Spoils Batman #50

[history79]

"The answers to the questions are found in letters the couple have written to each other before their wedding day. Mr. Wayne’s correspondence reveals an acceptance of Ms. Kyle, who in her time has been a jewel thief, a villain, an antihero and a mob boss. “You’re not someone who can be figured out. Or solved. And never will be,” he declares. He also writes that he can be “more than a boy whose parents are dead,” that he can be “the man who loves you. Who will always try to love you better.”

Ms. Kyle’s letter lays out the truth as she sees it: “You’re still a child, Bruce. A hurt child.” Their happiness, she speculates, would kill Batman, who rescues everyone and turns pain into hope. “How can I do that,” she writes. “To save the world, heroes make sacrifices.”

In order to keep countless innocents safe, she concludes that she cannot marry Mr. Wayne. “My sacrifice is my life. It’s you.”

In the final moments of their story, the bride and groom end up at different locations in the early morning hours. In a silent page, Ms. Kyle sits on a rooftop, contemplating. She discards her veil and leaps toward the street. At the Finger Tower skyscraper, after an hour of waiting for his bride, Mr. Wayne realizes she is not coming. He throws off his tie and takes a similar leap, but in the opposite direction. Theirs is a story that is forever to be continued."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/fashion/weddings/it-just-wasnt-meant-to-be-batman.html

Comments

[informationgeek]

I have only one thing to say in response to New York Times & DC spoiling this and this decision in general.

[joetuss]

Fuck.

[mizerous]

Shit.

[obsidianwolf]

So I'm really not surprised at all, Not about the resolution of the story, the asinine reasons given for the ending or for DC spoiling the whole mess.

The only good thing is that anyone who really wanted to see the wedding is now forewarned not to buy the issue though it really sucks for the stores who bought a lot of copies.

[tcampbell1000]

I'm only surprised in the sense that I thought the marriage might last a year or so of real comics time before getting to a conclusion like this. But the previous issue really pointed in this direction, and the fact that this series is written by Tom King means heartbreak and depression have to be somewhere on the menu. In fairness, King's brand of heartbreak is more character-driven than your typical late-1990s fridging.

It's hard for me to decide what I think of King's approach. Stuff like MISTER MIRACLE and VISION is great, and he's done a lot with Batman I enjoy. But it seems like he... tries too hard, sometimes? Like, I don't think there is an inarguably truthful reason why Bruce and Selina can't be together that can just be presented in the form of a single elegant speech balloon that makes everyone say "Oh damn, of course, this shatters all my preconceptions and makes me sad, but I guess this is just how it has to be." I don't think life's that simple. But King seems to think it is, and he just has to figure out what that one speech balloon is. Maybe "he can't be happy and also be Batman?" Sounds profound, let's go with that.

I know a little something about how rewarding it can be to challenge yourself creatively. And I know what happens when you set the bar too high and get to believing that lowering it makes you a failure. I really like the power of King's simple style when it works, which is often, but I'd like it even better if I felt like he accepted that some things, you can't handle simply.

[lucean]

For me, as with most of King's Batman stories, is the implementation. I mean, Snyder did almost exactly the same storyline with Superheavy and Bruce/Madison, but there there was a huge build-up for that moment and the realization that Batman cannot be happy while highlighting the tragedy of it.

Here it seems to be someone else making that decision for Batman because... I don't actually even know why as the story hasn't done anything to imply that being with Selina has harmfully impacted Bruce being Batman has it?

[tcampbell1000]

It hasn't really done the legwork. The Joker makes probably the most convincing argument that he can in the space available, but it's not an argument that's backed up by actions: his or Batman's (unless you count how relatively easy it was for the Joker to take Batman out in #48, but that's a little too generous a reading even for me).

[lucean]

Yeah, and thinking on it now, I think that might be a partial reason for some of the reactions I've seen.

If this was a culmination of a story where we had, maybe at times even subtly, seen signs that Bruce's relationship with Selina is affecting him, then there would be so much more power here. Moments when Bruce perhaps gets distracted or isn't solving something because of spending time with Selina. Even some kind of a reaction from the city or something. Then it would feel like a logical conclusion that had prepared the reader for the inevitable.

However, what King's story has been how Bruce is even more effective now as he finally gets loving relationships, which I can't even, and Selina is so awesome that the duo are just unstoppable together. So in this situation for Selina decide by herself that happy Bruce can't be a good Batman does almost seem to be a general argument about heroes being happy as it removes the actual specific character and the impact on him from the analysis.

[michaelsaint]

(Facepalm)

[thanekos]

Somewhere, someone's won a betting pool.

[goattoucher]

A lot of people.

With the current trend toward -ending- marriages, who seriously thought that Bruce and Selena (or Kitty and Piotr) would actually -get- married?

To the man-child that is the average comic reader, marriage is not an beginning, but an ending. The end of their pet character getting down with a variety of sexy ladies. The end of their Waifu seeming available.

The end of freedom.

For the writers, it is the end of romantic tension. It is a permanent character change that limits what they can and cannot write. They hate this, so no element of continuity outlasts the current writer any more.

This refusal to let characters grow (on the part of the writers and readers, and the editors whose imperative, above all, is to sell comics) is why the quality of these comics is going down, in my opinion.

We saw some growth in the late 90's and 2000's, but the boss guys of the Big Two (Quesada and Johns) actively reversed character development in favor of older continuity, and our choice has been to get on the trolley or get lost.

Which is why my primary source of comics is SD.

[cygnia]

http://www.superstupor.com/sust02132009.shtml

[goattoucher]

If only...

I've been saying for a while: the number one enemy of nerds is other nerds.

We need words to distinguish between fans of different hobbies and the toxic people who shit on everything that varies from their expectations.

[an_idol_mind]

I mean, that's pretty much my problem with mainstream comics in a nutshell.

EDIT: To whine about this further...

1) DC spends a whole ton of time trying to build up a big character-changing event, only to wuss out and ensure that nothing changes at all. The story has no stakes, which leaves me wondering if it was worth telling.

2) Bruce Wayne isn't a child. While he's a bit messed up, he's shown the ability to think and reason on an adult level, both emotionally and intellectually. The idea that a childhood trauma keeps somebody a child is not a good rabbit hole to go down.

3) Again the BS that heroes aren't really heroic if they don't make sacrifices. This gets trotted all over superhero comics, and it really sucks. Sorry everybody who's ever done something heroic without seeing their parents get shot by a mugger - you're not real heroes.

[janegray]

So much word to all of these.

[lucean]

Counterarguments:

1) This is a bit more difficult to argue against, but technically isolated storyarcs with these characters can be good even if they return to the status quo at least if they say something about the characters. That is why Snyder's run is so good from my perspective as even if Superheavy ends with Bruce Wayne being Batman again, at least the journey there was an extremely affecting, for me at least, story about the cost of being Batman and the sacrifice it requires.

However, I have to admit that I find it difficult to defend this story from that same perspective as the whole thing has been about how much Bruce loves Selina, but then moves to the resolution without any agency from him. Bruce does not choose being Batman and making that sacrifice, someone else makes it for him. Thus story ends up not saying much at all about Batman except what a wuss he truly is.

2) I don't understand this argument at all. Bruce Wayne is not treated as a child, as you stated he is presented as someone who is an adult and acts in such a manner. He is also someone who is molded by a traumatic childhood event that set him on this path to create what he is now. That is very different than being presented as a child.

3) Again, Bruce Wayne didn't make any sacrifices in King's run, so this argument doesn't really apply here. But even beyond that is this then arguing that if you sacrifice, you aren't heroic? Is Bruce Wayne to you somehow less heroic by sacrificing his own happiness or ability for a normal life in order to save others and give them hope in the darkness? Note that I didn't comment at all on other forms of heroism, rather that I don't understand this simplifying, zero-sum, one-size-fits all, approach to heroism this argument represents.

Hell, even in the Bat-canon you have both Jim Gordon and Dick Grayson, both who are represented as big as heroes as Bruce despite still maintaining that capability for happiness or not being driven by childhood trauma. There's nothing wrong with Batman is a tragedy approach, especially since that has been such a component on him becoming an iconic character. If you like something else, that's great, then there's Nightwing or Captain America out there to read instead.

[icon_uk]

As regards "2."

“You’re still a child, Bruce. A hurt child.” is a quote from Selina in the issue, so she is certainly stating that that is how she views him.

[lucean]

My argument on point 2 was on more general terms than King's stuff here as I don't know if I could defend King's run on any level.

Also that line does weirdly echo how King himself does seem to view Bruce considering how ineffectual and easily manipulated his version of Batman is.

[owlbrigade1]

DC going for the 2018 "most predictable twist" award again? Frankly it would have been a bigger twist if they'd actually gone through with it.

[coldfury]

Yeah, this ending is just a huge waste of time. There wasn't even a good story that showed her coming to this realization. This entire thing is just a waste now.

Batman & Catwoman getting married, that would've been bold. That would've driven the story to new places. This is boring, stale, and it makes everything that comes before it lesser for existing. Poor move, DC. Poor move.

[an_idol_mind]

On the bright side, I guess it saves Catwoman from being killed off in a year or two?

[goattoucher]

DC: Status Quo Is King!

[spider_man6]

Well that's just great!

Really, I was REALLY hoping that DC could circumvent Marvel's bait and switch with the X-Wedding, but no, they've got to just go and do the exact same things, spoil in in the New York Times TO SAY IT ISN'T HAPPENING.

I mean, it feels realistic as to why Catwoman says no (and more than Kitty and Peter's rushed decision) given that we had more time to prepare, but after all the buildup, I kind of feel cheated. This also feels like only one of DC's currently questionable decisions post-Rebirth, and I'm not a fan of it. (Like Robin going back to killing, for instance).

I'm just hoping that Bendis' Superman, the New Justice titles, and what else comes next can prove to be amazing.

[zachbeacon]

I have faith in King's abilities as a storyteller and will continue to read his run ... digitally ... when its on sale.

(Astro City is the only thing since Flashpoint that I still buy in print)

However I hope all of those "Prelude to the Wedding" One-shots are returnable for retailers because they just became worthless.

[icon_uk]

Worthless? You'll pry the prettiest Dick Grayson has been in years (In Nightwing vs Hush) out of my cold dead hands!

And Selina and Damian's interactions in his special were lovely.

[zachbeacon]

Ok, maybe just "worthless except to the half of the readers that want to ogle Nightwing".

Having a bunch of one-shots that lead into something that doesn't happen reminds me of fandom's general annoyance that "Countdown to Final Crisis" didn't actually have much to do with Final Crisis and sometimes even contradicted it.

[shadowpsykie]

All of which means nothing now that they didn’t go through with it.

[kore]

Ooh, you don't say.

[cypherfdp]

Thanks to the NYT for saving me some wasted time

[bradygirl_12]

Thanks to the NYT for saving me some wasted time.

Thanks also to DC! I was planning to go down to my LCS and buy Batman #50. Now I won't bother. They saved me some bucks. I don't see myself buying a wedding issue with no wedding.

I always hate spoilers, but I would've hated to buy this issue and find out no wedding. I would have felt cheated. I wonder how many people cancelled this issue off their pull lists.

Casual fans? I doubt they buy a wedding issue with no wedding, too.

[cyberghostface]

It's really obnoxious how the 'Big Two' does stuff like this. I still remember how they spoiled the end of USM before it came out. And if I cared at all about Spencer's Captain America having the culmination of his run spoiled ahead of time would probably annoy me as well.

[crinos]

Okay seriously, why do comic creators hate marriage so fucking much?

Between this, Lois and Clark's marriage being deleted in the new 52, One More Day, someone really has it out for marriage in comics.

I mean come the fuck on.

[locuatico]

You know? if this isn't some trolling from DC, then what annoys me is not even that they are not married, but how much they wasted everyone's time (and money...)

[crinos]

That too.

I mean, for fucks sake, at least let them stay married for a year or so and get some good stories out of it.

But considering the stupid Booster Gold story, and that stupid Joker in the church story, was there ever any doubt this was gonna be anything but a wet fart of disappointment.

[neverwherehere]

What I want to know is why no one is allowed to get married except for Rogue and Gambit.

I mean, I'm a huge fan of the couple, but their relationship eventually got so unhealthy that they needed to spend an ENTIRE MINISERIES in couples counseling in order to get anywhere.

[icon_uk]

Lois and Clark?

[deh_tommy]

Weren’t they split up in The New 52?

[john_wyatt]

They might be broken up right now, depending on whatever the heck is going on in Bendis' mini right now.
I concerned about what Bendis might be doing to Lois and Jonathan; I've enjoyed both of them since rebirth began. I don't want them broken up; I don't want Jon to lose his innocent charm. So far, I have no use for Jor-El.
I also fear that the cliche of having Jon artificially aged may be coming.

[mesmiranda]

Okay seriously, why do comic creators hate marriage so fucking much?

a) Happily married people don't create ~drama~.

b) Character growth and development--major life changes that stick--erase the characters we all know and love, and more importantly, the characters that make us pots of money. Can't have that.

(Please note that I hate both these tropes with a hate that is everlasting.)

[lizard_of_aus]

Happily married people don't have these writers ever seen a sitcom in their lives!?

[icon_uk]

Except most (not all, but most) sitcoms seem based around families which are at best, to all intents and purposes, dysfunctional.

The "probably well-meaning, but slobbish, set in his ways and indolent husband" and the "why did someone this smart and good looking settle on THIS chump for a significant other, never mind enable half their crap for them" wife is a staple of too many sitcoms to list.

The only reason these couples are viewed as "happy" is narrative necessity and them repeating it, rather than any visible evidence.

[thezmage]

They probably watched Home Improvement, that also spent a long time building towards a marriage that never happened

[alicemacher]

c) Publishers continue to stereotype their readers as pathetic, creepy losers who want to have a relationship but never will, and who would resent characters getting into a happy, committed relationship before they do.

[locuatico]

oh! you mean i don't have to give King's latter half of the run the benefit of "well, at least he married Bruce and Selina"? Great, aweome: everything after the fight with Bane has been downhill.

[speedingtortoise]

Well now I'm just sad :(

[lordultimus]

Ummm... At least Satan wasn't involved?

[alicemacher]

That'll be the next issue. :-I

[beyondthefringe]

Fuck all of this.

Fuck DC and Tom King for wasting a year's worth of issues on a storyline that doesn't even have the guts to go through with its potential, and which ended up spinning its wheels just so it could happen in #50, and which necessitated, somehow, a bunch of one-shots ahead of time which were equally pointless.

Fuck everyone involved for then proceeding to SPOIL the goddamned resolution days before it came out, just to make sure that not only was this a waste of time, but we don't even get the enjoyment of being at all surprised or satisfied.

As a reader, I feel rather letdown by everything involving this entire mess.

[neverwherehere]

I've been following this story since it broke and I think DC made a huge miscalculation since the vast majority of responses to this has been overwhelmingly negative. I've even come across responses from comic retailers who've said that they're seeing demand for Batman #50 dry up in real time.

Batman and Catwoman getting married was big. As in, it was up there with them killing off Superman in the 90s, big. This even made mainstream news.

DC is going to lose readers and trust over this.

[caivu]

I've also seen many people dropping Catwoman from their pulls/cancelling their preorders, so it's going to take a hit as well.

[kore]

Nooo! I love Joelle Jones and just put it on my pull list.

[tripodeca113]

Guess it saves them the hassle of undoing it.

[mesmiranda]

[lucean]

While I'm personally happy that the marriage didn't happen, not only because I utterly hate the pairing but even more importantly I think it would have caused issues with future creative teams, the way it is done here is really, really weird.

I think a partial issue is due to King's focus on presenting Selina as the perfect woman, which has narrative impacts like this, but I also continue to be confused on how little agency Batman really has in King's run. Like here, it doesn't really strengthen the tragedy of being Batman when someone else basically decided that you can't be happy while being him.

[akodo_rokku]

Mark Waid once gave Matt Murdock a message to deliver to anyone who thinks you can't be a hero without unhappiness and suffering, and I think it applies here.

[cainofdreaming]

You know, you only need three words to counter that whole "only personal tragedy makes heroes" thing.

Captain freaking America.

[jmacq1]

Yeah, there are actually a lot of Superheroes who aren't defined by personal tragedy. Very few with NO tragedy in their lives, but that doesn't really make them who they are/isn't the reason they do what they do.

[starwolf_oakley]

Even Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer were able to move Batman out of the "must avenge murdered parents" box.

[starwolf_oakley]

I've wondered about "personal tragedy" when it comes to Captain freaking America. Especially when Steve Rogers' backstory was changed from "Joseph Rogers died of alcholism" (Denny O'Neil and J.M. DeMatteis) to "Joseph Rogers was a wife-beating drunk who died of alcholism" (Rick Remender).

[arilou_skiff]

And I'm nto sure the Depression and World War II doesen't count as massive, worldwide personal trauma, personally...

[kore]

Steve has that whole Man Out of Time thing, though, and his endless guilt over not saving Bucky. Not to mention Civil Wars I and II and the murder-suicide with Tony.

[lucean]

Except this doesn't apply at all here. We are not discussing a generic hero or the hero concept in general. This is about a very specific character, Batman, and the creative vision for him specifically.

What makes me even more confused about this argument is that there already in the comments above someone brings out Captain America while another chimes in that there are heroes who are not defined by their tragedies. Which is legitimately good, but it also raises the question that what then is the issue here? Why can't Batman be defined as a tragic figure? Or is the stance that real heroes are defined by their happy, wholesome lives?

[icon_uk]

Because it implies that Batman can ONLY be defined as a tragic figure, when there's ample evidence that he's not.

He talks about being a tragic loner, but he's built a strong and loving family unit around himself over the years, moreso than any other single hero I can think of (We're talking soccer team sized numbers of sidekicks and allies). Yes, they argue and not everyone's speaking to everyone else all the time, but there's utter loyalty and love there too.

To suggest that he couldn't continue as Batman because he's married is just ridiculous. He's been able to operate just fine as a father all these years, why not a husband?

[lucean]

..Almost every successful Batman writer has viewed him a tragic figure. Even the beloved BTAS universe ultimately treats him as a tragic figure that ultimately ended up alone and carrying the cost of his mission.

As for the Batclan, that feels completely besides the point as unless the argument is that tragic figures can't work with other people? Also there are multiple stories that have established that even within the Clan, Batman does maintain a certain level of secrecy from others and takes actions/burdens by himself.

And, finally, on being married, that's not the point or the argument here. The main beat is that Batman can't be who he is if he is happy and fulfilled as being Batman is a tragedy. I disagree heavily with the way King tells that story as it fails to establish that argument despite it being his seeming end game, but as a concept there is nothing wrong with that. Even bringing up fatherhood is weird as the reason Dick Grayson is Bruce's greatest achievement is because Dick is able to do what he does while still having that capability for normalcy, that he did not become like Bruce.

Here's the thing. I don't think that every superhero should be a tragic figure and there are actually tons of them who aren't. At the moment, I'd actually argue the vast majority of them aren't tragic figures. Yet the tone of the backlash here seems to be that there is something inherently wrong about Bruce being a tragic hero, that being Batman is a tragedy. That I don't understand, especially considering the whole lot of major stories that have worked from that aspect.

[wizardru]

I'm old enough to remember when Batman WASN'T a tragic figure. There was a time when Batman being a driven, potentially mentally unhealthy obsessive was a fresh take, a new look. It isn't that Batman can't be a tortured, tragic figure, IMHO, it's that now it's assumed that it's all he CAN be. That Batman must be a jerk to everyone around him or that he has to be almost as broken as his enemies to be an effective Batman.

I mean, contextually now the argument is...well, you'd have to be crazy to be Batman, right? But that argument is put forth for many other characters, many of whom have similar circumstances. Spiderman is rarely presented as a borderline sociopath or that he must be one to be an effective hero. It's not that you can't do that, but I find the idea that its the only take for Batman anymore to be odd. Spiderman was still Spideman for 10 years while being married...it merely opened up different stories. The same is true for Superman.

I can understand not KEEPING Batman married, but I think a lot of people were really excited for the story possibilities this would have created (not unlike when Dick became Batman, for example). Just deep-sixing the whole thing feels like a massive rug-pull and a waste of time, especially after all the build-up to it. That's their prerogative, just like mine will be to not buy further.

[icon_uk]

DC's official statement about the leak (Which even pissed off Tom King)

Responding to complaints, John Cunningham, DC’s senior vice president of sales, offered a five-point response on a comics retailer Facebook group, explaining why the publisher spoiled its own event


1. DC Sales strongly advocated getting the news out ahead of the OSD, so that the Moment of Realization did not occur hours before events began. We even did our level best to try and spoil it here on this page over and over again (and failed). The NY Times article was posted here at 630 a.m. PST not out of “Pride” — please — but to get you the information as soon as we could.

2. In the abstract, we believed the news would break on Monday morning, given the arrival time of physical copies in store and the reality that a copy or a scan would end up being passed to uncontrolled comic book outlets (much like Marvel’s wedding issue last week and every other major comic book event in the lat decade).

3. As mentioned here before, any discussion about financial remedies for problematic DC product must occur after the product is on sale.

4. While The Times piece is more fulsome that [sic] some might like, it does not spoil the shock ending of the book for fans. We’re working on getting this posted here for you.

5. I stand by my belief that BATMAN #50 is one of the best single issue periodicals of the last decade, that it is a special moment in comic book history, and that if it’s not the book we (think) we want, it’s the book we need.

Hmmm.....

[informationgeek]

I saw that and I like some of the responses to it:

...it is a special moment in comic book history, and that if it’s not the book we (think) we want, it’s the book we need.

Exactly the kind of terminology I've known Marvel's writers to have used to justify really lousy directions for characters.


Also...

To an extent, I understand what he's saying on Point 1 (e.g. the Catwoman 1 cover sure makes the idea of the wedding happening a bit suspect, the post Batman 50 and Catwoman solicitations sure read like a pair of unmarried heroes, etc.), but it's by and large an out-of-touch-with-reality statement. You didn't want people to go into the shop thinking they were buying a wedding issue, but you sent out invitations to every comic shop, solicited a Deluxe Wedding Album (spoiler alert: few people make wedding albums of their aborted weddings), created a pre-wedding mini-series, and used solicitation copy with the phrase "the Batrimony is real." That was Sales and Marketing's idea of trying to spoil the ending? No wonder it failed.

Does point 4 mean they're going to spoil the book more before it arrives? Just a guess, but I'd imagine they'll fail to do that right, too.

I think I'll enjoy Batman 50 a great deal, but that point 5 really makes my skin crawl. It's a special book that "we need," and we just spoiled the heck out of it, created a firestorm of (mostly justified) bad will with fans and retailers by mis-marketing it, and want to condescend to you about how you feel about it. Good job, DC.



Lastly, this pretty good response:
Sometimes controversial stories and plot turns are the right way to go, even when they're divisive among fans.

Not every story has to appeal to every fan equally for it to be a valid creative choice.

The problem here, regardless of how well or not well the actual issue is written, is the manner of the hype machine behind it.

DC purposely built all their promotion around the event of the wedding, not around the question of whether there would be a wedding.

They sold it as a certainty. Whether the marriage would last for a few panels, a few issues or a few years was unknown but it seemed very clear that there would, at least, be a wedding.

To pull the rug out from under readers who have invested so much time and money into following this storyline is a punk move. Not to mention what it did to retailers who surely poured a great deal of money into making sure shelves would be stocked for this historic event only to be left holding the bag. Maybe these issues will still fly off the shelves, I don't know, but it seems very likely that the air has been let out of the balloon and that a lot of fans will be taking a pass on this, either out of disgust or simple lack of interest.

Certainly, there's no one in the general public who's going to feel compelled to make a special visit to a comic shop to buy a wedding issue in which Batman doesn't actually get married.

[alicemacher]

"Shock ending," huh? Let's consider the possibilities:

1 ) As Bruce broods in the Batcave after his rejection at the altar, he receives news that the Joker has just blown up a building Selina was last seen in. Because he's blahaha eeeeevil. Sadly, I could see DC pulling something very much like this.

2 ) After hearing of the wedding's cancellation, one or more of the following shows up out of the blue to try and rekindle things: Talia, Vicki, Silver, Shondra, Zatanna. (Yes, I know; this is an incomplete list.)

3 ) Dr. Manhattan and/or Promethea turns up with some Earth-shattering news. For no other reason than because DC can.

4 ) Superboy Prime is once more trotted out as a metaphor for "ungrateful, entitled" fans "whining" about this outcome.

5 ) Selina appears in the last panel to tell Bruce she's changed her mind (again) and will marry him after all. The NYT article was just a big fake-out. (Sadly, this almost certainly won't happen.)

[thezmage]

6 ) The Selina that broke off the wedding is shown to be an imposter/brainwashed

[arilou_skiff]

What is the skrull/doombots/rogue LMD equivalent in the DC universe?

[icon_uk]

I did wonder about the possibility that this is a massive double bluff and the wedding WILL go ahead, but it seems to be being very badly mishandled if that IS the case.

[locuatico]

That only makes it MORE likely

[beeyo]

7) Catwoman won't marry Batman, but Selina will marry Bruce. They made a point of mentioning that Batman and Catwoman would be the ones getting married but not the other way around for *reasons*, right?

[janegray]

if it’s not the book we (think) we want, it’s the book we need.

My deep respect for the rules of conduct of scans_daily prevents me from replying with a row of gifs of flipping birds.

[shakalooloo]

#4: Shock ending, huh? How about, Bruce Wayne doesn't marry Selina Kyle, but Batman does marry Catwoman in some secretive Bat-marriage cermony officiated by, uh, Azrael?

[locuatico]

Point 2. I would argue that, in Marvel's case, it may have even benefitted them that the ending had been leaked. Altough that was probably because we still got a wedding out of the whole thing.
I for one, fully admit that discovering such a trolling ending was my one reason to actually bother and read said issue.

[thezmage]

This reminds me of the show Home Improvement. They built for a whole season the idea of Al Borland getting married, only to not get married because they just didn’t want to. I remember thinking at the time “if the hero’s sidekick can’t get married, what even is the point of all of this? It’s not like Al’s dating life is such a huge and integral part of the show.”

I really hope the follow up stories to this is Bruce wondering how he could be the world’s greatest detective when he almost married someone who knows him so poorly

[icon_uk]

In situations like the one you mention, it might be that one of the actors didn't want to commit to more episodes the following season and so the whole thing went kaput.

Plus I wonder if it happens more often than it doesn't. Just in terms of sitcoms, I'm thinking of; Friends, Frasier, even Everbody Loves Raymond who all did it, and even Al on HP DID get married in a later season

[thezmage]

Al was the sidekick on Tim’s tv show. I don’t think they even had a permanent set for his home, there was nothing keeping him from getting married and making offhand references to his offscreen wife every once in awhile. I remember non-weddings happening a lot on sitcoms back then, but this one I always thought was the most egregious.

[the_phantom]

DC: Look comics are a product for single people, bitter single people. Now yes maybe people in relationships like comics too, but we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.

[yap]

Part of me wonders if they’re trying to shake this crowd into watching the tv shows instead.

[rainspirit]

Ugh! Damn it! We can get Batman a biological son out of wedlock, but not a marriage?

I really wanted more stories of Bruce and Selina as a power couple, especially after that issue with Talia.