Silly Question Time: Should I Make Terry McGinnis a Red Head?

[Winter]

My opinion on the subject is that it's always better to work with existing continuity rather than override it even if it's something you'd never want to be the case. You wanted the opinion over whether Terry should be a redhead? Well, my opinion is no and he should be Bruce's son because retcon or not, it's a thing that creates a lot of interesting angles to explore.

I will also say I think you just blew past "Terry is a 30 year old man" in "Epilogue." The reason he's acting so very different is they wanted this to be Terry when he's furious, sullen, betrayed and questioning all of his choices up until this point. Epilogue is not the story of "Terry was always destined to be Batman because he's Bruce Wayne's son." Epilogue is the story that Terry became Batman because of his own choices despite the attempts to make him Batman by Waller.

It's also about saying that he's NOT a clone of Bruce (he's his biological son admittedly) but that the Phantasm refused to kill Terry's parents and unlike Bruce, Terry doesn't have to be alone.

I want to focus on this part for a moment because in all honesty it's the part I hate most about this episode, the fact that The Phantasm was the one who was going to kill Terry's parents in front of him. Andrea NEVER hurt innocent people in the film and as far as I know she never hurt innocent people in any supplementary material. Andrea only ever killed villains and even then only the ones who hurt her. And if you take the tie-in comics as canon she spared Joker's life because he was no longer the person who killed her father and wasn't worth killing.

So the idea that Andrea would even Consider killing two innocent people who've done nothing to her is frankly an insult to her character. For me it's like the moment where Luke contemplates killing his nephew in his sleep in The Last Jedi, yes neither character actually goes through with the action but the fact that they were considering it is the problem.

It goes against the character and the reason Andrea is here is because... fan service. Andrea was included because fans wanted to see her again so she was included in this moment and they could have fixed this whole scene with one simple change, have it be a regular goon who's going to kill Terry's parents and it's Andrea who saves the family and THEN she goes to tear into Waller for her stupid and evil plan.

But back to the subject of retcons I do agree that there are sometimes where a series should examine a story point especially if it is a sequel to that story. That's why I so strongly dislike the Star Wars Disney Sequel Trilogy because they tossed what came before in favor of just repeating the past.

But then again rebooting something to be almost completely different from what came before CAN be great and we need not look any further then Planet of the Apes.

Let's be honest, the OG POTA film series... was not great. There are only 2 films in that series that are objectively good but the other films in the series suck or are at least not as good as it could be. Beneath the Planet of the Apes and Battle are just not good movies while Conquest has some good ideas but is a flawed film.

And then there's Tim Burton's film which while not the worst in the series is... not great.

But the second reboot series is very well loved with all films released at this time being very well loved. And this series changed SEVERAL things from the original continuity. This is why I feel that changing things from how they were presented in the original story in a reboot is fine because it's a reboot.

To each their own and more power to you for liking the idea that Terry and Bruce are related but for me I dislike a LOT of the ideas in Epilogue with the soul exception being the scene between Bruce and Ace, that scene is amazing. But aside from that there is nothing in this episode I like or the direction it took Terry.

So for me Terry's getting a new hair color because sometimes an idea should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

[CharlesPhipps]

So for me Terry's getting a new hair color because sometimes an idea should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

Alright, you asked for my opinion and I gave it.

You do you.

[Winter]

So for me Terry's getting a new hair color because sometimes an idea should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

Alright, you asked for my opinion and I gave it.

You do you.

Hey to each their own, more power to you for enjoying this idea and I mean that sincerely. Honestly if we were some both given the option to make our own BB Series I would like to see how you handled this idea and I hope you would be interested in how I would handle my own.

So, agree to disagree?

[CharlesPhipps]

Sure.

Sure.

Mostly I admit I think the biggest benefit from this is one that is only because they didn't think this premise through. That poor Terry and his brother's dad divorced their mother because he assumed she cheated on him. Which is the kind of small side effect of Waller's plan that she never would have cared about but clearly changed Terry's life forever.

[MightyDavidson]

It's been suggested that the original idea for Batman Beyond was that Terry's mom would end up being revealed to be Selina Kyle, who'd left Bruce and changed her name to start a new life. Terry would still be Bruce's kid but it would've happened the old fashioned way, not via Waller's deus ex machina. I wish they'd gone with that idea.

[McAvoy]

It's been suggested that the original idea for Batman Beyond was that Terry's mom would end up being revealed to be Selina Kyle, who'd left Bruce and changed her name to start a new life. Terry would still be Bruce's kid but it would've happened the old fashioned way, not via Waller's deus ex machina. I wish they'd gone with that idea.

OK. How old is Catwoman in the main Batman timeline and how old is Batman? If Bruce is an old man by Batman Beyond then Selina Kyle should be not that far off too even if we talk about a ten year difference. 33 versus 22, etc.

Old Bruce is supposed to be in his 70's which would suggest that Bruce helped conceive Terry after hanging it up as Batman ehjch he would have been in his 50's.

Also men can basically get women pregnant up until the day they die at age 92 (I know of two people who are children of a father who was in their 80's when they were born) but we are kinda pushing it for Selina Kyle.

Kinda feels that timeline wise it would make more sense that Terry's father is Bruce's son and Terry is his grandchild.

Not saying it's not impossible for Terry to be Bruce's child by itself. The Selina idea though is kinda pushing it since Terry's Mom doesn't look remotely as old as Bruce.

[Madner Kami]

All I did was ask for an opinions on this silly question (it's literally in the title of this post that this is a silly question) your response is to insult me and misgender me. Repeatedly!

Sorry for misgendering you. Your name isn't exactly giving clues as per that detail. I fixed the previous post.
As for insulting you, I don't think I did. I shared my perception of you and didn't call you any names and the like, at least not that I am aware of it. I was blunt, yes, I admitted to that, but definitly not insulting.

It's utterly unnecessary that Terry is Bruce's son.

But it was a choice by the creators and they are the ones who get to decide what is and is not true about Terry and Bruce's relationship.

Sometimes the creators make mistakes, I mean I don't know many who are going to be defending the creative choices of The Dark Knight Strikes again or All-Star Batman and Robin Boy Wonder. Or to use a DCAU example, Bruce and Barbara... romantic relationship... uuugggghhhh!

Sometimes writers come up with ideas that are just plain bad and if someone else comes along to re-work the series they should be given the option to change things.

That option was given to everyone you just listed as having been a bad thing. It's getting tiresome when everybody tries to fix everybody else's mistakes and problems, because you end up with characters that are defined like wet noodles. It becomes difficult to distinguish what is real and what is not and it makes, at least, me loose interest in trying to follow a character. Or heck, lately even entire series and franchises. I get it. An artist wants to replicate their own impression of a given work, but for me as the reader or watcher, it's like seeing the fiftieth take on Mona Lisa. Some barely change anything. Some make it an expressionist painting. Others a Jackson Pollock. And there might be some genuinely good ones among the iterations, no doubt. I'm just so tired of it.
"Go make your own thing and leave the original work, even if it's flawed. The flaws are part of it." is everything I think about that these days.

Sure there are interesting stories that could come from Terry being Bruce's son but there are now more problems with that today then there was 18 years ago, the most notable one being Damian Wayne. Because of Damian being Bruce's biological son the various stories ideas and plot points that can be raised with Terry being Bruce's son have all been done with Terry making that idea rather redundant.

It's the other way around. Terry was officially declared Bruce's son in "Justice League Unlimited - Epilogue", airing July 23rd, 2005. Damian's first appearance as Damian was more than a year later, in Batman #655, released in September 2006. Damian's the redundant part.

P.S.: I should read a whole thread after coming back to it weeks laster, before answering. CharlesPhipps said it all.

[CharlesPhipps]

Thanks for the props!

[Winter]

All I did was ask for an opinions on this silly question (it's literally in the title of this post that this is a silly question) your response is to insult me and misgender me. Repeatedly!

Sorry for misgendering you. Your name isn't exactly giving clues as per that detail. I fixed the previous post.
As for insulting you, I don't think I did. I shared my perception of you and didn't call you any names and the like, at least not that I am aware of it. I was blunt, yes, I admitted to that, but definitely not insulting.

I've mentioned being trans a few times and a few times it was on a post you where on too. And one of your comments on this very post

P.S.: Before someone comes up with it: Yes I could just ignore each and every thread he starts or post he makes. The thing is just, that sometimes he's got something interesting to say and wanna know about his opinions and ideas. I just don't like walking into what is essentially the same thread with a minute detail changed over and over again.

Gave me the impression you read through most of my posts where I've most certainly mentioned that I'm a trans women (and I know you were on most of those posts where I mentioned it) so I figured that you knew and were intentionally misgendering me. Thank you apologizing and correcting the pronouns.

And as for not insulting me.

At times I think you're insane or, at the very least, borderline villain-levels of obsessive.

How am I suppose to take that except as an insult especially while, unintentionally, misgendering me. Had you just said, "Don't you think your obsessing a little to much on this plot point" I would have just made a joke in response of me going "a LITTLE obsessed?!" because I know this is silly, the whole point is that this is a silly question. This is just getting dumb ideas out of my mind so I can focus on other things elsewhere.

Now to directly address one of your points.

That option was given to everyone you just listed as having been a bad thing. It's getting tiresome when everybody tries to fix everybody else's mistakes and problems, because you end up with characters that are defined like wet noodles. It becomes difficult to distinguish what is real and what is not and it makes, at least, me loose interest in trying to follow a character. Or heck, lately even entire series and franchises. I get it. An artist wants to replicate their own impression of a given work, but for me as the reader or watcher, it's like seeing the fiftieth take on Mona Lisa. Some barely change anything. Some make it an expressionist painting. Others a Jackson Pollock. And there might be some genuinely good ones among the iterations, no doubt. I'm just so tired of it.
"Go make your own thing and leave the original work, even if it's flawed. The flaws are part of it." is everything I think about that these days.

Taking someone else's idea and reworking it is as old as human history. Originality is overrated, everything is borrowed, everyone bases their ideas on what came before them. Some do rather well, William Shakespeare's work is mostly adaptations or historical pieces (with several of them being propaganda pieces) with only 5 know plays being original and even then those are based on ideas others came up with or based on tropes as old as time.

Hell, if you want a writer who based his ideas on existing sources look at JRR Tolkien, he straight up ripped off names for his characters from classic tales like Beowulf. He's scene where Eowyn kills the Witch King and the Ents go and attack Saruman were his response to feeling that Shakespeare's twists in Macbeth (no man born of women and Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane) were weak. And most of the Middle Earth stories are based on stories that Tolkien loved.

Every story has two things in common, it's loaded with contrived plot points and it's based on or adapting another story. The trick is changing just enough to it make your own. Like, say, a characters parentage and using their hair color to help emphasize that idea.

I'm much better at writing sequels then I am original ideas (I've got one where it's a murder mystery/almost Lovecraftian horror set in a fascist country where the murder is a Vampire who is this almost unknowable creature but who is almost more moral then the humans hunting him) but I'm just more passionate about the non-original ideas.

[CharlesPhipps]

Didn't know you were trans, Winter.

You're 20% cooler now.

*gives them Rainbow Dash figure*