Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 25, 2015 23:24:25 GMT -5
I'm sure this has come up before, but I'm wondering if you've listened to the Fatman on Batman podcasts. Kevin Smith has like 5+ hours of interviews with Neal Adams, and another 3+ hours with Denny O'Neil, plus interviews with other Bat-creators. I'm not a Batman fan, but there's some interesting stuff in the interviews.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 26, 2015 18:18:33 GMT -5
I'm sure this has come up before, but I'm wondering if you've listened to the Fatman on Batman podcasts. Kevin Smith has like 5+ hours of interviews with Neal Adams, and another 3+ hours with Denny O'Neil, plus interviews with other Bat-creators. I'm not a Batman fan, but there's some interesting stuff in the interviews. Unfortunately, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for Kevin Smith talking comic books, but I'd be interested in anything you've learned from it.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 26, 2015 20:51:17 GMT -5
I'm sure this has come up before, but I'm wondering if you've listened to the Fatman on Batman podcasts. Kevin Smith has like 5+ hours of interviews with Neal Adams, and another 3+ hours with Denny O'Neil, plus interviews with other Bat-creators. I'm not a Batman fan, but there's some interesting stuff in the interviews. Unfortunately, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for Kevin Smith talking comic books, but I'd be interested in anything you've learned from it. I loathe Comic Book Men, but this hasn't been bad so far. I don't dislike Kevin Smith, though. I listened to his second, 2-hour interview with Neal Adams. There were a lot of interesting tidbits and anecdotes, but nothing I can recall off the top of my head about Batman really, other than Neal's opinions on some of the movies. Neal seems a little full of himself, and Kevin is happy to provide whatever positive reinforcement is necessary for that to continue, but overall it's interesting stuff. This was a follow-up to a 3-hour interview that I haven't listened to yet, though, and I expect that the original interview probably went over Neal's Batman work. I'm only an hour into the 3-hour Denny O'Neil interview and they've just now gotten to the part where Denny was hired by DC, so we haven't gotten to his Green Arrow or Batman work yet (though he did touch on a couple things - more below). He has a lot of interesting stories about his early experiences in the industry and as a fan and such. He did say that he had some regrets about putting out The Killing Joke. Not because of the content exactly, but because he misjudged who would be reading that content. He thought the format and price would restrict the audience to adults and older students, but didn't take into account the popularity and public profile of Batman. He said that as a result, a lot of parents or grandparents bought it and gave it to younger readers, assuming Batman was kid friendly material, which obviously Killing Joke is not. So he regretted it on that level, though he didn't really say what he might have done differently. I expect the next two hours will be more about his Batman stuff, though, both as writer and editor. He did mention at one point that taking over as editing Batman was a major high point for him; he said it turned his job from a job into something he loved to do, the best job in the world. He said this was because he could really do interesting, adult stuff that touched on various social issues and the like. So... I guess he felt a little differently about his time as editor than you do.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 26, 2015 20:57:27 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for Kevin Smith talking comic books, but I'd be interested in anything you've learned from it. I loathe Comic Book Men, but this hasn't been bad so far. I don't dislike Kevin Smith, though. I don't dislike Kevin Smith, either. It's just that... ...well, this. When he talks comics, he's such a damn fanboy. I want to listen to someone who knows their stuff, can maintain some objectivity, and can approach comics as a journalist, art critic, and/or historian. Kevin Smith takes more of the "Woah, that's so cool!" approach. I find the few interviews he's done that I've actually read completely devoid of actual information. That makes sense. Well, I can't imagine he's outright going to say "I was pretty much in it to make more money for DC and to stroke my own ego". Oh, wait. He HAS said both of those things, actually But yeah, whether because it sounds good for the interview or because you try to attach more meaning to your work in hindsight, nothing he says in that regard is particularly surprising to me. Really though, what social issues? There was a Grant and Breyfogle story about the trash problem and the mafia controlling the waste disposal in cities, but O'Neil wasn't involved in their work at that point. He was pretty much letting them do whatever they wanted whenever it wasn't a major multi-part storyline until Rites of Passage. There was the Grant and Breyfogle Street Demonz story that discussed how poverty begets crime. Maybe O'Neil was involved in that one? The return of Ras Al Ghul in Bride of the Demon briefly touched upon global warming, but then it went on to paint Al Ghul as a total fanatic and let go of the point. I can't think of anything else I've seen in O'Neil's (now) four year tenure that would count as a "social issue". I know there's a special one-shot about gun violence coming up in two years...
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 26, 2015 23:10:16 GMT -5
Okay, I am almost done with the second hour. He's only kinda touched on Batman so far, jumping around a little between his writing days and editing days. He's apparently going to talk about the death of Robin in the third hour.
The number one thing of interest for you in this episode is something that is no doubt also really frustrating. When he started talking about being editor on Batman and the changes he made, he said he had to fire someone - and he makes it clear he's talking about Doug Moench, though for some reason he doesn't mention Doug by name. but he says that he had a ton of respect for Doug and Doug was doing good, timely work, but that he was "backed into a corner" and had to fire him because...
...well, he doesn't say. It's implied that there's a much longer story behind it that he doesn't want to get into, but, well, he doesn't get into it, so I have no idea what the story is. He said that he later was able to rectify things by bringing Doug back for Batman #500. The overall impression that he gives is that he didn't really want to fire Doug, but there was some kind of pressure or office politics or something or other that made it necessary; and while he regretted it on a personal level, he thought it was necessary, and probably helped the book.
But he's very oblique in discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Feb 26, 2015 23:28:09 GMT -5
I can't think of anything else I've seen in O'Neil's (now) four year tenure that would count as a "social issue". I know there's a special one-shot about gun violence coming up in two years... Theres an anti-marijuana story in Shadow of the Bat and theres also a story about forgotten landmines. I don't think you've gotten to these stories yet.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 27, 2015 0:50:40 GMT -5
The second is a problem but the first is his job. In mainstream comics financial success will always trust artistic integrity, or continuity, or whatever. Making money for the company is A-L-W-A-Y-S # 1, and there's no editor in corporate comics history ever that will say anything different.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 27, 2015 5:56:43 GMT -5
Okay, I am almost done with the second hour. He's only kinda touched on Batman so far, jumping around a little between his writing days and editing days. He's apparently going to talk about the death of Robin in the third hour. The number one thing of interest for you in this episode is something that is no doubt also really frustrating. When he started talking about being editor on Batman and the changes he made, he said he had to fire someone - and he makes it clear he's talking about Doug Moench, though for some reason he doesn't mention Doug by name. but he says that he had a ton of respect for Doug and Doug was doing good, timely work, but that he was "backed into a corner" and had to fire him because... ...well, he doesn't say. It's implied that there's a much longer story behind it that he doesn't want to get into, but, well, he doesn't get into it, so I have no idea what the story is. He said that he later was able to rectify things by bringing Doug back for Batman #500. The overall impression that he gives is that he didn't really want to fire Doug, but there was some kind of pressure or office politics or something or other that made it necessary; and while he regretted it on a personal level, he thought it was necessary, and probably helped the book. But he's very oblique in discussing it. He alluded to this once before somewhere else too. Essentially, as he told it then, he was brought on specifically to boost Batman's sales, and Moench's stories weren't selling. It's self-evident, as well, that there was a lot of expectation for Batman to align more closely with the characterization seen in DKR after its release. Moench tries for this in Batman #400 (his final issue), but it doesn't really work.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 27, 2015 10:40:26 GMT -5
More tidbits coming out. If you do decide to listen to any of these, episode 62 is probably of the most interest, as he gets into his time as editor. Oddly, he doesn't spend much time at all talking about his time as writer on the book, other than a couple brief anecdotes about Ra's al Ghul. Apparently the creation of Talia and Ra's was specifically intended from jump street to introduce a major new, long term villain for Batman, as they thought the rogue's gallery was getting a little stale. So it wasn't the case where they had a one-off villain that turned out to be popular; he was intended to be a big addition to the rogue's gallery. He said Julie Schwartz already had the name Ra's al Ghul and had been waiting for the proper time to use it.
As far as his editing, he expounds on his earlier comments about why being editor of Batman was a dream job. He said that once the unpleasantness of firing Doug Moench was past, it became about the best job in the world. Part of this was because of the social issue thing I mentioned earlier. He specifically cites two stories - one is an anti-gun story he got John Ostrander to write, which he says ended up influencing Virgina state legislation on gun control. The other was a story about land mines. In both cases, the directive to do these specific public service stories came from Jenette Kahn; with the land mine thing, it was brought to her by representatives from the U.N.
That ties into O'Neil's other reason for loving the job, namely that he got to travel all over the world as a Batman ambassador, all on the company dime. I can't blame him for loving that, I would have too.
One other note that I know will be of interest to you. While he hasn't yet said anything about branding story arcs (I still have about a half hour left to get through), he does address the creation of variant covers with Legends of the Dark Knight #1. He said that this was not his idea, but rather that a guy named Bruce in DC's marketing department came up with it. O'Neil said that he loved it at the time for the simple reason that it sold more and therefore he got much bigger royalty checks; but in hindsight he doesn't like the effect it has had on the industry, specifically citing the lenticular covers as a recent gimmick that he thought was stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 27, 2015 11:12:22 GMT -5
One other note that I know will be of interest to you. While he hasn't yet said anything about branding story arcs (I still have about a half hour left to get through), he does address the creation of variant covers with Legends of the Dark Knight #1. He said that this was not his idea, but rather that a guy named Bruce in DC's marketing department came up with it. O'Neil said that he loved it at the time for the simple reason that it sold more and therefore he got much bigger royalty checks; but in hindsight he doesn't like the effect it has had on the industry, specifically citing the lenticular covers as a recent gimmick that he thought was stupid. Could it have been Bob Wayne? He was DC's Direct Sales dude at the time as I recall.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 27, 2015 11:14:49 GMT -5
It's possible. He calls him Bruce at one point, but it might have been a Freudian slip.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 27, 2015 17:56:04 GMT -5
One other note that I know will be of interest to you. While he hasn't yet said anything about branding story arcs (I still have about a half hour left to get through), he does address the creation of variant covers with Legends of the Dark Knight #1. He said that this was not his idea, but rather that a guy named Bruce in DC's marketing department came up with it. O'Neil said that he loved it at the time for the simple reason that it sold more and therefore he got much bigger royalty checks; but in hindsight he doesn't like the effect it has had on the industry, specifically citing the lenticular covers as a recent gimmick that he thought was stupid. Now that's valuable info I didn't have. Thanks much for sifting through all of this and providing the footnotes!
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Feb 27, 2015 17:57:40 GMT -5
Those would be Batman: Seduction of the Gun (1993) and Batman: Death of Innocents (1996).
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 28, 2015 7:37:33 GMT -5
Robin #2 (of 5) I won't spend much time on these, but there are some key elements worth discussing here: 1. Though appearing unnamed, we now learn that last issue was the first appearance of Lynx 2. Henry Ducard, last seen in Detective Comics #599 and #600 shows up and will be playing a part in this story. Interesting! 3. Dixon manages to blend the whiny Marty Stu Tim with the more intriguing character we first glimpsed last issue. A bit obnoxious and green on the outside; deadly serious on the inside. Minor Details: Oh no no no. Did Tim really just ask the black guy he rescued to teach him "street smarts"? Considering that the guy got his butt kicked in their previous altercation and that his resume is anti-drug enforcement, there's really nothing about what Tim has seen suggesting this guy knows anything about street smarts beyond, well, the color of his skin. Yikes. plot synopsis: Generic as hell and really not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 15, 2015 16:28:35 GMT -5
So I read 'Dark Knight, Dark City' today (it came out it a trade I picked up)... I think I liked it more than Shax did... I thought it was a most excellent story. I can see that Riddler was more vicious than he usually is, but it fits the story, and the plot is worth it. I agree 100% this is better as a 'Legends' story, as it dioesn't really fit in with the time. I loved the hostage thing... it wasn't JUST to be a diversion, it was to lead to the requirement that Batman cut one of their throats... I thought that was especially brilliant. There were a couple things that bothered me, though. One, I didn't love that Alfred was the one figuring out the riddles. While it's awesome characterization of Alfred (especially since they were British Lit references), it made Batman seem more like a ninja than a detective. Second, the bad guys have code words? That was insanely stupid. What, is the GCPD so inept they assume the bad guys will keep escaping? And they can't tell the real Riddler from a crank without one? And even if it WAS a copycat, isn't that just as relevant to investigate? Finally, the 'the City made Batman' thing was just too supernaturally goofy for me. I can accept the demon thing, since that's pretty well established in the DCU, and Batman has in fact, dealt with such things in the past. The city having a brain, a soul? Too much for me. It also cheapens the character quite a bit, in a story that already made it look like Alfred was the brains of the operation. Happily, since this was very much a 'Legends' type story, I can ignore that part without any qualms
|
|