Yeah, I guess that's true, Johns basically said "we're missing history" but it would be a relatively colossal mis-step to dump everything N52 now that it's here, and I don't actually think that's the plan.

Except any chance of it being adapted by someone who actually understood it…

Oh, okay. I wasn't counting Harper because, well, she's Bluebird, and also Bruce rejected her.

Oh, okay. I wasn't counting Harper because, well, she's Bluebird, and also Bruce rejected her.

This isn't Landis's style at all.

The current characterization of Batman in the comics is "He's Jim Gordon in a robot suit", so I think I'm going to have to call your claim to expertise as false.

What a strange coincidence—every comment like this is where I stop caring what the person writing it has to say about reviews!

Even then, he doesn't seem to understand the meaning and implications of all the collective words in those panels.

His personal spin was a lot of stupid shit, including that.

It was indicative of the utter failure to understand his character, for sure.

Maybe they could finally pronounce his name correctly!!

Wait, wouldn't the fourth have been deleted? Or was she post-flashpoint?

With the ultra dark comic and brooding face, it was just—you completely didn't fucking get this explicitly described character, huh?

It most definitely did not capture the source material well, unless you're only invested in Gibbons's contributions.

So am I, famously so around the people that know me.

Significantly so, in that he's based on not one but two Kirby characters.

*Godzilla steps on the not-at-all-to-his-scale King Kong*

YES.

Thanos is visually a knock-off of Darkseid, but intented to more closely resemble Metron, character-wise (initially, anyway).

Nope.