Trinity (and a great many topics it touches on)

 Let's talk about How Bad An Idea This Is and In What Ways.

I have a feeling we won't be the only people.

This... creature, in case you do not already know. is the (theoretical) daughter of Wonder Woman. Or, as the Crimes Against Comics Division calls her, "Tom King's rap sheet, page #74."

Tom King is DC"s current exemplar of the Hot Young Auteur From The Outside World. It's one of DC's real-world tropes.  Such a person: 

has some sort of outside credentials the company thinks brings gravitas; 

is imagined by DC to have a following of readers independent of the characters they are writing; 

is give near carte-blanche to upset the applecart and take characters in New (unwise) Directions; 

usually has a distinct style that they adapt characters to, rather than the other way around.  

He's not the first and you can probably list them better than I. As the song lyrics go, "Such as —Wwhat d'ye call him, Thing'em-bob, and likewise—Never-mind;  and 'St,'st, 'st, and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who; but the task of filling up the blanks, I'd rather leave to you."

So, aa a dear friend of mine once said, "Let's start with your clothes."

I can only assume her civilian job is as a yoga teacher.

Judges...?

Thank you, Judges. Expertly put.

I only wish Blockade Boy were still with us to give his reaction to this monstrosity. Tom King mentioned in an interview that he used his 12-year-old daughter's interest in Wonder Woman as a reference point (just about the only positive thing he did say). Well, it sure looks like a 12-year-old designed that costume. "Y'know what's even COOLER than a magic lasso? THREE magic lassos!" 

After all, a girl can never have too many ropes.

Yeah, no; she LITERALLY has three magic lassos. What could be more practical in battle? One for the left hand, one for the right hand, and one for, um.... Let's play it safe and say "one for dragging".

I'm just going to assume her inevitable death by Isadora Duncan ia a future Fixed Point in time.

I'll leave aside the stupidity of that, which needs no belaboring. I will take a moment to linger on her hilarious (and surely dangerously sharply-pointed) heart-shaped breast-plate (which will CERTAINLY be lamp-shaded as such at SOME point,

"She wears her heart on her sleeve.
Well, maybe not her sleeve, exactly...."
< panel of her torso in chiaroscuro>
See, I can write bad comic book dialog just like the pros.

Trinity = Love, you see. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry, did I forget to mention her name? It's TRINITY.  You know, like in Christianity's creakily literal interpretation of Genesis 18-19 (et sim.)

Obviously, we have Augustine to blame for this, 
Aristotle would have slapped him silly had he been there to do so.

It is stunningly tone-deaf that (even) Tom King would have Greek Olypmianist Diana give her daughter a name (1) that's an English abstract noun and (2) so inextricably associated with an incompatible (and historically hostile) religion. Even a comic book geek should realize that's the primary evocation of the word "trinity".

Maybe there simply isn't any "Christianity" per se in the DCU. But there is always Christmas, right, so doesn't there have to be Christianity? Otherwise, how would machine gunners lure Wonder Woman onto roottops?

But in using the name King is trying, of course, to evoke the "DC Trinity" (i.e., Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman).  Which, well, I hate to have to resort to such an over-used and trite modernism as "cringe". But.. it's cringe.  Cringe-y? Let's go old school and call it "mortifying awkward to outsiders " (which I suppose is why people coined the term "cringey").  

The use of "trinity" to describe DC's three tip-top-tier heroes has always been tacky, due to its religious associations. But I've usually turned a blind eye to it for several reasons.  

First, there are so many people who don't know any better and don't think anything of it. I don't actually encourage the dominance of the shadow of historical Christianity over modern culture and thought, and it's an example of people kind of forgetting what 'trinity' originally meant, well... so be it, I guess.  I don't consider its usage "sacrilegious"; it's just tacky.  

Second, call me old-fashioned, but I'm still conscious of how artificial a construct DC's "trinity" is.  Real world references to it are one thing but any in-universe references are painfully forced.  The "trinity", remember is entirely a post-Crisis concept, in which DC decided to elevate a re-launched Wonder Woman into a tier which previously included only Superman and Batman (and by extension Robin). I am not saying this was a bad idea, per se, but it comes with challenges.  Much of post-Crisis disappointment in what's been done with Wonder Woman stems from how the bar has been raised for the character, perhaps beyond a point the concept can reach.  

Besides, DC blew its chance to do the obvious in a post-Superfriends era: create a QUATERNITY, with both Wonder Woman and Aquaman raised to the top tier.  

DC, you had a generation (or more) prepped from childhood to view this a quarternity of top-tier iconic heroes and you wasted the opportunity. You are incredibly good at wasting opportunities.

They are kinda/sort slow-rolling that nowadays, but Aquaman is sometimes as much "over there" as he is "up there" in the heroic hierarchy.  I suspect the lingering hand of Pope Innocent III, whose Fourth Council of the Lateran rejected the concept of the Quaternity in 1213.

Who would make an awesome addition to Aquaman's rogues gallery.
Kind of like an updated Torpedo Man.
"Continue to enjoy your graceless state!"

Third, there's not really a much better term. "Triumvirate" doesn't work because that refers to three men  etymologically, and to political rulers, a very bad connotation indeed.  "Trio" is a musical group, "triad" a musical chord", "troika" is too Commie-sounding, "ternion" is AWESOME but no one without pince-nez is going to use it, etc.

"Trigon", unfortunately, was already taken.

But, as stated, while I'll endure its use in our world, its use in-universe is unacceptable.  And the idea that Wonder Woman would name her daughter that?  Honestly, it's the most "cringey" fan-ficish thing I've seen since I don't know when.

I'd have to give it some thought.

Add to this the "me-too!-ism" of it all. Superman and Batman have children now, so Wonder Woman has to!  Because rather than have her, gods forbid, be her own person, we have to have her mimic Superman and Batman in order to remain at their level.   

It's a modern day mutation of the Dynastic Centerpiece Model, you see. We still WANT Kid Sidekicks but we feel bad nowadays about heroes picking them up at circus fire-sales, dressing them in bright colors, and throwing them at gun-wielding gangsters.  Plus, so many readers nowadays aren't children but rather HAVE children that we want heroes who share that condition so we can continue to identify with them.  So now the craze is for our heroes to have children who are way older than they should be, whom they dress in bright colors and throw at gun-wielding gangsters. But it's their own children, so it's okay.

Therefore our only actual sensible sane responsible adult iconic superheroes are Hal and Barry. Just you think about that.

So, how IS Wonder Woman's child inappropriately-old already? Oh, that's easy.... she's hasn't been born yet. This is a FUTURE person.  From the FUTURE.  Where fashion has gone to hell, apparently.

Yes, it just keeps getting worse and worse.  It's another "possible future that's definitely going to happen" that one writer creates and fans takes as gospel, because well, we actually like pretend this stuff makes sense, rather than just "whatever nonsense the most recent Auteur was allowed to spit out".    No offense to Mark Waid, but DC's readership is STILL in collective therapy from Kingdom Come.  So, rather than do the work, King is just skipping to the answers in the back of the book.  

Well, this is wrong on so many levels.  I'm going to pass over the obvious ones that come from this approach. We've all seen them before and can identity them easily enough. I'm just going to point out the irony of taking this approach to creating WONDER GIRL.  The only reason there was ever a Wonder Girl character separate from Wonder Woman to begin with was because sloppy editors/writers at DC weren't paying any attention to the fact that, when they created Teen Titans, the character Wonder Girl WAS WONDER WOMAN as a youth (in the same way Superboy was Superman).  DC has spent 60 trying to fix that mistake (still unsuccessfully).  So, yeah; having Wonder Girl be from a different time period? Not a great plan, historically.

Longtime readers know there is only one writer who could have cared so little about continuity.
Until now.

And that brings us to our final point. DC's slash-and-burn approach to Wonder Girls. To be fair, they have this approach to a LOT of characters.  

Some versions may deserve to be slashed and burned, however.

No matter what snow they shovel at you now, these characters were not made to work with one another. They were made to supplant one another. 

Kid sidekicks/youth heroes (and the broader heroic dynasties they are part of) are at the heart of conflict between two opposite tendencies at DC.  DC often mixes up the concepts of heroic "legacies", to show that heroism is a tradition that is carried on rather than dying with an individual, and "replacism", the avid rush to ditch any existing version of a character for a newer version that The Kids or a Different Audience Might Like Better.

POOCHIE IS FROM SPACE AND HE'S THE NEW GREEN LANTERN

When you have all the copies and younger duplicates lying around, it becomes VERY tempting to the powers that be to ditch That Old Character They Didn't Create and Feel Constrained By and Don't Have Creator Rights To.  The very tools that are supposedly created to respect the past are used to kill it.

And Replacism has a strong pull in an era given to narrowcasting rather than broadcasting; where we make a lot entertainment tailored to smaller varied audiences rather than a few shows designed to appeal to a broad audience.  The classic DC icons are "broadcast" icons designed to appeal broadly and they are correspondingly generic.   

Almost interchangeable.

The more people who can identify with Mr./Ms. Secret Identity, the fewer people can identify with him/her CLOSELY.  Hey, I'm Modern! I don't want your generic old white guy superheroes, like stupid brain-damaged Hal Jordan! I want a Green Lantern I can IDENTIFY with, who's like me. Somebody gay. Blond. Left-handed. Independent. With fashion flair. Who despite being not too young, looks REALLY good for his age. And likes dark-haired guys named Alex.

Okay, DC. You win this round.

But this can lead to increasingly rapid turnover/proliferation in a character that instead leaves everyone with next to nothing.  Instead of one Green Lantern we can all see a little of ourselves in every month, we each get one Green Lantern we could see a lot of ourselves in... if we ever saw them, which we don't, because there are 87 of them.  

In recent years, DC (or certain forces at DC) have been smarter about this issue and drawn a line in the sand. Despite taking guff for it, for example, Geoff Johns rolled back the turnover-cascade that had taken over Green Lantern and Flash by re-establishing Hal Jordan and Barry Allen as those mantle-bearers.

A task they handled easily, even after being dead for twenty years, because making it look easy is what they do.

One can complain about Johns' bringing back "his generation's version" of those characters, but the choice is defensible as where the problem started. If you draw the firebreak anywhere else, the choice seems arbitrary and the problem might take root again.  His recent work with reintroducing kid sidekicks and the Justice Society is also his attempt to re-inject the concepts of Dynasty and Legacy to help stabilize how DC deals with balancing past, present, and future.  

"Trinity" is... pretty much that opposite of that. She's just The Latest Author's Version of Wonder Girl, since I guess we've already consigned Yara Flor to the Discount Bin of discarded versions of Wonder Girl.

Remember her? Me, neither. I literally have never seen her in anything. At least her costume is marginally less ridiculous than Trinity's.

Except this one comes with the cheap trick of being Wonder Woman's daughter, which King clearly hopes will insulate her from eventual elimination (as it has odious Damian and the incomprehensible and blandly controversial Jon Kent).

It's a headline-grabbing, de-stabilizing pyrotechnic thrown out by an author who can't write a mystery, so instead he 'subverts expectations".  Well, what I expected from the Dawn of DC was certainly better than "Trinity" so consider my expectations subverted, Mr. King.

Strike Two....

DC reinvents Batman and the Joker's first encounter with The Brave and The Bold

Batman: The Brave and The Bold is set to re-tell Bruce and the Joker's fateful first meeting as part of the new Dawn of DC era.

The anthology comic, which relaunches this May, will offer a four-part take on the lifelong foes' first encounter. Penned by Tom King ....

Nice while it lasted

 Well, it was nice while it was lasted.

My optimism that DC finally seemed to have the kind of basic understanding of its own characters, their universe, and what to do with them that, oh, any average reader does.  

My hope that DC finally understood that, in the long run -- even in the short run -- preserving the integrity of characters and their world are more important than indulging its writers and their ticks.  

But no.

I kind of blinked over it when I heard that Wally West was dead-again in "Flash" because it seemed like the story-contained dead-again, that could be safely ignored, much like I ignore everything with the Park-Wests.  But the news that 

"DC's new 'Dawn of DC' initiative to revamp the publisher's core superhero line is well underway, and the next wave of new titles will include a brand new Wonder Woman #1 from writer Tom King "

cannot be ignored or discounted.

Great idea, DC. Tom King. On Woman Wonder.

You can't even PRETEND that he's not going to ruin her. Because....

"After a mysterious Amazonian is accused of mass murder, the U.S. Congress passes The Amazon Safety Act, barring all Amazons from American soil," reads DC's official description of the new Wonder Woman #1. "To carry out its new law, the government sets up the Amazon Extradition Entity (AXE) task force to remove those who don’t comply by any means necessary," it continues. "In her search for the truth behind the killing, Wonder Woman now finds herself an outlaw in the world she once swore to protect."

Is there any single person who is familiar with Wonder Woman who doesn't realize this is a bad idea? That it's just Tom King writing under Alienated Hero Under Duress story, with whatever IP they'll let him handle?  Will Marvel not hire Tom King?  Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

Look, it's not that Wonder Woman hasn't survived becoming pantsuit Wonder Woman and opening a dress shop and dragging around an Inscrutable Blind Stereotype or becoming a Goddess for the Umpteenth time.   It's not that "Something Interesting Couldn't Be Done With That!", which someone is going to comment.

It's DC clearly still doesn't really get it.  

Someday she will have her revenge. 
Again.

The War for the Soul of the DCU

With the release of DC's December solicits it's increasingly clear that (as previously mentioned) the winds of change have blown through the editorial halls of DC and, as my great-grandmother would have said in heavily-accented English, "blowed der stink out". 

Examples:

Tim Drake is back as Robin in his own solo comic.

After rescuing the Cheetah from the clutches of the evil International Milk Company, Wonder Woman must set her sights on the real monsters behind it all…the gods of fear and panic, Phobos and Deimos. Wonder Woman, Cheetah, the evil International Milk Company, Phobos and Deimos. The only thing that sentence lacks is ETTA CANDY to make it perfect.

The Evil International Milk Company.
With that phrase, DC just won back my heart.

This:

I want to see Flash dealing with villains and threats like a superhero, not fussing fetidly with "speed force" and internal personal legacy nonsense like a Regency novel character.

Two Tom King comics are ending, one in which he kills a Wayne family member and the one where he killed a Green Lantern.  The ending of Tom King comics is always a good sign.

Two-Face is back menacing Renee Montoya at the GCPD. Or is he on her side...? Regardless, it's old school comics.  

Never count Two-Face out; he's VERY well connected.

DC: Mech is ending. If you don't know what it is, just be glad.  So is DC vs. Vampires (ugh).

Geoff Johns is bringing back the Justice Society (again).

Which he's been trying to do since 2016, if you haven't been keeping track.

Jaime Reyes is back to Blue Beetling.

Kal-El is back on Earth and here to stay.  

Lady Cop is back (although she's in the hands of Tom King, so expect her to be kicked to death by the Killer in Boots).

And perhaps most dramatically:

The Sensational Character Find of 2022

Gone are the remnants of Dan Didio's 5G plan to Kill Everyone's Childhood and replace all heroes with replicants containing only his DNA.  His crisis-driven/Crisis-driving style gave us a mess of messes for nearly two decades before the backlash overwhelmed his momentum two years ago and he was removed as swiftly, completely, and mysteriously as if he were a victim in a '70s Spectre story. 

"I can't find Dan; anybody know where he is?"
"Last time I saw him, he was... headed out."

Big ships turn slowly. Since that change was a sudden one, there was no real plan in place to follow it and it showed.  Various unpleasant initiatives with Didio's sticky DNA all over them--darkly cynical gigantic crossover events like DCeased and *snort* Dark Crisis--have had to wind their way to a close, like dying automata from a passing steampunk era. 

"ZOMG THE JUSTICE LEAGUE IS DEAD and now they're going to replace them with legacy characters!"
Uh-huh. Yes. Yes, I'm sure they are.

One of those unpleasant initiatives is Damian Wayne, a character who truly personifies Didio's approach to things.  "Robin is currently a super-competent, well adjusted guy named Tim Drake.  He's been Robin for over 25 years; as long as Dick Grayson had been when the Batman '66 TV show began. Let's dump him for Batman's illegitimate son from an Elseworlds story, who's an unlikeable murderous little ****." Didio didn't come up with the idea but he supported it 1000% percent. 

In the old days, that would have been a one-issue "fear of being replaced as partner" story,  and the kid would have been revealed as a fake by the end, AND redeemed himself by taking a bullet for Dick from  some random gangster and dying on the spot, with a few final words of regret. Instead, we've been trapped in a 15-year-long "Ransom of Red Chief" scenario.

Maybe Damian can pair up with Nightman:
"Nightman and Red Chief".

Batman versus Robin is pretty clearly about taking Damian out of the Robin role with Tim Drake going back into it.

All of the above is part of the real-world internal war for The Soul of the DCU, one that's been raging for 20 years. If Crisis on Infinite Earths issued in (or at least coincided with) the beginning of roughly 15-year Dark Era in the DCU (with its '90s exxxtreme badassery and antiherohood), the following 20 years has been a grand Zoroastrian battle between Dan Didio's forces of Darkness and Geoff Johns' forces of Light.

Look, just read Action Philosophers, okay? All of it. All. Of. It.

For 20 years, Didio was pushing his vision for the DCU and Johns another and they were, at heart, as completely opposed as Uxas and Izaya. At one point, Tom King (Didio's Desaad) had Wally West going insane and murdering other heroes at the very same time Geoff Johns was bringing him back as the Personification of Hope in the DCU.  Johns eventually fell back and distanced himself from DC, given how entrenched Didio's forces were... but all that changed two years ago.  

And now Johnsian apostle Mark Waid is writing the comic that's shuffling Damian off and making way for Tim Drake, as well as bringing back to life Alfred, whom Tom King gratuitously killed with Didio's permission (or at his insistence).  Didio's plan to replace the original and legacy characters beloved by Johns with creations from his own stable was struck down by a corporate thunderbolt. Johns has returned and is bringing back the Justice Society, which he was blocked from doing properly six years ago during Rebirth, his last big push to de-darken the Didioverse.  Really, the biggest target left would be to pry the Legion--DC's ultimate symbol of an optimistic future of heroic legacy--out of the cold dead literary hands of Didio's Granny Goodness, Brian Mumblecore Bendis.  

Yes. It seems increasingly clear who has won the war for The Soul of the DCU.

The Sensational Character Find of 2022

Respect Your Elders!

Comments on my previous post have given me an idea for a new rule.

It's occurred to me how little sense it makes that Tom King, who began writing Batman in 2016 and was born in 1978, should be allowed to summarily kill off Alfred Pennyworth, a character who's been supporting Batman rather essentially and consistently since 1943. Do seniority, gravity, tradition, history, resonance count for nothing? Did you read any of those stories, Tom? Or were you so obsessed with breaking down Batman that you didn't care? Your resume says you interned at DC, but you sure seem like an outsider to me.

Maybe you considered Alfred your competition.

I think it goes without saying that writers shouldn't be killing off characters willy-nilly or really, you know... at all. Hey, comics writers; I know a lot of you are novelists (or frustrated ones), but these characters aren't fodder in YOUR novels. They are part of society's collective mythos. More to the economic point: they are IP, baby. IP is gold. 

Remember this throwaway moll from "Joker's Favor" (BTAS, 1992)?
30 years later she's worth more than most Caribbean nations.

No wait, that's not right, because gold is static. They are money trees, really.  How many stupid, obscure properties need to become hits on tv or the movies or cartoons before DC realizes that WRITERS are way more replaceable than characters and that characters are potentially a LOT more profitable.  DC, if you are given a choice between "killing off" your characters or a writer, the choice seems pretty obvious.  After all, the character will never abandon you for Substack and no writer is ever going to headline a show about their adventures as a member of the British SAS.  The Polka Dot Man has a major motion picture; I guarantee you Tom King won't.

But even if you can't agree that no writer should even be allowed to kill ANY character, I ask you to at least concede this:

No writer should ever be allowed to kill off a character older than they are.

I mean, if a character has lasted longer than you currently have... it wins.  It's earned its safety, at least from YOU.  You have no idea what the world was like without it, so if you're thinking of killing if off, you don't know what you're doing.  

Let's take me as an example. If the new forces at DC (because strong winds of changes are clearing blowing there) were to call me tomorrow and say, "Well, we all stayed up all night reading the Absorbascon and agreed that YOU'RE the only person who can write VIBE!, Vibe & The Groove Crew, Vibe Family, and Breakdancer Comics. Will you do it?!" I would say (loudly enough so that my neighbor, Tom King, could hear), "Yes, but only on the condition that you not allow me to kill any characters that existed before I did."

Admit it:
you're thinking about just WHO would be in the Groove Crew.
Suggestions welcome.

Here's a list of some of the characters I couldn't kill because they are JUST older than I am:

Flash characters Eobard Thawne, Ira West, Mick Rory

You know damned well she'd shoot you first, no questions asked, before you could get to her dad.

The Doom Patrol and General Immortus

What a relief to know that one is at least SLIGHTLY younger than General Immortus.

A truckload of Kryptonians (Kru-El, Nor-Kann, Gra-Mo, Sul-El, Tala-El, Gam-El, Roz-Em, Hatu-El, Ras-Krom, Zora Vi-Lar, Ha-Kor, Nim-El, Tur-Tel)

Of course "killing Kryptonians" isn't really much of an issue any more.

Batman villains Thomas Blake, Simon Hurt, Zazzala 

Catman, in particular, has proven to be pretty resilient as a character

Green Lantern villains Neal Emerson, Karshon, Abel Tarrant 

I'm sure you didn't really need me to post those pics for you.

Aquaman character Mera

Frankly, I pity the writer that tries to kill off Mera, may they rest in peace.

Eclipso /Bruce Gordon

Have you ever wondered why Eclipso hasn't met Two-Face?
Like, even just for coffee or something?

The Legion's Jan Arrah, who doesn't know anything anyway.

Much though some people might like me to.

Hawkman foe Ira Quimby

I'm sorry, if you don't love a villain who dresses in biker drag and becomes super-intelligent by sunbathing, why are you even reading comics?

 

Wonder Woman foe Mouse Man 

Although if I DID kill him off, you had better believe I'd have Catman do it.

and...

Zook 

Oh.
Oh.
Um....
Perhaps... perhaps I'm being a bit hasty with this idea...

God Save the Butler

 Well, well, well. Look who's back.

O.G. Alfred.

Alfred, the faithful butler.

Tom King's killing off of Alfred--by Bane (of course it was Bane)--was one of the final straws that put a stop to my reading any comics.  It was a sure sign that there were no adults at home at DC any more and that the children were running amok, breaking toys and setting fire to things just see what would happen.

Tom King was about five years old when at Marvel Comics the Kingpin put Matt Murdock through the ringer during Frank Miller's run on Daredevil, creating the template for "a great story is when you break a hero down as much as possible". Or at least that was the takeaway for less talented writers than Frank Miller. 

It must have made an impression on little Tommy because those less talented writers certainly includes Tom King, who probably swore on the graves of his parents to do the same thing to Batman when he grew up. Since Batman is a greater character than Daredevil, that would make him a greater writer than Frank Miller!

I also assume young King killed his parents so that he could make this vow.  And because he believes you can't be great unless you suffer and other people die for you. No wonder the CIA snapped him up.

And so he did. He made Batman an emotional basketcase, set up a wedding fake-out that would have shamed a telenovella writer, and, when he was running out of barns to burn, used Batman's most lazily-conceived villain to kill one of comics most beloved, well-known, and long-standing supporting characters, purely for shock value.

LITERALLY long-standing. Have you ever seen Alfred sit down? It's his super-power.

Now, look; Alfred's been dead before. I remember the last time (well, now it's 'the first time', I suppose).   Motorcycling bad-ass Alfred died heroically sacrificing HIMSELF to save Batman & Robin because OF COURSE that's how he would die. Detective Comics #328 (1964):

I should rather think Alfred would make more of a "squish"
but that would probably have set the wrong tone.

So there was an in-story reason that Alfred died. And there was a real-world reason to: so that the writers could bring in Aunt Harriet to make Batman seem less gay. Is that a good reason? Does it make sense? Obviously not.  It was achingly stupid. 

But at least it had a purpose, compared to Tom King's use of Bane to murder Alfred. Tom King is just playing Angry Greek God: he just wants to see Batman suffer.  

If you're a bigger asshole to heroes than Mr. Mxyzptlk is, should you really be writing comics?
Because Tom King will not try being guilty for a while, I assure you.

Even if I could forgive being gratuitously dickish to Batman for shock value, I would draw the line at using BANE.  Really, I don't want to say a bad word about (Bane creator) Chuck Dixon, but Bane leaves me little choice.  Everything about him is absurd (and not in a good way).  The Mexican wrestler get up, the cheesy origin, the utter lack of motivation as a Batman villain. All of it is made 1000 ties worse by his creation as The Villain to Outvillain All Other Villains, when he's obviously much more like disposable muscle hired by an ACTUAL villain.  

Even Joel Schumacher knew that.

Bane BEGS to be taken seriously and writers of Bane beg for you to take him seriously. You know who doesn't beg to be taken seriously? SERIOUS VILLAINS.  Think of most versions/portrayals of, say, the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler. PLEASE underestimate me, they say. Look how goofy I am! Right before they murder the **** out of you. That's what makes them scary; they don't give a hoot what you think about them. 

You know who else begs to be taken seriously? Tom King. So of course he had to use Bane; they are two of a kind.

This is how you really do it, TK.

I suppose I'm not being fair to Tom King for ruining Batman; it's a limited view of his work. He's ruined other characters, too, mostly notably Wally West.  

All things considered, "ruining Wally West" is a VERY impressive accomplishment.

Nobody who was in Heroes in Crisis came away unsullied; even the robot therapists had to be scrapped. Robot therapists; where'd you'd get those from, Tom; Professor Ivo?

Like Professor Ivo, Tom King believes the JLA must be punished.
People like Tom King are the reason Vibe died.

So, thanks to Tom King's thirst for blood and fame, harmless, humanizing Alfred has been missing for, what, two years now; three? But the adults like Mark Waid are back home from date night and ready to put the house back in order, no matter what absurd plot devices (Demonic Damian! Jakeem Thunder! Tim Who Remembers Me Hunter!) are required.

Never despair, Batfans. Because there is always Superman.
And as long as there is Superman, there is Mxyzptlk.
And Mxyzptlk implies Bat-Mite.
And through Bat-Mite, anything can be fixed;
he's here to help.

I can't honestly say I'm looking forward to reading Batman vs. Robin #1 (because Damian is truly the Tedious Character Find of 2006), but I certainly welcome Alfred's return. Batman's world hasn't been the same without his snappy comebacks, his dry wit, and his ability to put Bruce in his place.

You know who actually originated that characterization of Alfred?
Frank Miller.

I would also welcome the return to sanity I hope it signals for DC editorship.

Hey, look, he's sitting down.

The King is dead.

Long live the Butler.