|
|
Post by chromehead on Jul 16, 2018 0:50:58 GMT -5
Hard to believe, but this mega arc that started in Batman took place in 1993, making this tale 25 years old now.
I just read the Knightfall, Knightquest, & Knightsend trades all in order, and much of this entire story, for the first time.
I have a lot of thoughts on the whole thing, but I put it out to you guys first: what are your thoughts or remembrances of Knightfall? Any fans of the arc, or what came in the wake of it (such as Jean Paul as AzBats)?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 16, 2018 6:15:02 GMT -5
I enjoyed it well enough at the time. But I haven't read it since the early 90s and so, my memory of it is really hazy.
I had the Knightfall Pts 1 & 2 TPBs and the Knightsend one too, but it always annoyed me that there was a gap of quite a lot of issues between the end of Knightfall 2 and Knightsend. Of course, DC brought out the Knightquest TPB some years back to plug that gap, but although I picked up the Knightsquest volume I haven't read it.
The entire saga is something I've been meaning to re-read for well over a year, but so far I've not gotten around to it.
|
|
cee
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by cee on Jul 16, 2018 6:18:10 GMT -5
I thought it was barely readable, sadly, and the art was quite lackluster.
Azrael book felt unnecessary to me. I don't dislike the character. I just thought they played it way too safe.
I quite liked the Doug Moench/Kelley Jones run that soon followed. It wasn't groundbreaking or anything, but it was a fun little book, even if it felt like a showcase of sorts. It would crave a few more years for me to feel invested in Batman regular titles again, namely with No Man's Land.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 16, 2018 7:25:56 GMT -5
I avoided Knightfall when it first came out, seeing it as a shameless marketing tactic by DC and refusing to treat it as a serious attempt to tell a Batman story. Then I finally read it as an adult and was surprised by how solid the non-Azrael portions were. I've since learned a great deal more about the storyline that paints it in both a more positive and negative light at the same time. I do think anyone who is quick to judge this story for being a shameless cash-in (as I once did) needs to understand the historical context that DC had recently hit its lowest market share ever and was in serious danger of shutting down until Knightfall came along (even in spite of the short-term hype the Death of Superman had earned the company). Once big things were happening for more than one character/franchise, fans that had flocked to Marvel, Valiant, and Image, began taking note of DC as a serious company once again. Right or wrong, it was what DC needed to do to keep the lights on. The story, on the other hand, is something I see in a less positive light these days, as I now understand it's largely just Doug Moench recycling his stories from Batman #400 and Legends of The Dark Knights #14. Really, the only fresh contribution to these storylines is the existence of Azrael as Batman's uncertain successor, though that was always my least favorite part of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Jul 16, 2018 8:13:14 GMT -5
When the movie announcement came out about Batman battling Bane in Nolan's last movie, I made a point of gathering up the Knightfall arc. I liked it. It was all a little too 90s for me but I have read worse. I had zero interest in carrying on reading once Jean Paul Valley took over the mantle for Batman. In my head, I kinda view Knightfall as the end of Batman for me, even though I have read some later stuff. To me it was a nice way to end a character, by actually having a stronger villain take him out. I never liked the stupid costume Valley wore either.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 16, 2018 8:32:18 GMT -5
Batman Sword of Azrael was a great Batman story. And I liked Azreal in it. Much better than I did Jean Paul as Batman. Despite that, I thought it held together real well, and enjoyed it all. There's still a few issues of Knightquest that I haven't gotten. I've been with lazy effort trying to procure them all, and then read it again straight through; but I haven't yet.
Batman LOTDK #61 was a good story in of itself. To me well worth the whole fiasco. Kind of like Amazing Spiderman #400 amidst the 90's Clone Saga.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 16, 2018 9:51:46 GMT -5
I didn't care for it at the time when I was a massive Batman fan and was reading everything he appeared in religiously.
Now I despise it. One of the ultimate examples of editorially driven corporate crap event comics. One of the things that give 90s comics a bad name.
|
|
|
|
Post by rom on Jul 16, 2018 10:47:27 GMT -5
I was in college when Knightfall was first released. Though I was collecting some comics then (primarily Dark Horse's Star Wars comics; Grendel: War Child, etc.) I wasn't really into DC or Marvel comics & didn't collect/read any of these issues at the time. Plus, I didn't have a lot of extra spending money, so was limited in what I could collect - LOL.
That being said, the story intrigued me & I remember getting the Batman: Knightfall novel (by Denny O'Neil) out of my local library sometime in '94; this was a heavily edited telling of the series - but at least you got the idea of what the story was about. I did feel it was interesting, but also felt it was a marketing "gimmick" by DC to sell more comic books - similar to the "Death of Superman" storyline that had begun the previous year @ DC. I.e., you had to get multiple cross-over issues in various series to follow the storyline.
About 2-3 years ago, I read the most recent Knightfall, Knightquest, and Knightsend thick Trades & enjoyed them. The storyline was solid & well-done, and I liked the idea of a broken Batman having to heal & recuperate, while Azrael took his place; the storyline involving Arkham Asylum was good as well. That being said, I felt the artwork in many of these issues was not that great. I can see why it would be next-to-impossible to have one artist draw all of the issues, but I definitely feel they could have gotten better artists for at least some of them. Yes, Kelley Jones' art was amazing - but much of the rest of it was just OK, and some was not that great at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jul 16, 2018 11:05:56 GMT -5
I liked Knightfall at the time and didn't follow KnightQuest/Search/etc, etc. No idea why I should want to read about a third string character taking over Batman.
Although I had heard that Batman would get his back broken, I simply assumed that this event would take place in Batman 500 because, big anniversary issue = big event. It wasn't until I actually went to pick up Batman 497 that I realised that this was the big momentous issue.
Though people now (and then) rolled their eyes at the idea that Bruce Wayne would never be Batman again, I took it as a serious possibility. Sure he could return, but when? A year? A year when you're 14 seemed like a lifetime especially to someone who had been buying the titles every two weeks.
The cash grab didn't bother me so much as the fact that what should have been a momentous celebratory anniversary issue, turned out to be pretty bad - the 500th issue of Batman and it doesn't even have Batman in it (in fact, I think Bruce Wayne only makes a brief two or three page appearance). My reaction to that one was pretty much the same as my reaction to Superman 75 ("...that's it?")
Batman 500 was also Jim Aparo's final issue which roughly coincided with Norm Breyfogle leaving the titles. So, no more Batman for a year, no more Jim Aparo/Norm Breyfogle (my two favorite Batman artists), an endless series of cheap gimmicks to follow ("Knightfall is over, but the story is just beginning! Buy the 14 part KnightSearch! Buy the 12 part KnightQuest!"), and I was done with Batman until Zero Hour.
I don't know if it's just something you go through when you turn 14 or if the comics then were really as bad as I remember them to be. I think you could make a stronger case for the latter than the former in that all at once, DC just seemed to be focusing all of their energy into making some really terrible comics. Mullet-Superman, psychotic mass murdering Green Lantern, Batman in kewl 90's armour, never ending storylines.
I did eventually pick up most of the issues featuring Bruce Wayne's return after the fact and what really convinced me that DC had no idea where they were going with this story was that Legends of the Dark Knight issue where Bruce Wayne tells Azrael that it's time he (meaning Bruce Wayne) spend some time in the sun instead of obsessing about darkness and about not letting his obsessions get the better of him. It really reads as though Denny O Neil wanted Knightfall to serve as a learning experience for Batman - that things had gotten too dark and paranoid for the character and he needed to be reined in from the post Dark Knight excesses of the past several years. Of course, once Bruce Wayne did officially return (in Batman 515) he came back darker, colder, and more obsessed than ever. So much for O Neil's claim that DC had to do Knightfall to show people that Batman could still be relevant in an era of the more violent superhero.
Of course, when Knightfall/Quest/Search made money, it meant that DC started doing lousy gimmicks every six months or so. It really seemed as though the company didn't want you buying their stuff anymore unless you were completely serious and committed about investing in every comic they put out. I was a devoted fan, but if I didn't want to pick up, say, Shadow of the Bat one month, I thought nothing of leaving it on the stand. Once the interlocking multipart storylines became the new way of life at DC however, I was done as a reader.
This didn't happen right away - as I said, I stopped buying the titles with the end of Knightfall and started again with Zero Hour - but whenever I look at my pre-Knightfall Batman comics and think "Why did I stop buying this stuff, I used to love Batman!", I remind myself of this period.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 16, 2018 11:55:30 GMT -5
Okay, in no way was DC in dire straits. Their market share was down, due to the Image launch and big push; but, that was solely based on advanced orders; and, when Image failed to ship so many books, the pendulum swung back. Knightfall moved a lot of comics, for sure, and definitely helped DC reclaim territory; but, in large part due to the same speculation that drove the Death of Superman. Looking beyond market share, DC's sales were strong and merchandising was a major cash cow. They were still riding the Batman wave, begun in 1989. They were a very profitable company, before Knightfall and moreso after Knightfall.
As for the storyline itself? The concept was good; but, the execution was shaky. For every good segment or scene, there was a lot of stuff that required Batman or some other character to act like a complete moron. The idea of Batman and Gotham being overwhelmed by a horde of villains, unleashed by a military assault of Arkham, was intriguing. However, the idea that he would dive in, willy nilly, without planning or accepting help is ridiculous. he would realize he was in over his head and call for back-up. Then, he would direct them in a sweep to try to get things back under control. The fight with Bane required him to forget everything he learned about unarmed combat and directly engage a monster, with personal knowledge of the effects of Venom. He doesn't exploit that or the vulnerability of Bane's Venom delivery system. Commissioner Gordon and others can't recognize that someone else is under Batman's cape and cowl. Etc, etc...
On the plus side, Bruce Wayne gets some development and a bit of globe trotting. Robin gets pushed forward (though Tim Drake was already a frontline character). The return portion, where Bruce employs more psychology, redeems his lack of thinking in Knightfall. Individual chapters were good. As a whole, though, it's a bit of a sticky mess that holds together; bit, not without some seepage.
Denny O'Neil's prose novel handles the story better, by condensing down the repetitiveness of facing the villains and by concentrating on the key plots. It also redeems Gordon, with a scene where he asks Robin if the real guy is back, before Bruce confronts Azrael. It showed that Gordon was no fool, unlike the comic series. Batman TAS also handed Bane more logically, when Batman exploits the exposed tubing that delivers Venom to Bane, slicing them with a Batarang, causing Bane to OD.
Personally, I never though the Death of Superman nor Knightfall were particularly classic stories. Both had good elements that helped make them popular; but, they were too focused on stunt, rather than story. I thought books like Marvels, Kingdom Come and The Golden Age crafted far better stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 16, 2018 12:26:17 GMT -5
Knightfall is a great example of the New Coke strategy in comics. You replace a beloved classic with a modern version(s)- instant sales increase and media coverage. Then you wait until people are missing the old one, and bring it back - instant sales increase and media coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by chromehead on Jul 16, 2018 13:54:28 GMT -5
There's a lot I want to say just about Knightfall here:
- I thought the way they built up Bane was great (and the "Vengeance Of Bane" one-shot was quite well done). He's far more than just a juiced up muscle man. Bane was a good villain for Bats.
- Bruce as Batman (under the influence of some Crane fear gas) kicking the crap out of the Joker over the Joker killing Jason Todd was a good moment.
- There was a problematic moment where Batman kicks Poison Ivy in the face. Likewise, Bruce should have had a better strategy for rounding up the Arkham escapees than "just go after all of them with no rest" (they also have him whining at the end of every issue about he's going to have to face Bane).
I was 13 when this story was coming out, and was getting very jaded with the comic industry gimmicks. I missed most of Knightfall as the issues were released, but I did buy #500 and followed AzBats for a bit when he took over.
While it's true that stories like this and Death Of Superman were done for little more than shock value and to goose sales, same as the Clone Saga in 90's Spider-Man, having read all 3 stories now completely, Knightfall/Quest/End was done the best.
I'll get on to my general thoughts on Knightquest soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 16, 2018 17:10:23 GMT -5
- There was a problematic moment where Batman kicks Poison Ivy in the face. Why is that problematic? She's killing people. |
|
|
|
Post by rom on Jul 16, 2018 18:12:54 GMT -5
Okay, in no way was DC in dire straits. Their market share was down, due to the Image launch and big push; but, that was solely based on advanced orders; and, when Image failed to ship so many books, the pendulum swung back. Knightfall moved a lot of comics, for sure, and definitely helped DC reclaim territory; but, in large part due to the same speculation that drove the Death of Superman. Looking beyond market share, DC's sales were strong and merchandising was a major cash cow. They were still riding the Batman wave, begun in 1989. They were a very profitable company, before Knightfall and moreso after Knightfall. Good points. I don't remember DC having financial issues in the '90's - but Marvel comics definitely did. I remember someone trying to sell me Marvel stock around that time (I didn't buy any). Marvel stock wasn't worth the paper it was printed on back during that time period. Also, the majority of Marvel's '90's comics were, for the most part, s$#%. |
|
|
|
Post by chromehead on Jul 16, 2018 20:07:58 GMT -5
- There was a problematic moment where Batman kicks Poison Ivy in the face. Why is that problematic? She's killing people. He had Ivy defeated at that point, it was more giving her a boot to the face because she smarted off to him, and they were trying to portray a Batman "on the edge" or worn down. It was excessive.  |
|
