I feel like the murder of the Waynes should always be a random act of violence, not something targeted like how this change implies it is. It's better for it to be a random mugging gone wrong, rather than an act of revenge.
I mean it might still be "random." It just might be a point of irony that the criminal that he saved b/c of his oath, killed him in a random robbery. That even Joe Chill himself doesn't realize that he just killed the Doctor that once saved him. It could make for a nice tie in to Bruce's oath to get vengeance and or stop criminals. Really drive home that Bruce takes oaths seriously b/c of it being a way to honor his father who always did the "right thing" even if it is at personal coast. But is it "personal" when your wife dies and you leave your sin behind. Just what IS an oath. It is all the more interesting if we the readers are the only ones who ever know that he saved Chill. I mean there is a story here if they work it right, while keeping the randomness of tragedy.
The thing I don’t like, is Chill isn’t (wasn’t) a monster, just a desperate guy caught up in circumstance. Him being some kind of “sociopath” doesn’t make sense with what we know. Bruce forgives Joe, even saves his life 2-3 times, and holds his hand as Chill crosses over to the afterlife. Making him some larger than life monster, instead of just a sad man caught up in petty crookery. It’s the one issue I had with ‘89 Batman, as dope as it was to tie their Destiny together, but giving the Wayne’s killer “gravity” in any form, I feel compromising to the overall arc/character development in the mythology!
Honestly, I've never liked Joe Chill being portrayed as "a monster" or hitman, or generally evil person. I much prefer that he was just some desperate kid who never originally intended to fire that gun.
I do kinda like how the argument that Thomas should have just let the boyfriend die because he was a scumbag mirrors the “Batman should kill the Joker” argument. Whether that’s intentional or not I’m not sure.
I personally like the Three Jokers Joe Chill subplot ending, strictly that Joe Chill survived to the present and became a better person, making it easier for Bruce to forgive him. It doesn't change the past, doesn't make Bruce's origin a matter of fate or contrived consequences, and shows how Bruce's core motivation is (at least now) one of redemption, of his city, of himself, and of his enemies. Vengeance and hate are in the end not what Batman is about, even if it started as an element of his pain.
Superman is about redemption. Batman is about vengeance. Joe Chill should not be saved. He should have a horrible ending, whether it was at Batman's hands, or just because he was a bad guy living in a bad world.
I've always appreciated comics following the rule "keep it simple stupid". Bruce Wayne having worn the Robin costume while working with, learning from, a Detective in his youth, Hulk becoming Hulk in part because of the Captain America Serum, are the kind of things in comics that made me groan. Bruce Wayne's parents being gunned down because of a random act of violence I appreciate. I also appreciate stories "hosted by" the likes of "The Phantom Stranger" or "Cain" ("House of Mystery") when they reveal a part of a characters past, but a part that the character never knew. As always thank you so very much for the videos. Also, as I've complained about since at least the 70s with my comic loving friends (I started reading comics in the 60s) I don't like how characters are seemingly eternal (with notable exceptions like Thor), and continue on (like Batman) for decades without aging, without growth, without consequences of physical events.
The one thing I'll give The Batman movie is that Alfred says it could've been Falcone ordering a hit, or it could've been a random crime. Telltale doesn't have that possibility.
They already did that in the 80s. Joe Chill died in Batman Year 2 and his son wants revenge on Batman. Why can't be just a regular guy? Keep it simple DC
@@gonzaloegonzalez8106 Or, have the Chill family show up...and they're just normal folks, maybe helped out by the Wayne Foundation, maybe they don't even know what he DID.
I don't feel Thomas Wayne saving Joe Chill changes anything, at least so long as Chill doesn't know Thomas had anything to do with saving his life or helping the woman her away. It's maybe some cosmic irony, but that's about it. Honestly, I feel the origin should stay mostly the same. At most, I'd update it for the change in time, but I don't think it should change much.
Agreed. If anything, it can work in a "you can save the person, but if you don't help to change their circumstances, did you really help them in the long run" kind of way that emphasizes how, when done well, Batman as Bruce does work to improve Gotham so less people have to turn to crime. The only thing I would change personally is to not make Joe an abuser, keep the crime as a desperate act of need and not because he is an inherently bad person.
But that's how it goes in real life a lot of the time. Sometimes people just get offed by random people in the street just trying to rob them. It was a realistic starting point
Golden age origins are generally like that. Superman's is too. 2 page backstory, now let's get on with the adventure. I think one of my favourite things by Grant Morrison is where he got Superman's entire origin down to 8 words.
One of the few things I liked from Batman Begins is how they handled the Joe Chill issue. Bruce knew who killed his parents and was planning to exact his revenge on him long before he even considered being Batman. But a series of unfortunate incidents conspired against him from the corrupt legal system to the organized crime families who offed the killer before Bruce got the chance to. It shifted the focus of his crusade away from the personal connection it had, now that it is gone forever, and outward toward the bigger picture of the whole corrupt system and how it needed to be brought down from its roots.
After knowing a (at the very oldest) 12 year Dick Grayson, 12 year old Jason, Tim at 13, a 16 year old (youngest canon age) Barbara, with all of those people now being adults with years in between them, along with have a young biological teenage son, the Batman is finally showing signs of age…. Guess he ain’t 25 forever😂
@ yes, it is true that Damian’s age was sped up, but that didn’t mean he went from baby to a pre-teen in a week. Years did go by. Son of the Demon (the graphic novel where Damian is meant to be conceived around) is during Jason’s time as Robin. Jason becoming Robin anywhere from 12 to 15 (depending on either using Post-Crisis or the New 52), and Jason being an adult by Hush. Things like Hush & No Man’s Land being stories that lasted for a year in canon. I bring all this up, because Damian is said to be 10 when he meets Batman, and he’s now 14 at the current time of this comment
Even better we find out that Joe Chill is actually an alternate persona created by Bruce in an attempt to process his trauma and shift blame onto someone else, and it was actually Bruce who killed his parents
The comic's "argument" is so dumb. Thomas is a doctor, he has to do his job. Eliminating criminals is not any kind of a moral obligation, or expectation, or anything.
@@TheEndKing would you kill Hitler if you could time travel? If so, would you not try to disguise it? The less investigation, the better. Poisoned French fries would do splendidly lmao
“First, do no harm.” Technically, it does less harm to eliminate a criminal who would otherwise go on to eliminate more non-criminals. “Kill 1, save 1,000. That’s what we believe, and that’s why we do it.” Honestly, one could argue the assassins from Wanted are more moral than doctors who save killers. 🤷♀️ You argue there’s no moral obligation there, but morality is subjective. On a large scale, it’s basically what society agrees on and that tends to become laws, regulations, or at least guidelines… but individually? It’s almost never completely identical what is the “correct” moral choice between any two people. Like seriously, take any 2 people in the MULTIVERSE, and give them 1,000 hypothetical scenarios where they need to decide what the most moral choice is, and they won’t agree. Probably even if they’re the same person from two different universe, or two different points in their own timeline. Even me from 5 years ago may not agree 100% with me now on all 1,000 scenarios, and I mostly don’t think people change without a strong external factor instigating it. 🤷♀️ and especially not over only 5 years where barely anything changed. So basically, we disagree there’s no moral obligation to eliminate criminals and that the comic’s argument is dumb.
This thread is getting dangerously close to the "should Batman kill the Joker" discussions with the same perspectives. I prefer my doctors not kill, because you never know what the future holds. He could be the next serial killer or he may end up saving the world from space aliens. (It's the DC universe. Don't rule it out.) The question is, do doctors have the right to decide who lives and who dies? Is that being a doctor or playing God?
I would prefer the "random robbery"-approach. It makes it more realistic and connects Bruce i. m. o. more with random victims of random crimes, than a (more or less) over-complex conspiracy. Sometimes less is more...😉 By the way, I LOVE your Batman-voice (also the Superman voice and so many more). And all your puns. Never change!😆
1:50 It's a complete waste of time to keep rehashing origins like this. His parents were killed, he became Batman to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone else. It doesn't need to be tweaked or redone in any way what so ever, it's so simple. Just mention it once in a while and that's enough. It's classic, timeless, and relatable and understandable. Imagine if in every Batman movie/game/etc., we got the origin sequence and it was different just because it's a new Batman thing. It is 100% completely unnecessary. Unless the character has a tech-based origin, no character needs a new version of their origin retold every 5 years.
Why does Thomas Wayne look like The Invincible cartoon's version of Omni Man? "Does it matter that Joe Chill caused Bruce to become Batman?" Thomas: "That's the neat part, it doesn't!"
I thought they were gonna go with "well actually, the *_*baby*_* is Bruce! Dun...dun....dum!!!! Gotcha, b!" But they didn't, so I will say thank goodness and call any changes they make _absolutely_ fine by me from here. It could have been _so_ much worse!
I also thought that. Can you imagine if they did that and kept the twist at the end. Batman fans would have a field day. Actually, I’m kinda shocked they didn’t do that.
Yes, same. Maybe because I was bracing myself for that, after the actual revelation I was like "ooh, so this is the change? It's not that big, actually"
Honestly, I think it would be kind of a good edition if done right. If he belived he just lost his child, it would make more sense not to kill Bruce. It can still be random whole still having that connection by making it a heat of the moment thing. If something would make Bruce question his moral code, having his father save his own killer would. Especially if Joe does become a better man after this, I think all this together would make it work. Shake Batman enough to create a story while not interfering with other things.
I don’t see this as a change/retcon at this point, it’s an addition the lore that Thomas and Joe Chill knew each other and hopefully it then goes away from the origin and maybe focus on Bruce investigating the Son of Chill? Mirroring their fathers
@@violagreene4643 a Retcon would be changing pre-existing information, the concept that Thomas was aware/had a pre existing relationship with Joe Chill has never been brought up before however the information being added doesn’t effect the pre-existing information so not a Retcon, However if it gets revealed that Joe Chill attacked Thomas for revenge for getting his Kid taken away then it would be a retcon
@@RyllArai the first use of retcon in comics was for All-Star Squadron. A series that added details to preexisting stories. An addition to continuity is retroactively inserted into continuity. Hence, the term retcon. If the original story did not include it, it's a retcon. With a little flexibility to "original story" to allow the creators to make revelations over a storyline.
I like origin changes that could be seen as "how it happened all along", like how Bruce Banner's mental state was used to add onto the original origin by having him only partially remember what Gamma Base was like and how people treated him. Instead of feeling like the original origin is taken away, I feel more like I'm seeing the events more clearly or from a different angle.
For me a origin story is something that you should be able to explain in a couple of phrases and always similiar for the character. This way you always have an idea about the character. Having said that, I enjoyed this story even if it reminds me a little of the manga monster. Edit: just saw she mention it
you can tell a unique story while still retaining the characters core origin its actually better to retain a form of similarity while selling us something new imo
The effectiveness of retcons is certainly debatable, but it’s fascinating how many times and writers have tinkered with Batman’s origin story. So many variations!
_ In the Batman Beyond comic(canon to DCAU), the guy that killed Terry's father is Jake Chill(Joe's grand nephew). As a child Jake remember how killing the Wayne destroyed Joe(everytime Joe look into the mirror he saw Bruce eyes looking right back at him) & swear to never be like his grand uncle. Jake got a job at Wayne-Powers & eventually became one of Powers enforcer, he was proud of himself that he moved up(sure he had to threaten people, but the armor does most of the work & he rarely had to get violent), until he meet Terry's dad who couldn't be threaten. The moment he pulled the trigger he knew he sold his soul to the devil. Since then every time, he closes his eyes he saw Terry looking at him(he secretly went to the funeral & saw the family of the man he killed) & whenever he look into the mirror, it's Joe's reflection he saw. _ Jake decided to be a hero(name Vigilante) hoping one day he could take back his soul from the devil. He even became friends with the new Batman(neither knew each other's real name) _ Until Phantasm(who has been secretly watching Terry's life) found & attacked him, then Terry after finding out the truth also turned on him,giving the Jokerz gang the change to kill him. This leaves Terry with a lot of conflicted feelings, he hates Jake, but he was friends with Vigilante & he is indirectly responsible for Jake's death
I don't know if they're going to go the route where they'll say Joe Chill killed Thomas and Martha because Thomas hid his child and wife from him but I'm hoping they don't. When I read this issue I saw it as addressing where Bruce gets his philosophy for handling his villains. No matter what he'll still try to save them just like how his father did, even if it becomes ironic and comes back to bite him. He'll always do the right thing. Although I think the most powerful version of the origin is where it's a "random act of crime" so Batman's war is not against a single person or group but all of crime itself, I actually don't mind the others that much and think there's merit to them. Even if it's someone who "put a hit out" on the Waynes and had them killed, I still think that's fine because Bruce is still trying to stop crime. The semantics of it really don't matter that much. The key takeaway should just be that Bruce faced a tragic loss to "crime" when he was young, and now he tries to make sure that never happens to anyone again. I haven't read the Nightwing sister retcon yet but that's what the Joe Chill's daughter thing reminds me of, which I'm here for if they do something cool with it .
Interesting analysis! I never saw the use of Bruce's eyes to scare off the killer before...Honestly, I'd prefer if we NEVER knew Joe Chill, but it was always some unknown thug who Batman never sees again. Martha's pearls predated TDKR, but was that the story that first made a big deal out of them? And my favorite Bruce's Vow scene has to be in Batman: Caped Crusader, where a wide-eyed, shadowy Bruce wakes up Alfred in the middle of the night like a creepy possessed kid...!
I think there’s room in the world for more than one interpretation of Batman. At his core, at least to me, Batman is a response to the cruelty of the world. An attempt to combat the darkness of the world so that people don’t have to be afraid of the shadows. Batman is like… the opposite of a ghost story.
I Genuinely like the Idea of Martha Dying because of a Weak Heart Attack, it kinda gives me the Idea that All it took is One Bullet to take a Thousand Life's and broke a Person like the One Bad Day thing you know. I mean just letting one Dies mean making others suffer the Feeling of Lost and i think it's just sounds more Poetic.
I think we over emphasize the importance of origin stories and that’s what ultimately leads to writers trying to reinvent them. Batman’s origin wasn’t revealed until later for the same reason as other heroes, it wasn’t really that important. Batman fights crime and saves lives. That’s the important part. Making it all about the Wayne’s adds to him character by giving him personal trauma to overcome, but it also locks him to a specific motivation that limits the mythos. It’s like how writers have tried to add to Spider-man’s origins but nothing ever sticks beyond a small reference. It’s not all that important in the grand scheme of things, move on.
On a lighter note, I thought that the Absolute Universe's take on the Wayne murders was fantastic. It keeps the core tragedy at the heart of Bruce's origin, what with his father dying due to a random act of violence which could've been committed by anyone, while also adding a more modern twist to the crime, as we sadly see public shootings happen far more often in the world we currently live in. In general, I like seeing alternate universes provide new takes on Batman's origin story, since they're different from the main universe anyway and thus any changes to the characters are essentially harmless.
Did this comic try to argue about whether doctors should kill patients if they are deemed unfit to live in society? I appreciate that the writer is trying to draw parallels to bruce and thomas, but it is weird that the comic implies that everyone would be better off if thomas let joe chill die. Depending on the time, Thomas could’ve convinced the girlfriend to press charges on chill and have the police take him away or detain him.
I think it's just playing with the idea of the consequences that comes with our choices whether it's right or wrong things will happen as a result of it. Thomas stuck to his morals and it unknowingly caused him his life.
Did not expect a mention of Monster in this video but I can see the comparison. I love that you mentioned it and I also agree it's a great thrilling series!
I mean I once had a passing thought if I ran a Batman show. The Wayne’s wouldn’t be dead but comatose. This meant to be something that puts Bruce into the same situations but give an interesting set up for the final season with them coming to while Bruce is Batman and how it may end his tenure as Batman or least act as a significant hurdle to overcome
@baron7755 i mean, surely people knew it wasn't that reason. I like to think people weren't that dumb to think the fight ended because they bonded because of the name and not the situation. That it was played for as a meme.
I think the version of "it wasn't a random mugging, the Waynes were targeted intentionally" is in the Telltale Batman series, because that one doesn't rely on the idea that Thomas was a hero -- in fact, it's because Thomas turns out to have been involved with Gotham's criminal underbelly, and he did some messed up stuff that Bruce never knew about. I really like that as a recontextualization; Bruce inheriting being a hero from his dad is kind of boring to me, but Bruce being a hero IN SPITE of his parents and the trauma he suffered is a lot more engaging. (Plus, they even acknowledge that the Waynes being billionaires at all inherently means they were realistically up to some shady stuff, outright saying that no one acquires that kind of wealth without making moral compromises, which I appreciate.)
I have several points for replied discussions. Dramatic changes in comics rarely work and end up reverting back to the way it was for a reason. Bruce Wayne's origin is so primal because it's relatable , despite the fact he is probably spoiled & a kid & has a quadrillion dollar's then breaks the mold goes to school, then dissappears for years to get professional ass beatings. Then Frank Miller, while not really changing anything, except Robin's a teen woman. Then sort of refocused & elaborated on the basics in a much more realistically grim tone . The Dark Knight Returns reintroduced the story in a wonderful way. Gotham can never not have a corrupt police force . This goes to Years One by Miller & Mazuchelli, which went back in time. This has always been my beef with Gordon & the cops. Professional cops who aren't all bad. Gordon is a seasoned captain. What's the first thing you'd do after, say, several months of attacks or sightings? Create a pattern? Then expand the search to gotham ^ surrounding municipalities a male between 25 through 40ish. With bank accounts in excess of 10 million $,give or take & a violent past & bring them in. Start there. That's just a peev of mine . As for the new guy ,I love the Battle twist & with Alfred. But after a while & if the old storyline doesn't somewhat reemrge I think ppl will go back to that safety net.Miller & Janson and then Miller & Mazuchelli darkened the character again & made gotham a character. So the Adam west show ,jumping ahead 20 some years the cave ,the car, made famous in the camp version, has been modernized for a new audience but still there. You can completely change the histories of anyone else in the bat family and the rogues gallery ,but not the court of owls, Ra's AL Ghul because of Talia unless Damian was an assassin by some other means and some other father,& the league. Bruce Wayne's origin ,his wealth, his palatial sanctuary in the cave & and his perpetually driving force of an alter ego bordering on mania at least & a functional dual schizophrenic at worst. It's all one huge safety net or comfort zone. As this storyline continues & I think it should it's a neat twist,but eventually usually new ideas in comics generally revert back. Anyway, any comments up or down always welcome. Thanks ever much
I don't think Batman's origin should necessarily changed (I am open to different interpretations though, especially outside the main cannon), but so far to me this doesn't feel like a change? Yes it could definitely lead to a change where Joe's on his own quest of vengeance because the Waynes helped his victims flee him, but so far it's just a neat coincidence detail that adds a bit of fun moral pondering to play with. Basically it's too early for me to tell, but I at least want it to feel like a random act.
"Monster" is very good, I saw the Anime. It's tangled (and long,) but good, and it does really work through these sorts of moral dilemmas. As far as this goes, I do feel that Batman's origin really relies on his vengeance being not focused on Joe Chill himself. I honestly think the way "Batman Begins" handled it was *excellent* - he planned to murder the man (despite the fact that he turned into a DA witness,) but the mob got him first.
This feels like in the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man movies they made his dad more responsible for Peter becoming a superhero. The specialness of a lot of these characters especially for kids and younger readers (it was for me at least) was that this could be you. You could lose your Uncle or parents to senseless violence. You could be batman or spiderman if you were in their place (and were super wealthy or smart etc). Thats also why i think its important that both those characters mission is to use their truama to try and help others and not seek revenge.
Or the editorial won’t let them have a future, which seems to be the case for Batman. It could be more complicated than that, but nobody seems to want Batman to move forward.
In comics status quo is god. Unlike manga that when on series ends a new one is always in line to take its place. Comics is limited by the characters they own unfortunately
Another great video, Sasha - the revisiting of Batman’s origin over the years is tired and (as you say) contrived. Just strikes me as Tom Taylor trying to get headlines rather than telling a story that needs to be told.
I loved this video! I didn't know there were that many origin stories. I believe I've only read three personally: the original, the "Untold Legend," and the Batman #1 version, in that order. I'm glad they revealed the name of Martha "why did you say that name" Wayne. It makes her seem a little more significant and her death a little weightier. But I don't care for some of the other changes. The Thomas Wayne batman costume seems contrived, and the kidnapped doctor plot makes it less of a random crime that could happen to anyone. I also prefer the lack of closure in the original, where Bruce never knows the who or why of the killer. It amplifies the senseless tragedy aspect, and more credibly widens the scope of Batman's vengeance to all criminals.
I think a lot of writers, but especially comics writers, often think something being more complex or interwoven is better by default. But comic stories often start to get so complex or interwoven that I think it makes the stories feel less real. Sometimes bad stuff just happens and sometimes there is no grand answer behind events and that can be itself interesting because it's a genuinely tough idea to process and come to terms with as a character.
I am at the very least happy to see any acknowlegements of Bruce's age, whatever form that takes. He should be currently in his 40s, canonically- this isn't up for rational debate. If that bothers you and you just NEED stories with a younger Bruce, don't be a coward, embrace Waid's world's finest approach and allow the world and stories in the present to progress, else we go the way of Amazing Spider-Man's attempts to freeze Peter as the world's biggest manchild.
Love the rundown of the history of the Wayne's deaths. When I first really got into Batman history that stuff was so fascinating to me, these specific issues. Bill Finger's narration, especially about the eyes is still haunting. As for the origin, I am always fine with changing stuff, I love Batman but I have so much Batman already. I don't need things to stay the same. However, this feels like such a small shift. We have already had the Wayne's killer be a hired gun or hinted at a personal motive several times. I get that this ties into the saving a life no matter what element, but like you said, Falcone already served that point WITHOUT making it about Bruce's origin. This feels unsubtle, like it is taking ways people have played with parts of Batman's origin and just shoving them together into one package. Also there is another story this current iteration may be pulling from/is deserving of a re-read in light of. Detective Comics 733 "Shades of Grey" which is during No Mans Land. Bruce is faced with a dilemma a la King Solomon and the baby (which leads to a great moment of levity) and asks Alfred for help. Alfred tells him a story about Thomas being in a similar situation, having broken into a pharmacy in the middle of the night to get meds to save someone. Thomas returned the next day to pay the man for damages, but the pharmacist extorts Thomas. It is so much smaller and less important than this dynamic with the abusive Joe Chill and the villain is not a guy who ever technically does a crime or ever could become a Batman villain. And yet I think it works better. The smaller, more pedestrian situation is necessary to drive home the point about who Thomas was and what Bruce's stance on helping people no matter what means beyond the big questions of killing Joker etc. It does all that without needing to bring the origin into it at all If the origin is going to be challenged, it should be like in Telltale where it actually challenges fans on what Batman is about. I saw so many people enraged about that twist because "it makes Batman meaningless" when....yeah that is the central question of the story. The change there inherently led to more stories, more examinations.
One More Day. Nah they were never married, people want a Spidey who is entirely different, sleeps on couches and wears a shirt saying "my feminist agenda". Thats what they want
Nope i hate it. Literally JUST happened with Nightwing too. " oh no his parents werent the target it was acyually dick thr whole time " AND HE HAS A SISTER 😱. So stupid when writers just retcon characters to try make their claim on their run
I agree Bruce's is odd, but I REALLY like Nightwings change. His wasn't meant to be a random act of violence. It was a mobster trying to extort money from a circus and you don't do that by killing the main attraction, but you still need to send a message. It's a simple change that makes their deaths so much more heartbreaking. Because it kinda was an accident. Parents trying to comfort their son by going first only for tragedy to strike (though from beyond the grave they have got to be grateful it wasn't dick that died). I will also say HOW Dick got a half sister is a bit contrived, but it's comics and I honestly really love her dynamic. Plus it's nice for Dick to just get a win like that and learn he still has family. He's had far worse origin changes like the whole Gray Son thing.
Interesting that this topic is brought up now because coincidentally it comes up on the new Arkham VR game 'Arkham Shadow' and it's well done there. If Three Jokers did something right, it was Joe Chill I think.
I find it an interesting wrinkle to the origin. Although it would have worked much better as a stand-alone story like they used to do in the Bronze Age (the best examples are Alan Brennert's work in Detective Comics #500 and The Brave and The Bold issues he wrote).
A while ago an issue explored the idea that Bruce was the one who begged his parents to go to the movies despite the fact his dad had to work that night. Out of guilt, Thomas took the night off. Something like that I think legit adds to Bruce's guilt and character.
I never understood/liked that Wonder Woman was Zeus' daughter because that would imply Hippolyta slept with Zeus. And, Hera is one of the major goddesses Diana worships; you will always hear her say "Hera, give me strength!" but, Hera would, going from mythology, *curse* Diana instead. That adaptation makes no sense, and we know Hera isn't a forgiving goddess like Artemis nor Hestia. I think, if they truly wanted to retcon her orgins and make her associated with the gods (be a part of their lineage), Diana should still be made from clay, but blessed by *all* the Olympic goddesses: Hestia, Hera, Artemis, Athena, Aphrodite, Demeter. By doing so, Diana essentially becomes fatherless, yet still possesses that divinity associated with her.
They could have been at least a little bit original and make her Ares's daughter it would have tied to the whole plot where she's the goddess of War. It would have also tied with the original myth where Ares the father of the amazons .
Never understood the too old for the job, being crippled or losing a limb. Like dosen't the justice league have alien tech and friends with Wizards who could just heal the person or prolong their life and don't they have cloning tech why can't they use that.?
@joshuajohnson413 that's another thing that confuses me? Can't you just put some of the goo in a container and keep some of the stuff on you at all times and use it like a stim-pack ?
I haven't read or watched Monster, but that reminded me of this other manga. Where this young girl sees her friend get run over and finishes her game before she starts crying over her friend. A guy saw her do this, and she ends up kidnapping him and locking him in her closet to keep him from telling anyone about her being a sociopath.
Honestly the best thing about the three jokers is how it handled Joe Chill killing his parents. I like that it was a random act, but one that was fueled by anger (Joe equating the Waynes to more of the wealth gap problems in Gotham) and then later regret when Joe Chill learned how great it people the Waynes were.
Joe Chill is still alive, completely unchanged, still murdering for pocket change, and Batman cannot find him because in Gotham that's so unremarkable that he's not even a cryptid. No elaborate conspiracy by any evil mastermind could be half as metal.
I feel that the random act is important not just because it's more universal, but because it's more cruel. It's harder to close the wound if there is no explanation. Batman job will never end because even if he kills every supervillain and mobster, random acts of violence can't be predicted avoided or controlled. He is a force of good against the chaotic universe.
So something that they could be building towards (I don't read the comics mind you, I watch these vids,) is that Joe may not have murdered them if it wasn't the Waynes. He would have still robbed and assaulted, but maybe the fact it was Thomas meant he snapped? In all, I don't mind them adding things, like it being a hit, as long as Bruce doesn't find out until he is solidly and definitively Batman. What caused the deaths during the robbery mean very little, as long as it doesn't impact Bruce's long term development. The only things that really matter are that Bruce witnesses the deaths, that his parents were generally Good People, and that it isn't a member of his true rogues gallery that does it. As long as the story generally hits those three points, you have a workable Batman origin. I added the third because nominally, it would make the interactions with that specific rogue a lot more tense, and stretch the suspension of disbelief that he wouldn't do something... hasty, even in his more set as Batman ways.
This is actually an interesting conversation to have in the context of “Under the Red Hood” and whether the joker should be disposed of when it comes to the question of if certain people should just die.
I've never read Monster, but your description knocked loose a memory of the show Early Edition which covered a similar dilemma in a much more optimistic, happy-endings-for-everyone manner. One episode, the protagonist has to choose between bringing a little girl to the hospital or preventing a plane crash. He decides he can't just leave the girl to die, but it turns out to be the right choice because her father was the pilot--the flight gets cancelled because he rushes to the hospital when contacted, so everybody lives. I doubt this comic is headed that way, especially given how hard it went on showing Joe Chill is a bad guy with the abuse angle. Plus, Thomas and Martha presumably have to die--unless the new origin is going completely off the rails. My own bet from what we've seen so far is it'll just be a way to pull the overused retcon/easter egg move of "everything has always been connected", with Joe Chill killing the Waynes because they hid his child, and Joe Jr. somehow turning out to be someone we already know--either Robin or a member of the Rogues' Gallery (just please don't be the Joker...).
I would be interested to learn if there ever was ever a "House of Mystery" style story that explained, if not Martha Wayne's necklace, then the actual pearls being cursed... Something should be written, maybe expanding on events from the "Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne" series.
I like the origin best when it’s a random mugging and the killer is never caught. The ‘this could happen to anyone’ aspect makes it vitally relatable. Then, Joe Chill never being brought to justice adds an ‘unsolvable’ element to Batman’s mission. For all the good he does he can never get justice for his own loss. But, I won’t get too bent out of shape if creators want to tweak things in some stories. Telltale Batman takes the ‘random’ aspect out of the story and I really like how different that story is.
The only thing I would change is Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT being so essential to the Batmany mythos as I hate the grim and gory elements that are now the biggest superhero cliche in comics. Enough already with all this depressing shit. Make Batman a great detective again rather than the ringmaster for a circus of nihilism.
As far as Joe Chill's name, I always figured that his mother didn't change her name, but that "Chilton" was their actual surname and "Chill" was his street name.
Honestely no just leave it the way it is, i didnt likr that they changed Spider-man's origin as a totem. Keep it plain and simple. Cause at that point it feels like a free for all to keep a well known popular character relevant and interesting when he is well know to a majority of people and even general audiences
Agreed. Although this is moreso a case of "It's a small world." like when they retconned Bruce and Kate to being cousins. The whole spider-totem nonsense actually matches pretty much perfectly the whole bat-demon nonsense with Barbatos around the same time IRL. And making Dick the Court of Owls' "Gray Son" is both of the above. I hate all of it. Stop it, Marvel/DC, I'm begging you!
I think there's one thing we can all agree on though: Mikel Janin's art is absolutely awesome. I want to see Booster meet Max Chill. With a name like that he'd decide he should be a rapper, and he'd take him back to the 90's so he could do a duet with Vanilla Ice.
The best changes to Batman's origin is Year one. I know it's not considered a change, but it really does feel like one given the symbolism. Bruce is almost dead after his first night out. He fails to make any change, and crawls back to the manor, contemplating letting himself die. But it's only after remembering his mission, and having the Bat crash through his windo that Bruce decides to live. The Batman mission, and the death of his parents gives him a reason to live. From that view, the Batman story becomes about rebirth. Bruce "dies" as a child when his parents are killed, and then is resurrected as the Batman at deaths door again in his 20s. It becomes a lot more tragic this way -- Bruce's trauma and his ability to succeed as Batman are the driving forces behind his life. Without out (as seen in TDKR) Bruce is a shell of a person. The implications of Year One's retelling is significant, but it's very subtle. It shifts our attention from the origin to it's place in Batman's life -- as something that transforms him and deeply hurts him.
With the title I genuinely thought the origin change would be Bruce being the newborn and the abusive dad Joe Chill. Now that would be a wild soap opera-level retcon
Watching this, for some reason I expected it to be something like the baby ends up adopted by the Wayne family and ends up it's actually Bruce! Making Joe Chill is biological father! Or something crazy like that. But they already did that kind of story line in Iron Man... Maybe the Baby will be someone that ends up walking down a darker path who gets stopped by Batman. But then Bruce steps in and helps that person take a better path than his father. I think that would be a nice turn of events to break that kind of cycle and give hope instead of the regular concussions.
I'm not really against stuff like this really. I could go either way if it's told well. But the problem to me is lately within the last dozen years or so the big two seem to want to add simmering huge to a characters origin/back story which will 'change things forever' but won't be referenced again and forgotten a few years later and I have a feeling this will be the same, forgotten in a few years no matter if the story is well done or not simply because of creatives wanting to 'change things forever'.
I like it best when the murder is random. Joe Chill should just be a guy. Here’s my pitch, starting with what’s presented here. Chill doesn’t learn that either of the Waynes had anything to do with his girlfriend and child apparently disappearing. But, when he randomly mugs them in that alley, he does recognize Thomas as one of his doctors, and he does harbor (harbour for Sasha) resentment for the hospital staff that must’ve had something to do with it. Maybe Martha gets tired of him playing the victim, and accidentally spills a couple (but not all) of the beans. Gun turns on her, Thomas makes a move, BAM. She lunges at him in a rage, managing to leave scratches on his face, reminiscent of a cat, maybe? (Good ol’ Freud.) In the struggle, BAM. Then we keep the panel of Bruce’s eyes over Chill’s face, and we’re out!
Well, my favorite version of the origin was the one from Untold Legend of the Batman. But that's because it's the first version I ever read (I either bought that book from a Waldenbooks or a Scholastic Book Order). And it had a lot of all that stuff in it. But Len Wein who wrote it seemed like he was trying to consolidate all the different Batman origins into one.
I understand what they're going for here and I don't think just saying "don't change the origin ever" works as an argument because change can be for the better but this just doesn't seem to add anything to the character, there are other ways of exploring how doing the right thing is necessary regardless of how it will hurt you or just in general, which is what I'm assuming this is meant to explore. It could surprise me but it just seems to not be worth it.
Control the origin, control the character, even partially. It's why we get "the real reason (X) happened". There might be a story there, but really they just want the ego boost to be part of canon and something writers after them are forced or even willingly use. There's a reason Joe Chill being a simple mugger on the wrong night has taken hold in iconography in comics and from the first time it left comics (this is where I again try to coax Sasha into reviewing the Super Powers team episode "The Fear", one of my favorite Batman stories) to today. It's simple and clean. It makes Bruce the victim of crime in general, not one specifically targeted to his family. Sometime comics try to hard to be complex under the mistaken belief that complexity is... I don't know, more sophisticated or mature, maybe. It can be silly but it can also be a mistake. Just let the random mugging origin stand. It works for a reason.
Firstly, in my head canon Bruce already has an "augmentation" to help him. We know from various media that when Bruce sees a new technology, or even an old one, he then adapts it for his own purposes. As far as I'm concerned, Bruce took a sample of the Lazarus fluid, analyzed the hell out of it, and created the world's most miraculously effective (and most expensive) wound treatment. So, in my head canon, The paralysis he and Barbara sustained never happened. He injected Babs after TKJ, and one of his "family" injected him after Knightfall. (Does it really make sense he'd leave the Batman's resources to a "troubled" adventurer [to continue Batman's war on crime] he had known for all of about ten minutes? Of course not.) As for messing with the origin, the earlier the story was published, the more sacrosanct it is. Revisions from the last few decades are highly suspect to me. This also includes minor elements like giving Thomas (or Jor-El, for that matter) facial hair. If Bob Kane (or his ghost artist) had wanted to give Thomas a mustache back in the day, they could have done so, but they didn't, so why should today's artists second guess them?
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Which superhero has the best origin?
Batman 😎
Spiderman. I like the idea of a good dude screwing up once and dedicating himself to not letting that happen again.
Ben 10👀
Quasar (Wendel Vaughan)
Batman, Nightwing, and Tim Drake for me, with Superman and Green Lantern close seconds.
I feel like the murder of the Waynes should always be a random act of violence, not something targeted like how this change implies it is. It's better for it to be a random mugging gone wrong, rather than an act of revenge.
I mean it might still be "random." It just might be a point of irony that the criminal that he saved b/c of his oath, killed him in a random robbery. That even Joe Chill himself doesn't realize that he just killed the Doctor that once saved him. It could make for a nice tie in to Bruce's oath to get vengeance and or stop criminals. Really drive home that Bruce takes oaths seriously b/c of it being a way to honor his father who always did the "right thing" even if it is at personal coast. But is it "personal" when your wife dies and you leave your sin behind. Just what IS an oath. It is all the more interesting if we the readers are the only ones who ever know that he saved Chill. I mean there is a story here if they work it right, while keeping the randomness of tragedy.
@@titheproven954 I think that would work better had they not made Joe as evil as he appears in this story though.
@@TylorHuebner I mean kinda. The drama comes from the idea that you hold your oath in the face of the greatest evils. Hence why the Joker lives.
The thing I don’t like, is Chill isn’t (wasn’t) a monster, just a desperate guy caught up in circumstance. Him being some kind of “sociopath” doesn’t make sense with what we know. Bruce forgives Joe, even saves his life 2-3 times, and holds his hand as Chill crosses over to the afterlife. Making him some larger than life monster, instead of just a sad man caught up in petty crookery. It’s the one issue I had with ‘89 Batman, as dope as it was to tie their Destiny together, but giving the Wayne’s killer “gravity” in any form, I feel compromising to the overall arc/character development in the mythology!
Honestly, I've never liked Joe Chill being portrayed as "a monster" or hitman, or generally evil person. I much prefer that he was just some desperate kid who never originally intended to fire that gun.
You point about Joe Chill is more of a modern tragedy which Batman's origin should be.
I do kinda like how the argument that Thomas should have just let the boyfriend die because he was a scumbag mirrors the “Batman should kill the Joker” argument.
Whether that’s intentional or not I’m not sure.
I personally think it's highly intentional.
7:27 “oh, gunshot…” was funnier than you probably intended.
Especially with the gunshot sound effect being added anyway.
17:35 - "It's adding, but it's not enhancing." This is such a such a perfect description as to why less is more for Comic book origins.
I personally like the Three Jokers Joe Chill subplot ending, strictly that Joe Chill survived to the present and became a better person, making it easier for Bruce to forgive him. It doesn't change the past, doesn't make Bruce's origin a matter of fate or contrived consequences, and shows how Bruce's core motivation is (at least now) one of redemption, of his city, of himself, and of his enemies. Vengeance and hate are in the end not what Batman is about, even if it started as an element of his pain.
This X1000
@@krisscott5342that was the ONLY good thing about that book.
Batman giving Joe Chill a second chance is probably on brand for BTAS Batman.
The majority of the book may have been hot garbage, but the stuff with Chill was legitimately brilliant.
Superman is about redemption. Batman is about vengeance. Joe Chill should not be saved. He should have a horrible ending, whether it was at Batman's hands, or just because he was a bad guy living in a bad world.
I've always appreciated comics following the rule "keep it simple stupid". Bruce Wayne having worn the Robin costume while working with, learning from, a Detective in his youth, Hulk becoming Hulk in part because of the Captain America Serum, are the kind of things in comics that made me groan. Bruce Wayne's parents being gunned down because of a random act of violence I appreciate.
I also appreciate stories "hosted by" the likes of "The Phantom Stranger" or "Cain" ("House of Mystery") when they reveal a part of a characters past, but a part that the character never knew.
As always thank you so very much for the videos.
Also, as I've complained about since at least the 70s with my comic loving friends (I started reading comics in the 60s) I don't like how characters are seemingly eternal (with notable exceptions like Thor), and continue on (like Batman) for decades without aging, without growth, without consequences of physical events.
Or even worse, are aged, but then had it reverted.
It should always be a “random act” of crime. It shouldn’t be like Telltale or The Batman movie where it’s mob-hit related.
Real
The one thing I'll give The Batman movie is that Alfred says it could've been Falcone ordering a hit, or it could've been a random crime. Telltale doesn't have that possibility.
In the movie it is left ambiguous, there is no clear answer.
folks hate on pattinson batman for the dumbest reasons
Nah, Batman's crusade is against all crime in Gotham City. Having his parents be victims of a mob hit doesn't change that in the slightest.
I'm pretty sure it's gonna be revealed that Joe Chill's kid is the new villain. The way I rolled my eyes when they revealed it was Joe chill, I swear.
They already did that in the 80s. Joe Chill died in Batman Year 2 and his son wants revenge on Batman.
Why can't be just a regular guy? Keep it simple DC
@@gonzaloegonzalez8106 Or, have the Chill family show up...and they're just normal folks, maybe helped out by the Wayne Foundation, maybe they don't even know what he DID.
I don't feel Thomas Wayne saving Joe Chill changes anything, at least so long as Chill doesn't know Thomas had anything to do with saving his life or helping the woman her away. It's maybe some cosmic irony, but that's about it. Honestly, I feel the origin should stay mostly the same. At most, I'd update it for the change in time, but I don't think it should change much.
Agreed. If anything, it can work in a "you can save the person, but if you don't help to change their circumstances, did you really help them in the long run" kind of way that emphasizes how, when done well, Batman as Bruce does work to improve Gotham so less people have to turn to crime. The only thing I would change personally is to not make Joe an abuser, keep the crime as a desperate act of need and not because he is an inherently bad person.
ngl it's kinda crazy how quick the origin originally went, like, "his parents are dead; any questions?"
well back then you wouldnt have had worthless people crying about how its ok his parents were murdered cuz they were rich and his killer was poor
But that's how it goes in real life a lot of the time. Sometimes people just get offed by random people in the street just trying to rob them. It was a realistic starting point
Golden age origins are generally like that. Superman's is too. 2 page backstory, now let's get on with the adventure. I think one of my favourite things by Grant Morrison is where he got Superman's entire origin down to 8 words.
One of the few things I liked from Batman Begins is how they handled the Joe Chill issue. Bruce knew who killed his parents and was planning to exact his revenge on him long before he even considered being Batman. But a series of unfortunate incidents conspired against him from the corrupt legal system to the organized crime families who offed the killer before Bruce got the chance to. It shifted the focus of his crusade away from the personal connection it had, now that it is gone forever, and outward toward the bigger picture of the whole corrupt system and how it needed to be brought down from its roots.
After knowing a (at the very oldest) 12 year Dick Grayson, 12 year old Jason, Tim at 13, a 16 year old (youngest canon age) Barbara, with all of those people now being adults with years in between them, along with have a young biological teenage son, the Batman is finally showing signs of age….
Guess he ain’t 25 forever😂
as lond as I remember Damien had his age speedup growing up
he seems 13 but he is somewhat younger
maybe it was changed i dunno
@ yes, it is true that Damian’s age was sped up, but that didn’t mean he went from baby to a pre-teen in a week. Years did go by. Son of the Demon (the graphic novel where Damian is meant to be conceived around) is during Jason’s time as Robin. Jason becoming Robin anywhere from 12 to 15 (depending on either using Post-Crisis or the New 52), and Jason being an adult by Hush. Things like Hush & No Man’s Land being stories that lasted for a year in canon.
I bring all this up, because Damian is said to be 10 when he meets Batman, and he’s now 14 at the current time of this comment
Just wait until the next crisis and we find out Joe Chill is actually Bruce’s Dad
Even better we find out that Joe Chill is actually an alternate persona created by Bruce in an attempt to process his trauma and shift blame onto someone else, and it was actually Bruce who killed his parents
@@negligible_reality not Morrison Batman of Zur-En-Arrh electric boogaloo! 😂
It'll be Joe Chill as the jealous lover of Martha who refused to leave Thomas Wayne. Bruce is secretly his child instead of Thomas. 😆
SSSHHH!!! DAMMIT guys, they'll HEAR you... 😂
@@negligible_realityI think there’s a one shot comic about that actually, I don’t remember the name though
Max Chill has to be a henchman for Mr Freeze! 😂
The comic's "argument" is so dumb. Thomas is a doctor, he has to do his job. Eliminating criminals is not any kind of a moral obligation, or expectation, or anything.
"You're a fry cook, Jimmy. Why didn't you poison Fidel Castro's fries?"
@@TheEndKing would you kill Hitler if you could time travel? If so, would you not try to disguise it? The less investigation, the better. Poisoned French fries would do splendidly lmao
“First, do no harm.” Technically, it does less harm to eliminate a criminal who would otherwise go on to eliminate more non-criminals. “Kill 1, save 1,000. That’s what we believe, and that’s why we do it.” Honestly, one could argue the assassins from Wanted are more moral than doctors who save killers. 🤷♀️
You argue there’s no moral obligation there, but morality is subjective. On a large scale, it’s basically what society agrees on and that tends to become laws, regulations, or at least guidelines… but individually? It’s almost never completely identical what is the “correct” moral choice between any two people. Like seriously, take any 2 people in the MULTIVERSE, and give them 1,000 hypothetical scenarios where they need to decide what the most moral choice is, and they won’t agree. Probably even if they’re the same person from two different universe, or two different points in their own timeline. Even me from 5 years ago may not agree 100% with me now on all 1,000 scenarios, and I mostly don’t think people change without a strong external factor instigating it. 🤷♀️ and especially not over only 5 years where barely anything changed.
So basically, we disagree there’s no moral obligation to eliminate criminals and that the comic’s argument is dumb.
This thread is getting dangerously close to the "should Batman kill the Joker" discussions with the same perspectives. I prefer my doctors not kill, because you never know what the future holds. He could be the next serial killer or he may end up saving the world from space aliens. (It's the DC universe. Don't rule it out.) The question is, do doctors have the right to decide who lives and who dies? Is that being a doctor or playing God?
@@ShadowWingTronix or it sounds like some wannabe Light Yagami’s preemptively justifying using the Death Note
Sasha: Should Batman’s Origin Be Changed?
Me: No.
Ah, but what if Bruce Wayne was bitten by a radioactive bat? That origin would be marvelous!
I swear I thought you were going to tell us that Thomas adopted that woman's baby and called him Bruce. Now THAT would've been an origin change 🥲
"Leave her alon...uh uh gunshot!"
Goddamn I am crying laughing rn from that read! 😂
I would prefer the "random robbery"-approach. It makes it more realistic and connects Bruce i. m. o. more with random victims of random crimes, than a (more or less) over-complex conspiracy. Sometimes less is more...😉
By the way, I LOVE your Batman-voice (also the Superman voice and so many more). And all your puns. Never change!😆
1:50 It's a complete waste of time to keep rehashing origins like this. His parents were killed, he became Batman to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone else. It doesn't need to be tweaked or redone in any way what so ever, it's so simple. Just mention it once in a while and that's enough. It's classic, timeless, and relatable and understandable. Imagine if in every Batman movie/game/etc., we got the origin sequence and it was different just because it's a new Batman thing.
It is 100% completely unnecessary.
Unless the character has a tech-based origin, no character needs a new version of their origin retold every 5 years.
Yeah, let’s tell stories, quit adding to, let’s have Batman investigate a crime, fight a bad guy, actual villains
Why does Thomas Wayne look like The Invincible cartoon's version of Omni Man?
"Does it matter that Joe Chill caused Bruce to become Batman?"
Thomas: "That's the neat part, it doesn't!"
I thought they were gonna go with "well actually, the *_*baby*_* is Bruce! Dun...dun....dum!!!! Gotcha, b!" But they didn't, so I will say thank goodness and call any changes they make _absolutely_ fine by me from here.
It could have been _so_ much worse!
See, I thought that's where this was going too, but I ALSO thought the abusive BF was gonna be Joe KERR, not Chill.
I also thought that. Can you imagine if they did that and kept the twist at the end. Batman fans would have a field day. Actually, I’m kinda shocked they didn’t do that.
Yes, same. Maybe because I was bracing myself for that, after the actual revelation I was like "ooh, so this is the change? It's not that big, actually"
JFC, you really know how to find the worst in situation, dontcha!
Honestly, I think it would be kind of a good edition if done right. If he belived he just lost his child, it would make more sense not to kill Bruce. It can still be random whole still having that connection by making it a heat of the moment thing. If something would make Bruce question his moral code, having his father save his own killer would. Especially if Joe does become a better man after this, I think all this together would make it work.
Shake Batman enough to create a story while not interfering with other things.
I don’t see this as a change/retcon at this point, it’s an addition the lore that Thomas and Joe Chill knew each other and hopefully it then goes away from the origin and maybe focus on Bruce investigating the Son of Chill? Mirroring their fathers
An addition is still a retcon.
@@violagreene4643 a Retcon would be changing pre-existing information, the concept that Thomas was aware/had a pre existing relationship with Joe Chill has never been brought up before however the information being added doesn’t effect the pre-existing information so not a Retcon, However if it gets revealed that Joe Chill attacked Thomas for revenge for getting his Kid taken away then it would be a retcon
@@RyllArai the first use of retcon in comics was for All-Star Squadron. A series that added details to preexisting stories. An addition to continuity is retroactively inserted into continuity. Hence, the term retcon. If the original story did not include it, it's a retcon. With a little flexibility to "original story" to allow the creators to make revelations over a storyline.
I like origin changes that could be seen as "how it happened all along", like how Bruce Banner's mental state was used to add onto the original origin by having him only partially remember what Gamma Base was like and how people treated him. Instead of feeling like the original origin is taken away, I feel more like I'm seeing the events more clearly or from a different angle.
For me a origin story is something that you should be able to explain in a couple of phrases and always similiar for the character. This way you always have an idea about the character. Having said that, I enjoyed this story even if it reminds me a little of the manga monster.
Edit: just saw she mention it
you can tell a unique story while still retaining the characters core origin its actually better to retain a form of similarity while selling us something new imo
His origins should not be changed its literally central to his character
The effectiveness of retcons is certainly debatable, but it’s fascinating how many times and writers have tinkered with Batman’s origin story. So many variations!
_ In the Batman Beyond comic(canon to DCAU), the guy that killed Terry's father is Jake Chill(Joe's grand nephew). As a child Jake remember how killing the Wayne destroyed Joe(everytime Joe look into the mirror he saw Bruce eyes looking right back at him) & swear to never be like his grand uncle. Jake got a job at Wayne-Powers & eventually became one of Powers enforcer, he was proud of himself that he moved up(sure he had to threaten people, but the armor does most of the work & he rarely had to get violent), until he meet Terry's dad who couldn't be threaten. The moment he pulled the trigger he knew he sold his soul to the devil. Since then every time, he closes his eyes he saw Terry looking at him(he secretly went to the funeral & saw the family of the man he killed) & whenever he look into the mirror, it's Joe's reflection he saw.
_ Jake decided to be a hero(name Vigilante) hoping one day he could take back his soul from the devil. He even became friends with the new Batman(neither knew each other's real name)
_ Until Phantasm(who has been secretly watching Terry's life) found & attacked him, then Terry after finding out the truth also turned on him,giving the Jokerz gang the change to kill him. This leaves Terry with a lot of conflicted feelings, he hates Jake, but he was friends with Vigilante & he is indirectly responsible for Jake's death
I don't know if they're going to go the route where they'll say Joe Chill killed Thomas and Martha because Thomas hid his child and wife from him but I'm hoping they don't. When I read this issue I saw it as addressing where Bruce gets his philosophy for handling his villains. No matter what he'll still try to save them just like how his father did, even if it becomes ironic and comes back to bite him. He'll always do the right thing. Although I think the most powerful version of the origin is where it's a "random act of crime" so Batman's war is not against a single person or group but all of crime itself, I actually don't mind the others that much and think there's merit to them. Even if it's someone who "put a hit out" on the Waynes and had them killed, I still think that's fine because Bruce is still trying to stop crime. The semantics of it really don't matter that much. The key takeaway should just be that Bruce faced a tragic loss to "crime" when he was young, and now he tries to make sure that never happens to anyone again. I haven't read the Nightwing sister retcon yet but that's what the Joe Chill's daughter thing reminds me of, which I'm here for if they do something cool with it .
Interesting analysis! I never saw the use of Bruce's eyes to scare off the killer before...Honestly, I'd prefer if we NEVER knew Joe Chill, but it was always some unknown thug who Batman never sees again.
Martha's pearls predated TDKR, but was that the story that first made a big deal out of them? And my favorite Bruce's Vow scene has to be in Batman: Caped Crusader, where a wide-eyed, shadowy Bruce wakes up Alfred in the middle of the night like a creepy possessed kid...!
Yup. The pearls were Millers addition
I think there’s room in the world for more than one interpretation of Batman. At his core, at least to me, Batman is a response to the cruelty of the world. An attempt to combat the darkness of the world so that people don’t have to be afraid of the shadows.
Batman is like… the opposite of a ghost story.
Then put it in an elseworld and don't change established canon
Batman to Hal Jordan: "Your ring, My steroids. We're the same you and I"
I Genuinely like the Idea of Martha Dying because of a Weak Heart Attack, it kinda gives me the Idea that All it took is One Bullet to take a Thousand Life's and broke a Person like the One Bad Day thing you know. I mean just letting one Dies mean making others suffer the Feeling of Lost and i think it's just sounds more Poetic.
I think we over emphasize the importance of origin stories and that’s what ultimately leads to writers trying to reinvent them.
Batman’s origin wasn’t revealed until later for the same reason as other heroes, it wasn’t really that important. Batman fights crime and saves lives. That’s the important part. Making it all about the Wayne’s adds to him character by giving him personal trauma to overcome, but it also locks him to a specific motivation that limits the mythos.
It’s like how writers have tried to add to Spider-man’s origins but nothing ever sticks beyond a small reference. It’s not all that important in the grand scheme of things, move on.
Sasha, I am amazed about how impressed you were about the drawing of the baby
On a lighter note, I thought that the Absolute Universe's take on the Wayne murders was fantastic. It keeps the core tragedy at the heart of Bruce's origin, what with his father dying due to a random act of violence which could've been committed by anyone, while also adding a more modern twist to the crime, as we sadly see public shootings happen far more often in the world we currently live in. In general, I like seeing alternate universes provide new takes on Batman's origin story, since they're different from the main universe anyway and thus any changes to the characters are essentially harmless.
Did this comic try to argue about whether doctors should kill patients if they are deemed unfit to live in society? I appreciate that the writer is trying to draw parallels to bruce and thomas, but it is weird that the comic implies that everyone would be better off if thomas let joe chill die. Depending on the time, Thomas could’ve convinced the girlfriend to press charges on chill and have the police take him away or detain him.
I think it's just playing with the idea of the consequences that comes with our choices whether it's right or wrong things will happen as a result of it.
Thomas stuck to his morals and it unknowingly caused him his life.
Did not expect a mention of Monster in this video but I can see the comparison. I love that you mentioned it and I also agree it's a great thrilling series!
I mean I once had a passing thought if I ran a Batman show. The Wayne’s wouldn’t be dead but comatose. This meant to be something that puts Bruce into the same situations but give an interesting set up for the final season with them coming to while Bruce is Batman and how it may end his tenure as Batman or least act as a significant hurdle to overcome
"Why did you say that name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Ugggg why did they think that would go over well?
Honestly, if the ones before it were better than that line would have worked. It just needed better setup
Because they didn't expect people to troll by gaslighting others by saying it was because their moms have the same name.
@@aurahoneydew9607 what?
@baron7755 i mean, surely people knew it wasn't that reason. I like to think people weren't that dumb to think the fight ended because they bonded because of the name and not the situation. That it was played for as a meme.
@@aurahoneydew9607 what are you saying the reason was, then?
I love how we go serious scholarly wig for this one.
I think the version of "it wasn't a random mugging, the Waynes were targeted intentionally" is in the Telltale Batman series, because that one doesn't rely on the idea that Thomas was a hero -- in fact, it's because Thomas turns out to have been involved with Gotham's criminal underbelly, and he did some messed up stuff that Bruce never knew about. I really like that as a recontextualization; Bruce inheriting being a hero from his dad is kind of boring to me, but Bruce being a hero IN SPITE of his parents and the trauma he suffered is a lot more engaging.
(Plus, they even acknowledge that the Waynes being billionaires at all inherently means they were realistically up to some shady stuff, outright saying that no one acquires that kind of wealth without making moral compromises, which I appreciate.)
wait I forgot the phrase "my favorite version" I feel very silly
I have several points for replied discussions. Dramatic changes in comics rarely work and end up reverting back to the way it was for a reason. Bruce Wayne's origin is so primal because it's relatable , despite the fact he is probably spoiled & a kid & has a quadrillion dollar's then breaks the mold goes to school, then dissappears for years to get professional ass beatings. Then Frank Miller, while not really changing anything, except Robin's a teen woman. Then sort of refocused & elaborated on the basics in a much more realistically grim tone . The Dark Knight Returns reintroduced the story in a wonderful way. Gotham can never not have a corrupt police force . This goes to Years One by Miller & Mazuchelli, which went back in time. This has always been my beef with Gordon & the cops. Professional cops who aren't all bad. Gordon is a seasoned captain. What's the first thing you'd do after, say, several months of attacks or sightings? Create a pattern? Then expand the search to gotham ^ surrounding municipalities a male between 25 through 40ish. With bank accounts in excess of 10 million $,give or take & a violent past & bring them in. Start there. That's just a peev of mine . As for the new guy ,I love the Battle twist & with Alfred. But after a while & if the old storyline doesn't somewhat reemrge I think ppl will go back to that safety net.Miller & Janson and then Miller & Mazuchelli darkened the character again & made gotham a character. So the Adam west show ,jumping ahead 20 some years the cave ,the car, made famous in the camp version, has been modernized for a new audience but still there. You can completely change the histories of anyone else in the bat family and the rogues gallery ,but not the court of owls, Ra's AL Ghul because of Talia unless Damian was an assassin by some other means and some other father,& the league. Bruce Wayne's origin ,his wealth, his palatial sanctuary in the cave & and his perpetually driving force of an alter ego bordering on mania at least & a functional dual schizophrenic at worst. It's all one huge safety net or comfort zone. As this storyline continues & I think it should it's a neat twist,but eventually usually new ideas in comics generally revert back. Anyway, any comments up or down always welcome. Thanks ever much
I don't think Batman's origin should necessarily changed (I am open to different interpretations though, especially outside the main cannon), but so far to me this doesn't feel like a change? Yes it could definitely lead to a change where Joe's on his own quest of vengeance because the Waynes helped his victims flee him, but so far it's just a neat coincidence detail that adds a bit of fun moral pondering to play with. Basically it's too early for me to tell, but I at least want it to feel like a random act.
"Monster" is very good, I saw the Anime. It's tangled (and long,) but good, and it does really work through these sorts of moral dilemmas.
As far as this goes, I do feel that Batman's origin really relies on his vengeance being not focused on Joe Chill himself. I honestly think the way "Batman Begins" handled it was *excellent* - he planned to murder the man (despite the fact that he turned into a DA witness,) but the mob got him first.
This feels like in the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man movies they made his dad more responsible for Peter becoming a superhero. The specialness of a lot of these characters especially for kids and younger readers (it was for me at least) was that this could be you. You could lose your Uncle or parents to senseless violence. You could be batman or spiderman if you were in their place (and were super wealthy or smart etc). Thats also why i think its important that both those characters mission is to use their truama to try and help others and not seek revenge.
Writers retcon a character’s past when they run out of ideas for the character’s future
Or the editorial won’t let them have a future, which seems to be the case for Batman. It could be more complicated than that, but nobody seems to want Batman to move forward.
Doctor Who says "Hi!"😒
@@hunterfogleman7443 He can join Spider-Man in the corner.
In comics status quo is god. Unlike manga that when on series ends a new one is always in line to take its place. Comics is limited by the characters they own unfortunately
Another great video, Sasha - the revisiting of Batman’s origin over the years is tired and (as you say) contrived. Just strikes me as Tom Taylor trying to get headlines rather than telling a story that needs to be told.
thank you for making these videos. they are so wonderfully watchable.
I loved this video! I didn't know there were that many origin stories. I believe I've only read three personally: the original, the "Untold Legend," and the Batman #1 version, in that order. I'm glad they revealed the name of Martha "why did you say that name" Wayne. It makes her seem a little more significant and her death a little weightier. But I don't care for some of the other changes. The Thomas Wayne batman costume seems contrived, and the kidnapped doctor plot makes it less of a random crime that could happen to anyone. I also prefer the lack of closure in the original, where Bruce never knows the who or why of the killer. It amplifies the senseless tragedy aspect, and more credibly widens the scope of Batman's vengeance to all criminals.
I think a lot of writers, but especially comics writers, often think something being more complex or interwoven is better by default. But comic stories often start to get so complex or interwoven that I think it makes the stories feel less real. Sometimes bad stuff just happens and sometimes there is no grand answer behind events and that can be itself interesting because it's a genuinely tough idea to process and come to terms with as a character.
I am at the very least happy to see any acknowlegements of Bruce's age, whatever form that takes. He should be currently in his 40s, canonically- this isn't up for rational debate. If that bothers you and you just NEED stories with a younger Bruce, don't be a coward, embrace Waid's world's finest approach and allow the world and stories in the present to progress, else we go the way of Amazing Spider-Man's attempts to freeze Peter as the world's biggest manchild.
Love the rundown of the history of the Wayne's deaths. When I first really got into Batman history that stuff was so fascinating to me, these specific issues. Bill Finger's narration, especially about the eyes is still haunting. As for the origin, I am always fine with changing stuff, I love Batman but I have so much Batman already. I don't need things to stay the same. However, this feels like such a small shift. We have already had the Wayne's killer be a hired gun or hinted at a personal motive several times. I get that this ties into the saving a life no matter what element, but like you said, Falcone already served that point WITHOUT making it about Bruce's origin.
This feels unsubtle, like it is taking ways people have played with parts of Batman's origin and just shoving them together into one package. Also there is another story this current iteration may be pulling from/is deserving of a re-read in light of. Detective Comics 733 "Shades of Grey" which is during No Mans Land. Bruce is faced with a dilemma a la King Solomon and the baby (which leads to a great moment of levity) and asks Alfred for help. Alfred tells him a story about Thomas being in a similar situation, having broken into a pharmacy in the middle of the night to get meds to save someone. Thomas returned the next day to pay the man for damages, but the pharmacist extorts Thomas. It is so much smaller and less important than this dynamic with the abusive Joe Chill and the villain is not a guy who ever technically does a crime or ever could become a Batman villain.
And yet I think it works better. The smaller, more pedestrian situation is necessary to drive home the point about who Thomas was and what Bruce's stance on helping people no matter what means beyond the big questions of killing Joker etc. It does all that without needing to bring the origin into it at all
If the origin is going to be challenged, it should be like in Telltale where it actually challenges fans on what Batman is about. I saw so many people enraged about that twist because "it makes Batman meaningless" when....yeah that is the central question of the story. The change there inherently led to more stories, more examinations.
Usually retcons don't do anything but diminish or undermine what made the original work great. Do I need to mention "Sins Past"?
One More Day. Nah they were never married, people want a Spidey who is entirely different, sleeps on couches and wears a shirt saying "my feminist agenda". Thats what they want
Thank goodness that was retconned.
Nope i hate it. Literally JUST happened with Nightwing too. " oh no his parents werent the target it was acyually dick thr whole time " AND HE HAS A SISTER 😱. So stupid when writers just retcon characters to try make their claim on their run
I actually like the Nightwing change. It's hard to get protection money from a circus if the star performers are dead.
Nothing tops what Stan Lee did with Peter Parker’s Parents😂😂
@@jordanloux3883you know, I hadn’t considered that. Maybe Tom was on to something
I agree Bruce's is odd, but I REALLY like Nightwings change. His wasn't meant to be a random act of violence. It was a mobster trying to extort money from a circus and you don't do that by killing the main attraction, but you still need to send a message. It's a simple change that makes their deaths so much more heartbreaking. Because it kinda was an accident. Parents trying to comfort their son by going first only for tragedy to strike (though from beyond the grave they have got to be grateful it wasn't dick that died). I will also say HOW Dick got a half sister is a bit contrived, but it's comics and I honestly really love her dynamic. Plus it's nice for Dick to just get a win like that and learn he still has family. He's had far worse origin changes like the whole Gray Son thing.
@@jordanloux3883yeah I always found that weird and dumb on Tony's part like the Graysons are the star act why remove them and bring in less money?
Interesting that this topic is brought up now because coincidentally it comes up on the new Arkham VR game 'Arkham Shadow' and it's well done there.
If Three Jokers did something right, it was Joe Chill I think.
I find it an interesting wrinkle to the origin. Although it would have worked much better as a stand-alone story like they used to do in the Bronze Age (the best examples are Alan Brennert's work in Detective Comics #500 and The Brave and The Bold issues he wrote).
"uh-oh gunshot!". Had me in tears.
A while ago an issue explored the idea that Bruce was the one who begged his parents to go to the movies despite the fact his dad had to work that night. Out of guilt, Thomas took the night off. Something like that I think legit adds to Bruce's guilt and character.
No. Batman's origin is iconic. They already screwed up Wonder Woman origins by making her Zeus daughter. There no need to fix what isn't broken.
They really need to retcon that wonder woman retcon tbh
I never understood/liked that Wonder Woman was Zeus' daughter because that would imply Hippolyta slept with Zeus. And, Hera is one of the major goddesses Diana worships; you will always hear her say "Hera, give me strength!" but, Hera would, going from mythology, *curse* Diana instead. That adaptation makes no sense, and we know Hera isn't a forgiving goddess like Artemis nor Hestia.
I think, if they truly wanted to retcon her orgins and make her associated with the gods (be a part of their lineage), Diana should still be made from clay, but blessed by *all* the Olympic goddesses: Hestia, Hera, Artemis, Athena, Aphrodite, Demeter. By doing so, Diana essentially becomes fatherless, yet still possesses that divinity associated with her.
@christopherfeatherley that's my headcannon
@@christopherfeatherley not to um actually, but that's just the original origin, right? or at least the pre new 52 one
They could have been at least a little bit original and make her Ares's daughter it would have tied to the whole plot where she's the goddess of War. It would have also tied with the original myth where Ares the father of the amazons .
Never understood the too old for the job, being crippled or losing a limb. Like dosen't the justice league have alien tech and friends with Wizards who could just heal the person or prolong their life and don't they have cloning tech why can't they use that.?
And don’t they have a pool full of magic healing goo?
@joshuajohnson413 that's another thing that confuses me? Can't you just put some of the goo in a container and keep some of the stuff on you at all times and use it like a stim-pack ?
@@hotfuzzy153 When you said stim-pack I assumed you meant a package full of stim toys and somehow I saw nothing abnormal about that
Is it me or does Thomas Waynes mustache look like the absolute Batmans symbol
Apparently, Rogol Zaar hired Joe Chill to shoot Tom and Martha Wayne. Rogol Zaar even gave Joe Chill the pistol and drove Joe Chill to the alley.
Oh bravo!
Don't stop the puns, Sasha. Never stop the puns.
Love your videos so informative to DC history.
I haven't read or watched Monster, but that reminded me of this other manga. Where this young girl sees her friend get run over and finishes her game before she starts crying over her friend. A guy saw her do this, and she ends up kidnapping him and locking him in her closet to keep him from telling anyone about her being a sociopath.
Honestly the best thing about the three jokers is how it handled Joe Chill killing his parents. I like that it was a random act, but one that was fueled by anger (Joe equating the Waynes to more of the wealth gap problems in Gotham) and then later regret when Joe Chill learned how great it people the Waynes were.
Joe Chill is still alive, completely unchanged, still murdering for pocket change, and Batman cannot find him because in Gotham that's so unremarkable that he's not even a cryptid.
No elaborate conspiracy by any evil mastermind could be half as metal.
I feel that the random act is important not just because it's more universal, but because it's more cruel. It's harder to close the wound if there is no explanation. Batman job will never end because even if he kills every supervillain and mobster, random acts of violence can't be predicted avoided or controlled. He is a force of good against the chaotic universe.
I'm not a big fan of everyone being so interconnected with coincidence. But they did make Daddy Wayne handsome.
Your silver age story are some of my favorite rewatch’s. I would love to see some silver age flash story’s.
So something that they could be building towards (I don't read the comics mind you, I watch these vids,) is that Joe may not have murdered them if it wasn't the Waynes. He would have still robbed and assaulted, but maybe the fact it was Thomas meant he snapped?
In all, I don't mind them adding things, like it being a hit, as long as Bruce doesn't find out until he is solidly and definitively Batman. What caused the deaths during the robbery mean very little, as long as it doesn't impact Bruce's long term development. The only things that really matter are that Bruce witnesses the deaths, that his parents were generally Good People, and that it isn't a member of his true rogues gallery that does it. As long as the story generally hits those three points, you have a workable Batman origin. I added the third because nominally, it would make the interactions with that specific rogue a lot more tense, and stretch the suspension of disbelief that he wouldn't do something... hasty, even in his more set as Batman ways.
26:54 YES! It is such a good series!! And I had that same thought, too.
My favorite Joe Chill story is Batman Adventures #17. You should do a video on it
This is actually an interesting conversation to have in the context of “Under the Red Hood” and whether the joker should be disposed of when it comes to the question of if certain people should just die.
I've never read Monster, but your description knocked loose a memory of the show Early Edition which covered a similar dilemma in a much more optimistic, happy-endings-for-everyone manner. One episode, the protagonist has to choose between bringing a little girl to the hospital or preventing a plane crash. He decides he can't just leave the girl to die, but it turns out to be the right choice because her father was the pilot--the flight gets cancelled because he rushes to the hospital when contacted, so everybody lives.
I doubt this comic is headed that way, especially given how hard it went on showing Joe Chill is a bad guy with the abuse angle. Plus, Thomas and Martha presumably have to die--unless the new origin is going completely off the rails. My own bet from what we've seen so far is it'll just be a way to pull the overused retcon/easter egg move of "everything has always been connected", with Joe Chill killing the Waynes because they hid his child, and Joe Jr. somehow turning out to be someone we already know--either Robin or a member of the Rogues' Gallery (just please don't be the Joker...).
I would be interested to learn if there ever was ever a "House of Mystery" style story that explained, if not Martha Wayne's necklace, then the actual pearls being cursed... Something should be written, maybe expanding on events from the "Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne" series.
I like the origin best when it’s a random mugging and the killer is never caught.
The ‘this could happen to anyone’ aspect makes it vitally relatable.
Then, Joe Chill never being brought to justice adds an ‘unsolvable’ element to Batman’s mission. For all the good he does he can never get justice for his own loss.
But, I won’t get too bent out of shape if creators want to tweak things in some stories. Telltale Batman takes the ‘random’ aspect out of the story and I really like how different that story is.
you cooked with this one, well done
The only thing I would change is Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT being so essential to the Batmany mythos as I hate the grim and gory elements that are now the biggest superhero cliche in comics. Enough already with all this depressing shit. Make Batman a great detective again rather than the ringmaster for a circus of nihilism.
As far as Joe Chill's name, I always figured that his mother didn't change her name, but that "Chilton" was their actual surname and "Chill" was his street name.
Honestely no just leave it the way it is, i didnt likr that they changed Spider-man's origin as a totem. Keep it plain and simple. Cause at that point it feels like a free for all to keep a well known popular character relevant and interesting when he is well know to a majority of people and even general audiences
Agreed. Although this is moreso a case of "It's a small world." like when they retconned Bruce and Kate to being cousins. The whole spider-totem nonsense actually matches pretty much perfectly the whole bat-demon nonsense with Barbatos around the same time IRL. And making Dick the Court of Owls' "Gray Son" is both of the above. I hate all of it. Stop it, Marvel/DC, I'm begging you!
Great recap of the origin”s” 🦇 😊👍
I think there's one thing we can all agree on though: Mikel Janin's art is absolutely awesome.
I want to see Booster meet Max Chill. With a name like that he'd decide he should be a rapper, and he'd take him back to the 90's so he could do a duet with Vanilla Ice.
The best changes to Batman's origin is Year one.
I know it's not considered a change, but it really does feel like one given the symbolism. Bruce is almost dead after his first night out. He fails to make any change, and crawls back to the manor, contemplating letting himself die. But it's only after remembering his mission, and having the Bat crash through his windo that Bruce decides to live. The Batman mission, and the death of his parents gives him a reason to live.
From that view, the Batman story becomes about rebirth. Bruce "dies" as a child when his parents are killed, and then is resurrected as the Batman at deaths door again in his 20s. It becomes a lot more tragic this way -- Bruce's trauma and his ability to succeed as Batman are the driving forces behind his life. Without out (as seen in TDKR) Bruce is a shell of a person.
The implications of Year One's retelling is significant, but it's very subtle. It shifts our attention from the origin to it's place in Batman's life -- as something that transforms him and deeply hurts him.
With the title I genuinely thought the origin change would be Bruce being the newborn and the abusive dad Joe Chill. Now that would be a wild soap opera-level retcon
Watching this, for some reason I expected it to be something like the baby ends up adopted by the Wayne family and ends up it's actually Bruce! Making Joe Chill is biological father! Or something crazy like that. But they already did that kind of story line in Iron Man...
Maybe the Baby will be someone that ends up walking down a darker path who gets stopped by Batman. But then Bruce steps in and helps that person take a better path than his father. I think that would be a nice turn of events to break that kind of cycle and give hope instead of the regular concussions.
I'm not really against stuff like this really. I could go either way if it's told well. But the problem to me is lately within the last dozen years or so the big two seem to want to add simmering huge to a characters origin/back story which will 'change things forever' but won't be referenced again and forgotten a few years later and I have a feeling this will be the same, forgotten in a few years no matter if the story is well done or not simply because of creatives wanting to 'change things forever'.
I like it best when the murder is random. Joe Chill should just be a guy. Here’s my pitch, starting with what’s presented here.
Chill doesn’t learn that either of the Waynes had anything to do with his girlfriend and child apparently disappearing. But, when he randomly mugs them in that alley, he does recognize Thomas as one of his doctors, and he does harbor (harbour for Sasha) resentment for the hospital staff that must’ve had something to do with it. Maybe Martha gets tired of him playing the victim, and accidentally spills a couple (but not all) of the beans.
Gun turns on her, Thomas makes a move, BAM. She lunges at him in a rage, managing to leave scratches on his face, reminiscent of a cat, maybe? (Good ol’ Freud.) In the struggle, BAM. Then we keep the panel of Bruce’s eyes over Chill’s face, and we’re out!
Well, my favorite version of the origin was the one from Untold Legend of the Batman. But that's because it's the first version I ever read (I either bought that book from a Waldenbooks or a Scholastic Book Order). And it had a lot of all that stuff in it. But Len Wein who wrote it seemed like he was trying to consolidate all the different Batman origins into one.
14:50 Looks like Morrison took inspiration for Dr. Hurt's costume from this.
I understand what they're going for here and I don't think just saying "don't change the origin ever" works as an argument because change can be for the better but this just doesn't seem to add anything to the character, there are other ways of exploring how doing the right thing is necessary regardless of how it will hurt you or just in general, which is what I'm assuming this is meant to explore. It could surprise me but it just seems to not be worth it.
The "ahh ohh gunshot." killed me
It killed the Waynes too
This reminds me of Scott Snyder’s Batman last knight on earth that also played with the idea that the Wayne murder was out of revenge by Joe Chill
Control the origin, control the character, even partially. It's why we get "the real reason (X) happened". There might be a story there, but really they just want the ego boost to be part of canon and something writers after them are forced or even willingly use. There's a reason Joe Chill being a simple mugger on the wrong night has taken hold in iconography in comics and from the first time it left comics (this is where I again try to coax Sasha into reviewing the Super Powers team episode "The Fear", one of my favorite Batman stories) to today. It's simple and clean. It makes Bruce the victim of crime in general, not one specifically targeted to his family. Sometime comics try to hard to be complex under the mistaken belief that complexity is... I don't know, more sophisticated or mature, maybe. It can be silly but it can also be a mistake. Just let the random mugging origin stand. It works for a reason.
Firstly, in my head canon Bruce already has an "augmentation" to help him. We know from various media that when Bruce sees a new technology, or even an old one, he then adapts it for his own purposes. As far as I'm concerned, Bruce took a sample of the Lazarus fluid, analyzed the hell out of it, and created the world's most miraculously effective (and most expensive) wound treatment. So, in my head canon, The paralysis he and Barbara sustained never happened. He injected Babs after TKJ, and one of his "family" injected him after Knightfall. (Does it really make sense he'd leave the Batman's resources to a "troubled" adventurer [to continue Batman's war on crime] he had known for all of about ten minutes? Of course not.)
As for messing with the origin, the earlier the story was published, the more sacrosanct it is. Revisions from the last few decades are highly suspect to me. This also includes minor elements like giving Thomas (or Jor-El, for that matter) facial hair. If Bob Kane (or his ghost artist) had wanted to give Thomas a mustache back in the day, they could have done so, but they didn't, so why should today's artists second guess them?