"Far From Home" dating
How does one arrive at the conclusion that the 31st century references in "Far From Home" are 'incorrect'? I realize that it's difficult to rationalize the two DCAU Legion appearances as actually being 20+ years apart (Cosmic Boy, Saturn Girl, and Chameleon Boy certainly don't seem to be in their mid-to-late 30s in "FFH")... but on the other hand, it's always been something of a tradition in the comics for Legion stories to take place pretty much exactly 1000 years in the future (i.e., 1000 years after the story was written), even when this stretches credibility. Is there some explicit reference somewhere that tells us that the dialogue in the story is incorrect? Failing that, I'd say that Brainiac 5--being a reasonably intelligent fellow--probably has a pretty good handle on what century he lives in... (Come to that, it's been a long time since I've seen "New Kids In Town". Was there an explicit dating reference in the episode itself, or is the 2979 date from some other source?) I don't like the inconsistency either, but I'm not comfortable with unilaterally declaring one reference or the other to be 'incorrect', at least not without some kind of solid rationale.--ElScoob 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Where do we get the order of the episodes for Batman Beyond? Others, too, but especially here, I (among others) have always thought Return of the Joker worked well as an ending to the series. I won't claim it's definitive one way or another, but is there any particular reason it's in the middle? Caswin 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure. I think it was because it aired before season 3 finale. Even though its events clearly take place after "King's Ransom." I think the order is still open for debate. ― Thailog 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, sorry I didn't sign this with my username, what I was sure was my username is not working so I'll try to figure that out. But if I sign on here it will be as RoryS89. I am just wondering, this site has it listed that Bruce Wayne was born in the 1960s. This sounds good to me, but there is a flaw in that. We know that The New Batman Adentures ends and Justice League begins roughly at the year 2000. This would make Bruce 40. But we have Batman Beyond placed at roughly 2050. This is still good cause Bruce Timm says Batman Beyond is 50 years after whatever "now" is. And considering Batman Beyond was created after TNBA and before JL, I say that 2050 is a perfect spot for it. But this would make Bruce 90, and Bruce Timm says that during Batman beyond he is roughly 75 or 80. So shouldn't Bruce be born in the 70s?
- -I agree. Also the tech featured in TNBA and those other shows supports it.--Thejluninja 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, Bruce should not have been born in the 70's. Him first becoming Batman was clearly supposed to have happened during the 80's, which is the time his comic book counterpart also became Batman as well in modern continuity. The year 1986, I believe is the date, which depicts Bruce at 25 years old first becoming Batman. For his DCAU counterpart, this would correspond perfectly with what is stated about his history with Dick Grayson, as in Robin's Reckoning, Zucco states 9 years have gone by (making it 1995) and The Lost Years has a banner reading the date the flashback events seen in Old Wounds took place in 1997 after Dick graduated from college. This may seem like I'm going slightly off-topic, but no, Bruce was not born in the 70's. Otherwise he would simply be too young to have been Batman at that time. If anything if the date of 1986 is correct for his DCAU counterpart (and there is no reason it shouldn't be given the scenarios presented), he was born in the year 1961.-- Clifftothemax 05:42, 7 September 2009 (GMT)