|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 16, 2018 20:13:17 GMT -5
I am getting closer and closer to the start of Knightfall in my project to read every issue of Detective Comics from #390 to the present. If I remember correctly, the prelude to Knightfall starts with #658 and I'm up to #640.
I really liked Knightfall when it came out! I hadn't read Batman or Detective Comics regularly for quite a while, but I was all in on Knightfall! And I liked Azrael as Batman. The Joker story in Detective Comics where the Joker is trying to film "The Death of Batman" is one of my favorite "recent" Joker stories. (Which to me means "after 1986," I guess.)
I read Detective Comics regularly for YEARS after Knightfall. Up to about #785 or so before I quit again. (I pretty much didn't read new comics between 2004 (or so) and 2011.)
Even though I loved Knightfall when it came out (and I have read it several times over the years), it isn't at all hard to point and laugh at some of the dumb stuff. But when it's good, it's really good! The Victor Zsasz segment is really good! I also got a kick out of the Ventriloquist trying to find a new puppet.
I've been looking forward to reading it again! At the rate I've been reading these comics, I'll probably be up to Knightfall in a week or ten days.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 16, 2018 21:28:50 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$#%. Marvel's financial issues were all on paper. Ron Perelman (not the actor, Ron Perlman), whose McAndrews Group owned Marvel, at the time, basically bled every cent out of the company. When they took Marvel public, they pocketed the proceeds from the stock issue. They then issued junk bonds, with the stock as collateral. They pocketed the proceeds from that. They issued a second set of junk bonds, with the stock, again, as collateral. Then, they went on a buying spree, buying outright or buying controlling interest in Fleer (who produced Marvel trading cards), Panini (who produced Marvel licensed books in Europe, and then Heroes World, to be their own distribution company. Fleer took a major nosedive when the trading card market bottomed out, after speculators abandoned the market. Panini also had financial problems and it was sold off. Heroes World was a fiasco. It was a regional distributor, who did not have the infrastructure to handle accounts on a national scale, and Marvel didn't pump in cash to expand their staff. Since they were the sole outlet, every comic shop had to make a separate purchase from them, rather than a single to Diamond, Captial or regional distributor (like Heroes World, originally). Marvel also set ridiculously high minimums and product bundling to get decent discounts. So, shops were way over-ordering, tying up their cash, since they had to purchase the comics up front. Then, they were stuck with excess inventory they couldn't shift. That reduced their cash, which meant they couldn't pay for their orders and comic shops started shutting down. That reduced Heroes World's cash flow, which sent their costs skyrocketing. Marvel was heavily debt financing, with nothing going back into the company. mcAndrews were skimming everything off the top. They cut staff in a couple or three waves, reducing Marvel's staff by about 50-60%. Marvel's stock price plummeted and the junk bond holders (led by Carl Icahn, who had bought them up, looking to acquire the company) were going after control of the company, since the stock was the collateral for the junk bonds. Marvel was over-extended on bank credit and McAndrews took them into Chapter 11, to hold of Icahn and his group. They couldn't take control, without the bankruptcy court's approval. McAndrews tried a couple of reorganization plans, that basically didn't address the outstanding debt and the court shot them down. Icahn submitted his own proposal, that shut out many of Marvel's other creditors, like Toy Biz and they fought it in the court. Toy Biz submitted a proposal that addressed the bank debt and McAndrews decided to cut losses and withdrew opposition, while Icahn's group was undercut, since they would be part of the repayment. Toy Biz acquired the company in a stock trade, got new financing and then ran it tighter than a skirt on a hooker. It was the influx of movie cash that helped get Marvel's debt paid down and obtained more lenient financing, then the Disney buyout. All of that is a complicated way of saying, Marvel was still earning more from publishing than anyone else; but, the money wasn't going to the company. It was being siphoned off by McAdnrews. Marvel's stock performance was used to back up McAndrews venture capital portfolio and to back the junk bonds. Marvel's licensing wasn't that strong and their media presence was mostly failed projects, like generation X and Nick Fury, with Blade about the only project that hit, before the first X-Men movie and Spider-Man. If McAndrews had put the money from the stock and the junk bonds into Marvel, they wouldn't have needed the bank financing (which was also used for the licensee purchases, like Fleer and Panini) and would have been financially stronger than DC (apart from being a division of a multi-billion dollar entertainment conglomerate). Their debts were mostly numbers on paper, due to financial games. That was the reason for McAndrews existence. They use other money to buy and sell companies, pocketing the profits, then moving on. Venture capitalists have wreaked more havoc on the US and world economy than just about anyone, as they portfolio strength is more important than running their holdings well. Your biggest example is Sears. It is owned by a venture capitalist who has run it into the ground; yet, he's still making tons of money. Marvel's financial woes led to staff cuts, which led to a mass exodus of talent, in one way or another. Editorially, it had been a mess since Shooter was ousted, though his latter days weren't roses, either. He had alienated a large part of the staff, and no one wanted to work there anymore. The problem is, they didn't have a good successor in place. Tom DeFalco was way over his head. The McAndrews people made a bigger mess of that, when they restructured the editorial side, then the Bill Jemas mess. DC was pretty stable through all of that. They were making a ton of money in other media, licensing, and in bookstores. Marvel barely existed in the book trade, since they wouldn't keep their trades in print. DC managed their presence well, though at the expense of creators like Alan Moore, and their property rights. DC started having bigger issues when the publishing people were more and more replaced by people from the entertainment side of Warner and by inexperienced writers and editors, causing them to lose focus. That's when you see them turn back the clock to stunt after stunt, reboot after reboot, trying to squeeze dollars out of a shrinking direct market. Warner cared more about what DC's characters did in other markets, ot publishing. Marvel has since caught up, as Disney's thinking is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 21:48:46 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. Exactly! Marvel is more guilty than DC doing this IMO. It seems like Marvel goes thru this every decade.
But DC was caught up in doing this over & over to their characters in the 90's. I don't mind when it makes sense such as having Dick replace Bruce but it made no sense at all to bring in someone new that only became part of the Batman mythos recently. And even though I understand why DC had Azrael instead of Dick for contrast purposes I still didn't like it. I also wondered about readers looking for Batman comics when the movies were out and finding AzBats instead. I also thought Bane was a stupid villain. So no I wasn't a fan of Knightfall. I wasn't really much of a fan of DC or Marvel at this time except for a few series like Flash or Hulk . Most of my reading was Valiant and some Ultraverse.
|
|
|
Post by rom on Jul 17, 2018 7:31:25 GMT -5
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$#%. Marvel's financial issues were all on paper. Ron Perelman (not the actor, Ron Perlman), whose McAndrews Group owned Marvel, at the time, basically bled every cent out of the company. When they took Marvel public, they pocketed the proceeds from the stock issue. They then issued junk bonds, with the stock as collateral. They pocketed the proceeds from that. They issued a second set of junk bonds, with the stock, again, as collateral. Then, they went on a buying spree, buying outright or buying controlling interest in Fleer (who produced Marvel trading cards), Panini (who produced Marvel licensed books in Europe, and then Heroes World, to be their own distribution company. Fleer took a major nosedive when the trading card market bottomed out, after speculators abandoned the market. Panini also had financial problems and it was sold off. Heroes World was a fiasco. It was a regional distributor, who did not have the infrastructure to handle accounts on a national scale, and Marvel didn't pump in cash to expand their staff. Since they were the sole outlet, every comic shop had to make a separate purchase from them, rather than a single to Diamond, Captial or regional distributor (like Heroes World, originally). Marvel also set ridiculously high minimums and product bundling to get decent discounts. So, shops were way over-ordering, tying up their cash, since they had to purchase the comics up front. Then, they were stuck with excess inventory they couldn't shift. That reduced their cash, which meant they couldn't pay for their orders and comic shops started shutting down. That reduced Heroes World's cash flow, which sent their costs skyrocketing. Marvel was heavily debt financing, with nothing going back into the company. mcAndrews were skimming everything off the top. They cut staff in a couple or three waves, reducing Marvel's staff by about 50-60%. Marvel's stock price plummeted and the junk bond holders (led by Carl Icahn, who had bought them up, looking to acquire the company) were going after control of the company, since the stock was the collateral for the junk bonds. Marvel was over-extended on bank credit and McAndrews took them into Chapter 11, to hold of Icahn and his group. They couldn't take control, without the bankruptcy court's approval. McAndrews tried a couple of reorganization plans, that basically didn't address the outstanding debt and the court shot them down. Icahn submitted his own proposal, that shut out many of Marvel's other creditors, like Toy Biz and they fought it in the court. Toy Biz submitted a proposal that addressed the bank debt and McAndrews decided to cut losses and withdrew opposition, while Icahn's group was undercut, since they would be part of the repayment. Toy Biz acquired the company in a stock trade, got new financing and then ran it tighter than a skirt on a hooker. It was the influx of movie cash that helped get Marvel's debt paid down and obtained more lenient financing, then the Disney buyout. Marvel's financial woes led to staff cuts, which led to a mass exodus of talent, in one way or another. Editorially, it had been a mess since Shooter was ousted, though his latter days weren't roses, either. He had alienated a large part of the staff, and no one wanted to work there anymore. The problem is, they didn't have a good successor in place. Tom DeFalco was way over his head. The McAndrews people made a bigger mess of that, when they restructured the editorial side, then the Bill Jemas mess. Thanks for the explanation. But, I strongly beg to differ that Marvel didn't have financial issues during this time - if it was "all on paper" it was definitely still an issue. People losing their jobs, bad morale, etc. Whoever made these decisions obviously had their collective heads up their collective a$$e$. I'm surprised that Marvel survived as a company - without going under. But, I guess their luck turned around with the huge success of the Marvel movies - starting in 2000 with the first X-men film (which I didn't like that much, but that's another post). Sears is a good example of another company this has happened to; also, I read that TRU's demise (earlier this year) was because of similar reasons.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 17, 2018 9:51:50 GMT -5
What I mean is that it was mostly due to financial maneuverings, not a downturn in their revenue. Many companies are still making profit; but, not enough profit for the Wall Street sharks, who then dump stock. Others jump on the bandwagon and companies lose liquidity to pay their bills in a timely matter. Once you have liquidity problems, debt piles up quickly. Then, if you have problems paying down your debt, your creditors close you off and the cycle feeds itself. That's what was happening at Marvel. Most of their issues were more exercises in accounting, by McAndrews, rather than actual losses. Their chief problem was that the money Marvel earned was being siphoned off by McAndrews, rather than funding Marvel's operations. Later, when Ike Perlmutter was running things, after the Toy Biz deal, most of their revenue was going to pay their debts, which is a big reason why their output shrunk. Sean Howe;s book describes them even grousing about use of office supplies.
Contrast with a company like Eclipse. Their problems were that they were a small company, with lower monthly sales; but strong back issue sales. So, a lot of their cash took time to come in. So, they had to print new titles without the revenue from the previous issues. When the Russian River flooded their warehouse, they lost most of their back issue stock. That destroyed their back issue sales, cutting off the main source of their cash. They were being squeezed off the newsstand by DC and Marvel; so, they didn't have big new comic sales. Then, they had a publishing agreement with Harper Collins to publish their trade collections; but, they got their revenues well after HC did. So, even though books like the Hobbit sold well, they didn't see the cash for some months. They got to the point where they couldn't get books printed because they owed the printers for previous jobs or took so long to pay they would only print with payment up front.
Acclaim was doing fine, in the comic world; but, the gaming side of the company was taking major losses, after failed games and it sank the whole company. They had bought Valiant to have characters to exploit for games; but, ironically, it was the gaming side that killed the comic publisher, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Jul 17, 2018 15:36:19 GMT -5
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. I see what you mean. But surely it's meant to be excessive and problematic that Batman is behaving that way? If I'm not mistaken, there is a bit earlier where Batman is appalled by Ivy's evil acts, so it's more a result of that than because she 'smarted off' to him.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jul 17, 2018 17:01:51 GMT -5
I just started reading comics when the Knightfall storyline was unfolding. As a 6-to-7-year-old who just wanted to read Batman comics featuring the same character from the animated series, it was aggravating to find some blonde psychopath in increasingly terrible Batarmour there instead.
|
|
|
Post by chromehead on Jul 17, 2018 18:17:06 GMT -5
I see what you mean. But surely it's meant to be excessive and problematic that Batman is behaving that way? If I'm not mistaken, there is a bit earlier where Batman is appalled by Ivy's evil acts, so it's more a result of that than because she 'smarted off' to him. I think the proceeding page had Ivy revealing that the affluent men she exposed to the spores at the event were either zombies or dead. Again, though, he had Ivy beat at this point, so the kick to the face just came off as "extreme 90's Batman" more than anything. That, or he was worn down and literally running on no sleep at that point for days.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 21, 2018 13:11:21 GMT -5
So I've read the first three chapters of Knightfall! I mentioned in another thread some of my objections to the storyline as a whole (even though I love it and have read it several times over the years). I don't think Bane and his cohorts are very interesting. And I think Batman is foolish for letting himself get so tired.
However, I just read Chapter Three, and in this case, Batman is responding to a specific threat - Victor Zsasz has taken several hostages at a school for girls. This makes sense. He can't just go home and go to bed! (Although personally, I think Montoya is enough of a badass that she could have taken out Zsasz herself. That's how I would have written it. But Batman doesn't know she's there.)
Other things I liked in these early issues: Robin fighting Bird, the Mad Hatter noticing that he's being watched and sending his chimp after the falcon, the bizarre comedic stylings of Amygdala, the Ventriloquist, Socko, and various puppets. (I laugh out loud whenever I think of the mouse puppet saying "Look out gehind you! A monster!"). And Aparo's rendition of Montoya (in Batman #491) is great! (Norm Breyfogle also does a great job on Montoya.)
|
|
|
Post by chromehead on Jul 21, 2018 16:04:27 GMT -5
So I've read the first three chapters of Knightfall! I mentioned in another thread some of my objections to the storyline as a whole (even thought I love it and have read it several times over the years). I don't think Bane and his cohorts are very interesting. And I think Batman is foolish for letting himself get so tired. However, I just read Chapter Three, and in this case, Batman is responding to a specific threat - Victor Zsasz has taken several hostages at a school for girls. This makes sense. He can't just go home and go to bed! (Although personally, I think Montoya is enough of a badass that she could have taken out Zsasz herself. That's how I would have written it. But Batman doesn't know she's there.) Other things I liked in these early issues: Robin fighting Bird, the Mad Hatter noticing that he's being watched and sending his chimp after the falcon, the bizarre comedic stylings of Amygdala, the Ventriloquist, Socko, and various puppets. (I laugh out loud whenever I think of the mouse puppet saying "Look out gehind you! A monster!"). And Aparo's rendition of Montoya (in Batman #491) is great! (Norm Breyfogle also does a great job on Montoya.) There is some exceptional artwork through this story, by Aparo and Breyfogle (I think either the Mad Hatter or the Zzasz issues are Norm’s last on Batman for a bit—in the background of one of the panels, there’s some graffiti that says “Metaphysique is coming”, a sly reference to Norm’s creator-owned Bravara series that came out soon around this time—which I actually read and wrote him a fan letter about). I also think Mike Manley does some great work when he takes over after #500 and AzBats is in the batsuit.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Aug 20, 2018 12:22:58 GMT -5
The first Knightfall book was only the second trade paperback I ever owned. I loved it. It hooked me forever on Batman. Read it over and over again. Can still recite large swaths of it verbatim. One of my favorite comics ever.
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Aug 22, 2018 12:52:47 GMT -5
I remember my father buying the trades for me when I was little, many years after the story was finished. It was great. And even looking back I still find it a really good story, which is why I voted for it in the 'top 100' poll we did last year.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 22, 2018 15:42:52 GMT -5
Although I don't recall who said it or where, I did read an interview with someone involved in Knightfall that the series was planned before The Death of Superman. Of course, the Superman event took place first but I've long wondered if that's why it reads as so rushed. With Knightfall, the players were introduced in their own little miniseries and one-shots, their backstories and objectives provided; foreshadowing was introduced by having Batman's mental state devolve to the point that as Bruce Wayne he sought out the help of therapist Shondra Kinsolving; clearly, this was all leading up to something. In comparison, Doomsday was clearly rushed into a story which hadn't been thought out beyond "Superman and a big monster punch one another for seven issues". As much as I disliked everything that happened after Knightfall, it's clear that they had some idea where they were headed. With Superman on the other hand, I can't help but suspect that that three month break they took after Funeral with a Friend was necessitated by the fact that the Superman offices hadn't thought things through beyond 'Superman dies and we bring him back later'.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 23, 2018 10:45:47 GMT -5
Although I don't recall who said it or where, I did read an interview with someone involved in Knightfall that the series was planned before The Death of Superman. Of course, the Superman event took place first but I've long wondered if that's why it reads as so rushed. With Knightfall, the players were introduced in their own little miniseries and one-shots, their backstories and objectives provided; foreshadowing was introduced by having Batman's mental state devolve to the point that as Bruce Wayne he sought out the help of therapist Shondra Kinsolving; clearly, this was all leading up to something. In comparison, Doomsday was clearly rushed into a story which hadn't been thought out beyond "Superman and a big monster punch one another for seven issues". As much as I disliked everything that happened after Knightfall, it's clear that they had some idea where they were headed. With Superman on the other hand, I can't help but suspect that that three month break they took after Funeral with a Friend was necessitated by the fact that the Superman offices hadn't thought things through beyond 'Superman dies and we bring him back later'. Did Doomsday really require a backstory though? He and Bane were both villains invented to come out of nowhere and be the one to somehow succeed where a rich rogues gallery with a half century history had failed. Bane had to have a psychological component since Batman had become a deeply psychological character (and because breaking him wouldn't be that hard). Superman just needed someone to punch him to death.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 23, 2018 21:52:13 GMT -5
Although I don't recall who said it or where, I did read an interview with someone involved in Knightfall that the series was planned before The Death of Superman. Of course, the Superman event took place first but I've long wondered if that's why it reads as so rushed. With Knightfall, the players were introduced in their own little miniseries and one-shots, their backstories and objectives provided; foreshadowing was introduced by having Batman's mental state devolve to the point that as Bruce Wayne he sought out the help of therapist Shondra Kinsolving; clearly, this was all leading up to something. In comparison, Doomsday was clearly rushed into a story which hadn't been thought out beyond "Superman and a big monster punch one another for seven issues". As much as I disliked everything that happened after Knightfall, it's clear that they had some idea where they were headed. With Superman on the other hand, I can't help but suspect that that three month break they took after Funeral with a Friend was necessitated by the fact that the Superman offices hadn't thought things through beyond 'Superman dies and we bring him back later'. Did Doomsday really require a backstory though? He and Bane were both villains invented to come out of nowhere and be the one to somehow succeed where a rich rogues gallery with a half century history had failed. Bane had to have a psychological component since Batman had become a deeply psychological character (and because breaking him wouldn't be that hard). Superman just needed someone to punch him to death. Although I realise that following the Crisis Superman wasn't much of a thinker, it does the character a disservice to present him as someone who could be defeated by a big, dumb brute whose only qualification for killing Superman is that he can punch really, really hard. Even for a story as simplistic as "Superman gets punched to death by a monster over the course of seven issues" it still seems as if DC found themselves in danger of being outwitted by this idiotic formula. "So here's how Supes dies - the monster punches him to death. The End." "Sounds great. So who stops the monster?" "...oh crap. uh, um, uhhhh… how about just as Superman's about to die, he punches the monster and the monster dies at that exact same second too?" "That's a pretty big coincidence." "Just do it!" Superman being punched to death by an opponent he should have been able to defeat by remembering that he could fly would be like Batman dying by being kicked in the head by a mule or something - sure it could happen, but come on. In the mid-60's, DC added a villain to Batman's Rogues Gallery named The Outsider who knew all of the Caped Crusader's secrets. He could and would strike at Batman from the Bat-Cave, in his guise as Bruce Wayne, and even sabotage the Batman's tools and weapons as Batman was using them. It was an ongoing storyline which uncharacteristically for that era, injected an ominous feeling of great foreboding into the proceedings. "We're going to get this guy, right Batman?" "...I hope so, Robin". There was a lack of certainty on Batman's part and a vague sense that this might be the guy to bring him down. Of course, that didn't happen and The Outsider turned out to be Alfred who had been dead for about two years at point, but the character had weight even when he wasn't around. Doomsday didn't have that and I guess he didn't need it either, but there should have been some apprehension on Superman's part in the events leading up to Doomsday's arrival - a feeling that "today feels odd for a reason I can't explain". Knightfall had an arc beginning prior to Knightfall; Death of Superman was just another day in the life of Superman until Doomsday spontaneously popped into existence and beat him to death - it was just seven issues of wrassling.
|
|