Conor wrote a good, well-written review, but I don't feel that this issue was all that great; this series is not a great (or even "very good") representation of why the Bat-verse is a "family" or what the implications of that would be. Of course, this series DOES SHOW such implications ("the now-fatherless brothers FIGHT!") but my point is that it doesn't portray or develop the matter in a careful or thoughtful way. Still, it is cool, it is fun.

This is a much different comic than Flash: Rebirth #1 was, but as was the case with that issue last week, I just feel that the iFanboy featured POTW is decent but nothing special. Again the POTW gets a 3/5 from me. And in a roundabout way, BFTC #2 is pretty comparable to the Flash comic: last week's pick was like a typical example of '09 writing and self-consciously forced meaning heaped on an old character from the past, a character who himself isn't sure he deserves such a ridiculous degree of praise and attention; and this week's pick reads like a standard '90s Batman comic done in a standard '90s Image style--nothing inherently wrong with either of those styles, but neither book feels all that special to me. I know these quasi-event series are suppose to be game-changing and awesome, but in both cases the apparent, modest conventionality never made me feel like I was reading anything fantastic or "landmark". Still, as was the case with Flash: Rebirth #1, BFTC #2 presents considerable entertainment value with a decent amount of intrigue.

The art in BFTC #2, however, was not that great and the writing was definitely substandard. Tony Daniel is not an awful writer, but it's pretty clear to me that he doesn't know or appreciate the Bat-universe any better (or much differently) than most of the fanboys who post on message boards (myself included!--I don't think I would be able to write this sizable cast of characters any better or any truer or any more interestingly). Because of Daniel's relative inexperience, which should perceptible to anyone with more than a couple years of Bat-reading experience (myself included, again), I NEVER while reading this comic felt like the story was being shaped by capable hands. Any worse and it would have felt like straight-up fan-fiction ("...and then these guys'll fight, and then Two-Face is gonna kill his henchmen and say he's comin' fer the Penguin, an' then Pengy's gonna say he's comin' fer Two-Face, an' then Commish Gordon's gonna chew out another up-n-comin cop--er, D.A--an' then we'll a seventh scene in four months showing Alfred acting fatherly an' wistful with Dick in the Batcave, an' then hot Catwoman shows up..." Still, seeing this cornucopia of characters, however much Daniel treats them like a precocious 8-year-old might treat some action figures, is undeniably fun.)

From the dialogue to the pacing, Daniel couldn't go more than two pages without, to my mind, making a fairly awkward misstep. I agree that overall it does serve the story's purpose to make the progression of scenes and events quite fast-paced, but when coupled with the dialogue and how it was used or not used (in the case of silent panels), it just felt awkward. For example, look how there's that silent panel of the injured Damian right before Alfred's voice comes back in, in the following panel, to complete his (pointlessly) hanging statement with the words "...Richard Grayson." Just awkward. The silent panel showing Damian serves to punctuate how uncertain Daniel's command of the dialogue in that entire scene was; without that mismanagement of a silent panel for no purpose, I could have almost ignored the shaky dialogue, but because that completely out-of-place panel was there, it makes the entire scene seem very awkward and amateurish to me. Later on, note, on two consecutive silent pages, the full-page of Black Mask and then the typical silent scene of Dick noticing that something was amiss in the Batcave (complete with typical random flurry of squeeking bats). If we didn't have two silent pages in a row, then my attention wouldn't've been as focused on the shortcomings (i.e. the big cliche) of the Nightwing-alone-in-Batcave moment. To be fair, though, Daniel's art on that Black Mask page is very, very good, very menacing.

Quite a negative review so far for a book that I thought was "okay", right? But-but, hey, what if the gun-Batman turns out to be Azrael instead of Jason Todd? "Dude, THAT would be a twist I'd like!" And what if this inexplicably back-from-the-dead Black Mask turns out to be the as-yet-unseen Joker? "Dude, THAT would be a twist I'd like, too!" That's part of how I feel too, and I find myself awaiting whatever surprises await in the final issue. But at the same time I'm also struck by the fact that it's all quite pointless no matter what happens. Would it mean anything more (or less) for the gun-toting Batman to turn out to be Azrael? Not really. It would mean that Dick and Tim would have been wrong--but their misjudgment wouldn't really affect anything: it's not like Dick ISN'T going to put on the cowl in the next issue because he (perhaps) was wrong about the identity of the gun-Batman. Still, it's all fun, it's just fun, this comic is fun, cheap fun but fun fanboy fun.

I've noticed that many people seem to like this series because they feel it was a departure from the tone Morrison set in RIP, which they disliked. And then there are those who dislike this AND also disliked RIP, and this is the sad crowd who whines and complains about everything in the Bat-books, no matter what happens. I guess the only thing they enjoy is when Paul Dini writes a typical Paul Dini story that seems like it could have been a cartoon they liked to watch when they were thirteen (not knocking Dini--I like him a lot--but the point is that we've seen his brand of storytelling, that doesn't change or risk much of anything, so many times before).

In fact, a few weeks ago one certain comics podcast, which I'll leave unnamed, devoted a whole half hour to lambasting the first issue of BFTC. In the process, to my amusement, they revealed how little information they retained from RIP. Blaming everyone from DC editorial on down, these self-important fellows took so many elements of BFTC to task for "problems" and "inconsistencies" that weren't really valid "problems" or "inconsistencies" at all. "I mean, Damian's picking up chicks in the Batmobile?" one guy whined in annoyed disbelief. "Why would Bruce let him have the car anyway? That's stupid." Uh, Bruce never gave Damian the Batmobile. Damian came on the scene of his own volition during RIP because Bruce was missing. So blame Alfred for letting Bruce's son drive the Batmobile during a few EMERGENCY-level crises in Gotham. "And what's all this stuff about busing the villains around Arkham?" lamented another guy (who I know had read RIP, or at least claimed to have read it). "Why aren't the rogues locked up? I don't understand that. I sat down and read the issue three times and didn't understand it. It was just completely unexplained." Uh, no. BFTC #1 explained very clearly that Arkham was being purged of the Joker's flower toxin, used during RIP--that's why they weren't in Arkham. I read the issue once and retained that information. Sometimes I listen to this particular, very popular comics podcast (not iFanboy, not Around Comics) just to laugh at how irate some of these geeks get due to their own ignorance and poor reading skills. There were like five of them on the podcast, and not a one of them was able to provide the very simple remedies to many such invalid complaints. On the other hand, perhaps some of these problems would be eliminated if DC would consent to providing some editorial explanations via asterisks...

But it is interesting to note the nods to Morrison's run that Tony Daniel has been alluding to in BFTC: The gun-Batman himself is an allusion to the "Third Man" of Morrison's run, complete with glowing, hidden eyes. The guy's inner dialogue here in the second issue makes note of how "Gotham has always been evil. I used to tell Batman it seemed as if the devil himself constructed the city as his personal conduit." Read Batman #666 and note the parallels; and note how Dr Hurt was possibly the Devil, and how the Third Man himself thought he was the Antichrist as created by Hurt. This idea of Gotham as being constructed as a supernatural "conduit" of some sort is referenced not only in #666 but also in #679, by the talking gargoyles. Further, the gun-Batman in BFTC also refers to himself as Bruce's "replacement"--and the Third Man was one of the three so-called "replacement Batman" who used to be cops. Is Daniel in BFTC revealing to us any secrets of Morrison's run? No, but he's at least reminding us of the intriguing secrets that are still out there. The gun-Batman in BFTC also hints that Bruce had stopped caring about his "no killing" rule: this can be read as a reference not only to Bruce's use of a bullet to help kill Darkseid in Final Crisis, but also to the related, foreshadowings brought up earlier in Morrison's run: the Joker thought that the real Batman had shot him in Batman #655 (though it turned out to be a "replacement"), and then there was the Tony Daniel-pencilled Batman #673, in which we see a strange flashback to a cruel, laughing Batman who gives Joe Chill a gun to (apparently) kill himself with. Lastly, on the more obvious side, it's pretty clear that Dick's sense of responsibility over Damian, as shown very well in BFTC #2, will sow the seeds that will come to fruition in Morrison's upcoming "Batman & Robin" series, in which Dick and Damian will (probably) fill the title roles.

Story 2 (questionable dialogue and pacing at times)
Art 3 (often stilted, but just as often cool and evil-looking)
Overall 3 (because it's fun; I'm fine with it)