|
|
Post by The Cheat on Jun 7, 2017 14:31:59 GMT -5
Been a while, but didn't the silhouettes suggest Batman doubled over laughing, with his hand resting lightly on the Joker for support?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 7, 2017 14:34:07 GMT -5
Been a while, but didn't the silhouettes suggest Batman doubled over laughing, with his hand resting lightly on the Joker for support? Yes. Yes it did. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Jun 7, 2017 15:07:56 GMT -5
It was meant to be ambiguous. Maybe Batman is just laughing, or maybe he really snapped and is strangling the Joker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 7, 2017 15:16:58 GMT -5
It was meant to be ambiguous. Maybe Batman is just laughing, or maybe he really snapped and is strangling the Joker. I don't recall the original author ever saying it was meant to be ambiguous. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Jun 7, 2017 17:19:23 GMT -5
It was meant to be ambiguous. Maybe Batman is just laughing, or maybe he really snapped and is strangling the Joker. I don't recall the original author ever saying it was meant to be ambiguous. Bolland, the artist, has made it pretty clear. He wrote in the afterward to the 2008 deluxe edition. "Speaking of which, it’s time I revealed what really happened at the end of The Killing Joke: as our protagonists stood there in the rain laughing at the final joke, the police lights reflecting in the pools of filthy water underfoot, the Batman’s hand reached out and….." |
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Oct 5, 2017 12:50:28 GMT -5
I don't recall the original author ever saying it was meant to be ambiguous. Bolland, the artist, has made it pretty clear. He wrote in the afterward to the 2008 deluxe edition. "Speaking of which, it’s time I revealed what really happened at the end of The Killing Joke: as our protagonists stood there in the rain laughing at the final joke, the police lights reflecting in the pools of filthy water underfoot, the Batman’s hand reached out and….." Interesting. I can't find online where Brian Bolland revealing what really happened at the end of The Killing Joke. I know I read somewhere online a while back about the letterer of the final page indicated that he didn't get instructions that Batman killed the Joker on the last panel. It's just the way to end the story as you get a closeup of the puddle of rain. Also, Alan Moore stated that one day Batman and Joker will definitely kill each other... just NOT on that particular day (the ending of the Killing Joke). |
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Jun 15, 2020 12:35:00 GMT -5
I was looking for this thread regarding a Wally West question. Do you guys think that it was some sort of editorial sabotage with DC not really having any say as a whole regarding Wally West murdering all those metahumans in Sanctuary. At the same time him, killing his future self to bring back to the present to show that particular future Wally West as a dead corpse. I understand Tom King's stories deal mostly with PTSD and other problematic psychological issues. But did DC allow him (Tom King) to go overboard with the character assassination of beloved hero Wally West ?
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jun 15, 2020 13:31:26 GMT -5
I was looking for this thread regarding a Wally West question. Do you guys think that it was some sort of editorial sabotage with DC not really having any say as a whole regarding Wally West murdering all those metahumans in Sanctuary. At the same time him, killing his future self to bring back to the present to show that particular future Wally West as a dead corpse. I understand Tom King's stories deal mostly with PTSD and other problematic psychological issues. But did DC allow him (Tom King) to go overboard with the character assassination of beloved hero Wally West ? I feel it was a case of DC giving Tom King a free hand in hopes of ending the "which Flash is better argument" between Wally and Barry so that management can push Barry Allen as the one true Flash from here on in. After Wally's Flash became so popular taking over from Barry I don't think they were quite prepared for the backlash FANDOM gave them when Wally was "replaced" and demoted to promote the Barry Allen return. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 15, 2020 14:13:57 GMT -5
Walt Simonson was brought on board starting with Avengers #290. One of the main reasons he agreed to do the book is because he was promised the use of two of his favorite characters, Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Woman, who at the time were semi-retired from the Fantastic Four. Walt spent almost an entire year completely dismantling the team and rebuilding it so he could include Reed and Sue on the team; his first issue was #290 and his whole first arc was all set up to them finally joining in #300. But that was also his last issue, because once he finally got the pieces in place, he was told that editorial changed their mind and he could no longer use Reed and Sue after all, as they were tied to FF. Walt then agreed to jump over to FF and become the Fantastic Four writer so he could write those characters instead, leaving Avengers a complete shambles. While I can see the frustration on being told to change direction in mid-course, tying up Fantastic Four characters as members of The Avengers was a bad idea from the start. She-Hulk and Beast can come and go between Avengers and their other teams because they're not integral. But you don't have to be Dream Girl to predict that the FF writer of the moment is going to want Reed and Sue available for his stories; any time they spend off the team is just a setup for their return. |
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 15, 2020 14:40:48 GMT -5
While I can see the frustration on being told to change direction in mid-course, tying up Fantastic Four characters as members of The Avengers was a bad idea from the start. She-Hulk and Beast can come and go between Avengers and their other teams because they're not integral. But you don't have to be Dream Girl to predict that the FF writer of the moment is going to want Reed and Sue available for his stories; any time they spend off the team is just a setup for their return. Steve Englehart didn't want to bring them back - it was an editorial decree. The issue that brought them back was titled the Illusion, perhaps referring to the belief that the readers don't want real change, just the illusion of it, |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 15, 2020 14:56:01 GMT -5
Agree with this. Marvel has a new popular female super-hero in Kamala Khan, seen people clamoring for a Black Widow solo film, made SQUIRREL GIRL an actual viable property, and given solo books to Spider-Woman, Spider-Gwen, Carol Danvers and Bobbi Morse. They have actual interesting female characters at the time-being, so making Thor a female is really unnecessary, in my opinion. It's diversity simply for the sake of diversity...which I'm really getting sick of. It's just variety to goose interest. Have Rhodey be Iron Man for a while. Have Jane be Thor for a while. Have Falcon be Cap for a while. Have Wolverine be old for a while. Have Ororo be a kid for a while. Have Bruce Wayne not be Batman for a while. "Female version" is just another temporary scheme that can lead to a Grand Return for the other character, unless sales are so good as to justify making it permanent. How much spaghetti will stick to the wall? |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 15, 2020 15:36:20 GMT -5
I remember thinking Identity Crisis was decent at first, but the longer it went on the worse it got. The mind wipe stuff was really, IMO, and it required several characters to be out of character. This was the critique I heard of Identity Crisis before I read it: Heroes don't mess with people's memories. I saw where the concern arose after I read the story. Then I went back and read various late 1970s JLA stories and found the heroes erasing the minds of their enemies (#148):  And their own minds (#154):  Or, instead of mind-wiping their enemies, just tossing them out in space to die in a standing-room-only prison (#168):  So really, the only part of Identity Crisis that was out of character was the part where the heroes (and readers) were shocked at this sort of Bronze Age behavior in the modern era. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 15, 2020 15:44:32 GMT -5
Regarding JLA #168: That's the Secret Society of Super-Villains in the Justice League's bodies throwing the JLA in the SSSV's bodies into the sun, so it doesn't count.
Cei-U!
I summon the mindswap!
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 15, 2020 15:51:32 GMT -5
Regarding JLA #168: That's the Secret Society of Super-Villains in the Justice League's bodies throwing the JLA in the SSSV's bodies into the sun, so it doesn't count. Cei-U! I summon the mindswap! Oh yeah. I forgot! The heroes just "put them in prison Earthside" after swapping bodies back. This story was partial inspiration for Identity Crisis by pointing out that the villains surely would have seized the opportunity to learn what the heroes' faces looked like under their costumes. |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Jun 15, 2020 16:06:14 GMT -5
Not Swan. Anderson on covers, Plastino on interiors, so "Plastandersoning Kirby's Superman faces" maybe? Cei-U! Anderplasting? De-Kirbifying. That's a great term, which seems to cover far more than most are probably aware of.
Overpowering inkers trying to "smooth out" or remove whatever it is in Kirby's art that makes it distinct and unique. But far worse, having someone else insist on writing dialogue on stories they DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to in any way. So the personalities of the characters get changed, distorted; plot-holes and continuity glitches crop up entirely at the dialogue stage; and still worse, the INTENT of many whole stories TOTALLY changed from what THE WRITER (Jack Kirby) intended.
Many times, in the comics themselves. Other times, afterwards...
What comes to mind is the case of Morgan Edge, head of GBS broadcasting, who was secretly a member of Inter-Gang, which was actually a fifth column for Darkseid. It turns out, Kirby was doing allegorical fiction again, as not long before he was hired by DC, the company had been bought out by Warner Communications, who, under their previous name, Kinney, had also bought out Warner Brothers, then changed their name to separate themselves from... themselves... a NYC MOB involved in parking lots and trash removal. YES. DC was bought out by a NEW YORK MOB. And the Daily Planet was bought out by an agent of Darkseid. REALLY.
Except... the moment Kirby left "JIMMY OLSEN", suddenly, they did a couple of stories that "revealed" that the guy who had spent months trying to MURDER Clark Kent & Jimmy Olsen... was an evil clone, and the "real" Morgan Edge had been held prisoner all that time.
Anybody know how things stoof, "Post-Crisis" ? I wonder if that was something that got changed-- AGAIN-- or was left as-is.
On another playing field.. it's long seemed to me most Marvel movies have gone out of their way to CHANGE as much as possible and then some of anything Kirby created, so as to separate it from him as far as possible. One "minor" example is the top several floors of The Baxter Building being ROUND, instead of SQUARE. And the movie F.F. never having a Fantasti-Car that looked anything at all like any of the ones Kirby designed himself.
It's a huge crime against pop culture that nobody in Hollywood ever hired Jack Kirby to DESIGN a sci-fi movie... the way Jean Girard was hired to do "THE FIFTH ELEMENT".
|
|
