|
Post by tonebone on Apr 7, 2021 16:29:13 GMT -5
True, Barbara's only role in the story was to be a victim. She was like a red shirt on Star Trek, to be sacrificed to show how nasty the bad guy is. Moore tried to give her something of a character by having her react in such a heroic fashion to her ordeal (instead of lamenting her own fate, she was all about saving her father and warning Bruce of how the Joker had ratcheted up the insanity), but it doesn't change the fact that she was used as a plot device. I'm not sure it was a bad plot device, mind you, because I can't think of anything worse for a parent than to see their children abused, and to be helpless to help them. As far as the story goes, it made sense, and since it made me sick as a reader, I can imagine what went through Gordon's head. I deeply disliked that story, though. Talk about dark. Talk about wasting a good character for the sake of one shocking moment. But what I really hated was how it ended... Batman stops the Joker, who tells a joke, and the two laugh together as if going "man, what sorry a pair we are, am I right?" I thought indulging in that awkward bonding moment showed a terrible lack of respect for what Barbara and Jim had just gone through.
Yeah, it's a story I've never felt tempted to read, for all the reasons give. I'm not at all surprised that Moore himself has expressed distaste for it in later years.
I think Moore, who felt it was not his strongest work, really objected more to the fact that DC immediately made it "canon". Moore really saw it as an "imaginary tale" kind of story. An alternate reality in which these "not code approved" terrible things happened to characters you knew. Also, he never intended for the Joker's origin to be the "true" origin. Only a possible one.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 7, 2021 16:58:19 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a story I've never felt tempted to read, for all the reasons give. I'm not at all surprised that Moore himself has expressed distaste for it in later years.
I think Moore, who felt it was not his strongest work, really objected more to the fact that DC immediately made it "canon". Moore really saw it as an "imaginary tale" kind of story. An alternate reality in which these "not code approved" terrible things happened to characters you knew. Also, he never intended for the Joker's origin to be the "true" origin. Only a possible one. yeah, which leads us to the problem with the whole idea of "canon" when it comes to these long-standing shared-universe superhero characters. All it takes is one bad idea, one bad story, one bad writer: and the character, or even an entire story-concept encompassing many characters, can be stuck with the consequences forever after. For example - as people are probably getting tired of hearing me say, because I've been bringing it up a lot lately - the 1980s Eternals series by Peter Gillis which appears to have inspired Kieron Gillen's writing of a certain character in his current series, directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Apr 9, 2021 16:34:06 GMT -5
I think Moore, who felt it was not his strongest work, really objected more to the fact that DC immediately made it "canon". Moore really saw it as an "imaginary tale" kind of story. An alternate reality in which these "not code approved" terrible things happened to characters you knew. Also, he never intended for the Joker's origin to be the "true" origin. Only a possible one. yeah, which leads us to the problem with the whole idea of "canon" when it comes to these long-standing shared-universe superhero characters. All it takes is one bad idea, one bad story, one bad writer: and the character, or even an entire story-concept encompassing many characters, can be stuck with the consequences forever after. For example - as people are probably getting tired of hearing me say, because I've been bringing it up a lot lately - the 1980s Eternals series by Peter Gillis which appears to have inspired Kieron Gillen's writing of a certain character in his current series, directly or indirectly. I think that's why I was drawn to the "Elseworlds" stuff from DC (and, apparently I wasn't the only one). I loved the reckless abandon with which the creators could take not being tied to continuity. Unfortunately, Elseworlds' origins lay in Dark Knight Returns and Gotham By Gaslight, hence the proliferation of "possible future" and "alternate hsitory" variations. There was a lot of junk, but some of them are really great.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 9, 2021 16:41:22 GMT -5
I can see the appeal of both. On the one one, it's nice having an ongoing story so things can develop and change. On the other, I don't think anyone expected these characters and stories to still be going 80 years later. You run into certain problems that way.
I have always enjoyed What-If and Elsewords type of things.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Apr 9, 2021 17:17:41 GMT -5
I LOVED DC's Elseworlds! Some of those books were responsible for me viewing DC as the more exciting company to read over Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 9, 2021 18:01:49 GMT -5
I think that's why I was drawn to the "Elseworlds" stuff from DC (and, apparently I wasn't the only one). I loved the reckless abandon with which the creators could take not being tied to continuity. Unfortunately, Elseworlds' origins lay in Dark Knight Returns and Gotham By Gaslight, hence the proliferation of "possible future" and "alternate hsitory" variations. There was a lot of junk, but some of them are really great. In the 90's and early 2000s, so much of DC's non-canon work was miles above their monthly/continuity superhero material in every conceivable category. It was not even close, and as you point out, creators had the freedom of not being tied to continuity (especially what the monthlies were cranking out). That lent itself to strong exploration of characters and situations that did not have to answer to whatever "event" or gimmick DC was pushing. Books like Kingdom Come, The New Frontier, Ross & Dini's DC Treasury series, Incredible Hulk vs. Superman and other books were instant purchases for me, and none failed to live up to their promise, being the kind of work that one can revisit with ease.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 9, 2021 18:31:40 GMT -5
I LOVED DC's Elseworlds! Some of those books were responsible for me viewing DC as the more exciting company to read over Marvel. One of my favorites was the Elseworlds annual for Robin called "The Narrow Path". It's what got me interested in Japanese period dramas
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 9, 2021 18:51:28 GMT -5
I am generally a fan of DC’s Elseworlds books. Yeah, there were definitely dogs among the books but they were usually interesting dogs. At least they generally weren’t boring like far too many “canon” superhero books.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 9, 2021 20:11:09 GMT -5
In the same note, I really enjoyed the Annuals for the Armageddon 2001 event. They were elseworlds type stories as well.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 10, 2021 5:02:21 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, I'm a big fan of the Elseworlds books. When I got back into comics in the early '00s, after an over ten-year hiatus in comics reading, those were the easiest newer DC titles I could read and enjoy without having to worry too much about post-1990 continuity.
I liked several of those as well, especially Detective Comics Annual #4, written by Louise Simonson with art by Tom Grindberg (channeling Neal Adams).
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 10, 2021 8:25:53 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a story I've never felt tempted to read, for all the reasons give. I'm not at all surprised that Moore himself has expressed distaste for it in later years.
I think Moore, who felt it was not his strongest work, really objected more to the fact that DC immediately made it "canon". Moore really saw it as an "imaginary tale" kind of story. An alternate reality in which these "not code approved" terrible things happened to characters you knew. Also, he never intended for the Joker's origin to be the "true" origin. Only a possible one. The real problem here was Denny O'Neil, who, as I've now argued for well over a hundred pages of review thread, was hired by DC to be a salesman and generate income, not ensure quality work. He seldom read the books he was editing, often didn't even know what was happening in them, but he was a master of boosting sales through numerous innovative campaigns that I've often discussed intricately. Point is, if it was selling, and people liked it, it was canon. -Year One was originally supposed to be a stand-alone graphic novel. At the last second, O'Neil decided to put it in the main Batman title. -DKR was canon for a long while after it's immense commercial success. For most of 1987 and 1988, he Post-Crisis Batman was supposed to start with Year One and end with DKR. A Death in the Family changed that. -Year Two wasn't originally intended to be canon according to Mike W. Barr. -The Killing Joke obviously wasn't supposed to be canon. -O'Neil even proclaimed Batman vs. Predator as being canon (and NOTHING about that book's continuity adds up)! O'Neil recognized continuity for what it had become by the late 1980's: it was what COUNTED, and not necessarily what made sense. Folks were less likely to buy/read it if it didn't count. O'Neil was a reflection of the industry by this point. Anyone who bothered to learn his name thought the editing he did on Batman was iconic because, when the Batmania of 1989 happened, O'Neil was ready and churned out so much hyped and semi-memorable product. I don't think many people were writing in, complaining about the lack of consistency across titles. Folks were happy. Take that for what you will. I hate how O'Neil ran that office and how little sense everything makes, but as a snot nosed adolescent, I was buying it all up for a time too.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 10, 2021 10:39:19 GMT -5
I am generally a fan of DC’s Elseworlds books. Yeah, there were definitely dogs among the books but they were usually interesting dogs. At least they generally weren’t boring like far too many “canon” superhero books. Yeah, but I'm not a big fan of "throwing everything aside" even for a one-off. Part of the fun of the pre-crisis world was seeing if writers could come up with a creative way to "make everything fit"--that's the bigger challenge. ... Point is, if it was selling, and people liked it, it was canon. ... -DKR was canon for a long while after it's immense commercial success... The first time I heard someone say it was "non-canon" was right after it came out. I saw Julie Schwartz at Ithacon and asked him what he thought of it. He responded "It's a gah-damn imaginary story!" (He also said he didn't like to read characters he used to edit after he left the book, but Miller asked him to read it as a favor.)
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 10, 2021 11:41:21 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of "throwing everything aside" even for a one-off. Part of the fun of the pre-crisis world was seeing if writers could come up with a creative way to "make everything fit"--that's the bigger challenge. Yeah, but in several cases, there was no way to make sense of alien/zebra Batman, Superman fighting the equivalent of circus strongmen, Jimmy Olsen transforming into bizarre creatures every other issue, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Apr 14, 2021 15:39:01 GMT -5
I miss the good old days when Batman and Superman actually liked each other. There, I said it!
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 15, 2021 9:39:40 GMT -5
I miss the good old days when Batman and Superman actually liked each other. There, I said it! What's their current status? I'm still living in the post-Crisis universe.
|
|