|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 29, 2016 9:33:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I give Robbins and Brown--as well as Irv Novick (and maybe Dick Giordano)--as much credit as O'Neill and Adams in trying to bring Batman back to his roots. The bit of time I got to scan this thread again, and educate myself as best I could, I was going to comment that it seems Batman books, prior to the Adam West TV show era, were serious in their delivery. Again, having not read anything prior to #217 (which I think is my oldest Batman, except maybe stories I mentioned in the two TPB of Greatest Stories Ever Told I have) and not much around that either. So I was already under the impression that most of the whole series prior was in the "camp" category. But at least the covers, of a lot of those earlier Batman issues give the impression the contents are of a serious note. Well, yeah, they were, by comic book standards of the time. That's one reason that many Batman readers were so turned off by the TV show, which didn't show the Batman they knew from the New Look and pre-Schiff eras. There was none of the darkness of the pre-Robin years, none of the detective work that was a mainstay of the Schwartz approach, and too much going on in bright light. This is not to say that there was no love for the TV show; you could enjoy it for its silliness and self-awareness. Comics fans weren't offended; after all, comics loved to parody themselves, or there would be no MAD, no Inferior Five (premiered in March of 1966). The show was an early instance of deconstructionism that shined a harsh but humorous light on the conventions we took for granted in comics. But quick bright things come to confusion, as Shakespeare tells us, and the TV show quickly ran its course. It was the same joke week after week and we got it. Everybody got it. The problem was that we comics fans had to bear its scars for a long time ("Biff! Pow! Judge Gives Jack Kirby Heirs One In The Kisser In Marvel Characters Ruling" – Wall Street Journal, 2011) as it seemed that the "uncomicked" public thought all comics were like the Batman TV show. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Apr 29, 2016 9:48:14 GMT -5
Edit: Are there any TPB that reprint either Batman or Detective chronologically rather than random issues like the aforementioned Batman in the 60's and 70's that I just checked out? There are six or so volumes of Showcase Presents that cover from the New Look to early Bronze Age. Each volume reprints both Detective and Batman stories. Unfortunately, they're OOP, so may be expensive and/or hard to find. Luckily, my library has them. Lone Star has volume 2 and that's it. I didn't really think to specify hoping to find color collections. Though I wouldn't be totally object to reading B&W. I just imagine they wouldn't work as well as the HoS, HoM and Witching Hour do. But there's a good chance my library might too. They have a lot of Showcase Presents of different titles. The bit of time I got to scan this thread again, and educate myself as best I could, I was going to comment that it seems Batman books, prior to the Adam West TV show era, were serious in their delivery. Again, having not read anything prior to #217 (which I think is my oldest Batman, except maybe stories I mentioned in the two TPB of Greatest Stories Ever Told I have) and not much around that either. So I was already under the impression that most of the whole series prior was in the "camp" category. But at least the covers, of a lot of those earlier Batman issues give the impression the contents are of a serious note. Well, yeah, they were, by comic book standards of the time. That's one reason that many Batman readers were so turned off by the TV show, which didn't show the Batman they knew from the New Look and pre-Schiff eras. There was none of the darkness of the pre-Robin years, none of the detective work that was a mainstay of the Schwartz approach, and too much going on in bright light. This is not to say that there was no love for the TV show; you could enjoy it for its silliness and self-awareness. Comics fans weren't offended; after all, comics loved to parody themselves, or there would be no MAD, no Inferior Five (premiered in March of 1966). The show was an early instance of deconstructionism that shined a harsh but humorous light on the conventions we took for granted in comics. But quick bright things come to confusion, as Shakespeare tells us, and the TV show quickly ran its course. It was the same joke week after week and we got it. Everybody got it. The problem was that we comics fans had to bear its scars for a long time ("Biff! Pow! Judge Gives Jack Kirby Heirs One In The Kisser In Marvel Characters Ruling" – Wall Street Journal, 2011) as it seemed that the "uncomicked" public thought all comics were like the Batman TV show. So it seems that even as a comic book reader, my ignorance of early Batman is indeed misconstrued as the comics setting the standard for the contents in the camp issues, not the TV show setting the standard for what the comics became. And dang Hal, that's a bad Wall Street title. Did Mr Kirby even draw or do a cover to any Batman book or title? That writer didn't do much research.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Apr 29, 2016 9:51:43 GMT -5
Just a slight correction, Batman #189 is not Scarecrow's first appearance. He appeared twice in the Golden Age and then disappeared for more than 20 years. Batman #189 is his Silver Age reintroduction. This is from World's Finest #3, Scarecrow's first appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Apr 29, 2016 10:25:05 GMT -5
** I know you guys are down on Miller because his version of the character isn't exactly what you imagine in your heads, but can't he get some credit for being leagues above every other American creator in mainstream comics in inventive storytelling and pure formal understanding of the medium?* I think a lot of what people stuggle with is that his vision of DC in Dark Knight Returns is a critical response to the prior 40 years of DC, years that a lot of people really like. He didn't change the characters, he just filtered them through a prism of logic: Batman is a criminal and he has to be a violent criminal because modern criminals aren't going to be superstitious or cowardly or afraid of a Halloween costume. As for Superman, the Big Blue Boy Scout simply did as he was told as all good Boy Scouts do. A Superman dedicated to upholding the law, being loyal to the US government and fighting for justice is a trainwreck waiting to happen, Miller just had the guts to throttle the train off the rails. Essentially, Batman's exterior was revised to fit the core of the character, while Superman wasn't changed in order to spotlight the logical flaws in the post-Siegel characterization. Golden Age Superman would have told Reagan to stick his nuclear warheads up his ass, and in general actually operated on a very similar level to Miller's Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Apr 29, 2016 10:42:52 GMT -5
Golden Age Superman would have told Reagan to stick his nuclear warheads up his ass ... Tee hee. This made me laugh. As much as I love late-1950s to mid-1960s Superman, and Krypto, Supergirl, Streaky, Kandor, Brainiac, the Superman Emergency Squad, Beppo, Comet, Bizarro and so on, I sometimes think Superman was never better than when he was a big-hearted anarchist stalking reckless drivers and beating up crooked orphanage managers. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 29, 2016 10:49:36 GMT -5
The problem was that we comics fans had to bear its scars for a long time ("Biff! Pow! Judge Gives Jack Kirby Heirs One In The Kisser In Marvel Characters Ruling" – Wall Street Journal, 2011) as it seemed that the "uncomicked" public thought all comics were like the Batman TV show. And dang Hal, that's a bad Wall Street title. Did Mr Kirby even draw or do a cover to any Batman book or title? That writer didn't do much research. Sloppy writing, sloppy editing. "Bam! Pow!" has become shorthand for any story on comics just as on TV news, fires only "rage;" shots only "ring out," and tragedy only "strikes." |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 29, 2016 12:03:46 GMT -5
And dang Hal, that's a bad Wall Street title. Did Mr Kirby even draw or do a cover to any Batman book or title? That writer didn't do much research. Sloppy writing, sloppy editing. "Bam! Pow!" has become shorthand for any story on comics just as on TV news, fires only "rage;" shots only "ring out," and tragedy only "strikes." Cliches only reign supreme. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 29, 2016 12:56:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 29, 2016 14:08:55 GMT -5
Just a slight correction, Batman #189 is not Scarecrow's first appearance. He appeared twice in the Golden Age and then disappeared for more than 20 years. Batman #189 is his Silver Age reintroduction. This is from World's Finest #3, Scarecrow's first appearance. Is Scarecrow playing on the fact that businessmen are a superstitious cowardly lot? |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 29, 2016 14:18:34 GMT -5
Just a slight correction, Batman #189 is not Scarecrow's first appearance. He appeared twice in the Golden Age and then disappeared for more than 20 years. Batman #189 is his Silver Age reintroduction. This is from World's Finest #3, Scarecrow's first appearance. Is Scarecrow playing on the fact that businessmen are a superstitious cowardly lot? When Jonathan Crane was trying to figure out what costume to wear, Ray Bolger came flying through his window. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Apr 29, 2016 14:52:58 GMT -5
Nice reference Hal.
(Once I googled who he was. *hangs head*)
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 29, 2016 15:21:13 GMT -5
Is Scarecrow playing on the fact that businessmen are a superstitious cowardly lot? When Jonathan Crane was trying to figure out what costume to wear, Ray Bolger came flying through his window. That's a strawman argument!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 29, 2016 15:54:24 GMT -5
When Jonathan Crane was trying to figure out what costume to wear, Ray Bolger came flying through his window. That's a strawman argument!!! If he only had a brain! |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 29, 2016 16:04:36 GMT -5
Nice reference Hal. (Once I googled who he was. *hangs head*) Forgiven. Because, like Jack Haley, I have a "haht".  |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 29, 2016 16:30:15 GMT -5
I'll get you for that Slam. You and your little dog too!!! |
|
