|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jun 4, 2015 14:06:29 GMT -5
Meh not really. The book looked moody but DKR was a whole other beast. Yeah. A completely psychotic one. I consider Miller to be most overrated Batman scribe, and DKR to be have been elevated to a status completely beyond anything it deserves. Maybe I'm just biased towards violent anti-heroes (see icon) but DKR Batman is by far my favorite intrepretation and the one I admire most.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 4, 2015 15:49:38 GMT -5
Meh not really. The book looked moody but DKR was a whole other beast. Yeah. A completely psychotic one. I consider Miller to be most overrated Batman scribe, and DKR to be have been elevated to a status completely beyond anything it deserves. Part of that is because of the impression it made when it came out and how different (and well done) it seemed compared to what else was around. Looking at it now, not as impressive. Same thing happened with O'Neil's GA/GL stories. Probably other examples.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jun 4, 2015 18:02:20 GMT -5
Yeah. A completely psychotic one. I consider Miller to be most overrated Batman scribe, and DKR to be have been elevated to a status completely beyond anything it deserves. There are some parts of TDKR that are so badly written that they still make me cringe.
But "most overrated Batman scribe"? That would be either Grant Morrison or Jeph Loeb.
I did say "I consider..." so I don't necessarily expect everyone (or, indeed, anyone) to agree. I 'm just glad DC had the sense to veto Miller's dream Batman project: Batman Murders Every Muslim in the World! (a.k.a. Holy Terror, Batman!). If only they had done the same with unmitigated pile of fetid dingo kidneys that is All-Star Batman and Robin. (And has there even been a more inaccurately named comic book?)
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jun 4, 2015 18:48:47 GMT -5
Yeah. A completely psychotic one. I consider Miller to be most overrated Batman scribe, and DKR to be have been elevated to a status completely beyond anything it deserves. Maybe I'm just biased towards violent anti-heroes (see icon) but DKR Batman is by far my favorite intrepretation and the one I admire most. It's definitely my favorite from my lifetime. (Note: I am not a Batman guy.) It is one of the most formally innovative* and narratively innovative** superhero comics out there, and definitely the most of both of those starring Batman. * All those teeny little stacatto panels - Krigstein did it but I don't think this had ever been done in superhero comics before. And the way dialog and narration wer used - disjointed, fragmentary, indicative of sensory overload - worked perfectly with the themes and worldbuilding that Miller was using, but was also brand new to superhero comics. ** The panel-to-panel storytelling is very manga-esque (well, Lone Wolf and Cub-esque) and the actual structure is pure Sophocles, complete with the media acting as Greek Chorus. And there's a lot of Eisner in there, too. I can't think of an American superhero writer since Stan Lee who was effectively incorporating such a wide range of influences not just in what the story is about but how the story is told. I suspect most of the criticisms of Dark Knight Returns and Year One are simply "This is not the version of Batman I have in my head." And most of the online discussion seems to be how the work dealt with Batman as a character. But really DKR has the reputation it has because the level of craft on display is so, so, soooooooo far above what anyone else has done with Batman in that time frame, or since. Or maaaaaaaaybe before, but I could probably put together an argument for Bill Finger and Dick Sprang working on similar levels.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 4, 2015 18:49:08 GMT -5
If only they had done the same with unmitigated pile of fetid dingo kidneys that is All-Star Batman and Robin. (And has there even been a more inaccurately named comic book?) I actually really like where that story was going before it dropped off the face of the Earth. It was an attempt to tell the Batman mythos in reverse: if there was a crime-infested city that spawned a crime victim obsessed enough to become a costumed avenger and fight back, what kind of a person would he be? It not only justifies the over-the-top DKR Batman, but those last few issues showed thee character beginning to evolve out of his manic vigilante mode into something that might begin to resemble a hero, tucking his demons away in the closet and allowing them to drive his hunger for justice without driving his actions completely. After all, Miller's justification for Batman's extemism in DKR is the death of Jason Todd, which sent him into retirement and, presumably, over the edge. Before that, he was something closer to the Year One Batman -- a man with issues, but not taking out villains with rubber bullets and spine cracking.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 5, 2015 0:08:58 GMT -5
I think DKR's is a masterpiece and deserves its reputations, even though it's not my ideal Batman. (That would be BTAS to be honest. It took everything great about Batman in the Golden, Bronze and Modern ages and improved on a lot of things.)
DKR's and Watchmen fascinate me beyond just being great comics. I often wonder if part of the point of those stories was to take the grim-gritty movement, which had been going on since the early 70's, and take it to an extreme, yet logical, conclusion? Superheroes break when exposed to that level of psychological realism (Both are just as fantastic in terms of the action, powers, etc.) so both stories had to represent the END of Batman, and in Watchmen's case, the superhero as a concept. Given Moore's opinions with his ABC line, I wouldn't doubt that was part of his point. I'm not sure with Miller, though. He can be wry and satirical, but he obviously loves grim-gritty stories. I do think that the ending of DKR's makes all the difference. If Batman would have stayed in Gotham, turning the gangs into a milita of Batman for instance, I think it would have illustrated that Miller probably felt that Batman comics should be that dark in general. (Let's not forget that Miller loved and praised Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Mad Love story and was a big fan of BTAS.)
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jun 5, 2015 3:39:30 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just biased towards violent anti-heroes (see icon) but DKR Batman is by far my favorite intrepretation and the one I admire most. It's definitely my favorite from my lifetime. (Note: I am not a Batman guy.) It is one of the most formally innovative* and narratively innovative** superhero comics out there, and definitely the most of both of those starring Batman. * All those teeny little stacatto panels - Krigstein did it but I don't think this had ever been done in superhero comics before. And the way dialog and narration wer used - disjointed, fragmentary, indicative of sensory overload - worked perfectly with the themes and worldbuilding that Miller was using, but was also brand new to superhero comics. ** The panel-to-panel storytelling is very manga-esque (well, Lone Wolf and Cub-esque) and the actual structure is pure Sophocles, complete with the media acting as Greek Chorus. And there's a lot of Eisner in there, too. I can't think of an American superhero writer since Stan Lee who was effectively incorporating such a wide range of influences not just in what the story is about but how the story is told. I suspect most of the criticisms of Dark Knight Returns and Year One are simply "This is not the version of Batman I have in my head." And most of the online discussion seems to be how the work dealt with Batman as a character. But really DKR has the reputation it has because the level of craft on display is so, so, soooooooo far above what anyone else has done with Batman in that time frame, or since. Or maaaaaaaaybe before, but I could probably put together an argument for Bill Finger and Dick Sprang working on similar levels. Oh absolutely, the art and storytelling in DKR is just incredible. The book is a big pile of chaos with a zillion panels and captions but it works so well. I think in terms of the emotional impact of the comics form it's Kirby's dynamic explosive ethos taken to the next level. The art plays on so many levels. There is no model sheet. How the characters look depends on what their role is in that one moment, jumping between naturalism and expressionism panel after panel. Textures play a role in the story, with gridded lines being omnipresent and the force of Batman's soul being represented by the breaking of those grids. And Lynn Varley's color work is unparalleled, mixing saturated and desaturated colors in a way that just wasn't possible in the 4 color system and communicating in a way that was mostly unheard of in American comics. Sadly it seems like the majority considers DKR to be an ugly book ruined by artwork. Ugh. I actually really like where that story was going before it dropped off the face of the Earth. It was an attempt to tell the Batman mythos in reverse: if there was a crime-infested city that spawned a crime victim obsessed enough to become a costumed avenger and fight back, what kind of a person would he be? It not only justifies the over-the-top DKR Batman, but those last few issues showed thee character beginning to evolve out of his manic vigilante mode into something that might begin to resemble a hero, tucking his demons away in the closet and allowing them to drive his hunger for justice without driving his actions completely. After all, Miller's justification for Batman's extemism in DKR is the death of Jason Todd, which sent him into retirement and, presumably, over the edge. Before that, he was something closer to the Year One Batman -- a man with issues, but not taking out villains with rubber bullets and spine cracking. I liked that direction as well, once Miller actually started going there. The end of the "yellow" issue is very powerful and a glimmer of what Miller once was, but overall it is too little in the scope of the whole awfulness of it all. Even though Jason Todd is, on the surface, the reason for Batman's outlook in DKR, I never needed that excuse. Batman had been eternally 28 for years, forever youthful. Miller gave us a Batman who has moved beyond that youth and besides having experienced horrible things is also the grumpy old guy telling kids to get off his lawn. He is the older generation getting back in the saddle to tell Generation X how it's supposed to be done. I think DKR's is a masterpiece and deserves its reputations, even though it's not my ideal Batman. (That would be BTAS to be honest. It took everything great about Batman in the Golden, Bronze and Modern ages and improved on a lot of things.) DKR's and Watchmen fascinate me beyond just being great comics. I often wonder if part of the point of those stories was to take the grim-gritty movement, which had been going on since the early 70's, and take it to an extreme, yet logical, conclusion? Superheroes break when exposed to that level of psychological realism (Both are just as fantastic in terms of the action, powers, etc.) so both stories had to represent the END of Batman, and in Watchmen's case, the superhero as a concept. Given Moore's opinions with his ABC line, I wouldn't doubt that was part of his point. I'm not sure with Miller, though. He can be wry and satirical, but he obviously loves grim-gritty stories. I do think that the ending of DKR's makes all the difference. If Batman would have stayed in Gotham, turning the gangs into a milita of Batman for instance, I think it would have illustrated that Miller probably felt that Batman comics should be that dark in general. (Let's not forget that Miller loved and praised Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Mad Love story and was a big fan of BTAS.) I definitely believe that was Miller's goal. Even in the mid-80s Batman was still hanging onto a lot of old fashioned ideas, some of which had been held onto for nearly 50 years. Miller threw it all out and imagined what Batman would be if he was a product of the 80s. The big innovation was violence. Criminals are not a superstitious lot, nor are they inherently cowardly. They aren't going to be scared of a Halloween costume, they're going to be scared of being thrown through a window by the guy in that costume. The costume becomes a herald of the pain they are going to experience and it is that pain that they fear. Miller also looked at the legal ramifications. Batman, and all superheroes really, would be vigilantes working outside the law. Miller wisely gave Batman the self-awareness to recognize this. He operates outside the system because the system doesn't work and if that system wants him in chains then too damn bad. Miller's point is that a Batman that can work within the system is a Batman that has no reason to exist. Superman was also thrown into a very harsh light, an even harsher one because the character had fallen so far from where he had been. At some point Superman had stopped standing up for whats right and had started standing up for the system under the logic that the system is always right. Miller pushed the right buttons in making his Superman. If you're sworn to hold up truth, justice and the American way, and the tenets of that vow include obeying the law and support the government, what are you going to do when the President commands you to go to war in a banana republic? Batman, who is accepting of his inherent criminality, would tell the Pres to stick it up his ass but Superman? Duty calls. It also helps that a lot of Batman's actions in the book are reminiscent of Golden Age Supes' behaviour including psychological torture, assault and outright urban terrorism. This version of Superman gets a lot of flack from people saying Miller doesn't understand the character but it seems to be Miller absolutely understands the character, or at least this contradiction. It's a deconstruction, a criticism, and the gaping holes Miller revealed have been recently filled. And I agree that TAS has the ideal Batman (even if it's not my absolute favorite, it's definitely #2). I think the great thing about that version of the character is that it could be used to tell stories from any era. Batman Beyond went even darker than Miller did and was perfectly in character while on TAS Batman often went up against Sprang-esque giant props and other absurdities. Noir, science fiction, fantasy, camp and outright superheroism in Justice Leage, TAS Bats could do it all.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 5, 2015 8:58:09 GMT -5
That's interesting.. see, I think of Batman as about 28 when he started out in the 40s... I pictured the pre-new 52 Batman as in his early 40s, and Dick Grayson 28 or so. My personal canon places most of DC's silver age heroes around that age, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jun 5, 2015 13:53:03 GMT -5
That's interesting.. see, I think of Batman as about 28 when he started out in the 40s... I pictured the pre-new 52 Batman as in his early 40s, and Dick Grayson 28 or so. My personal canon places most of DC's silver age heroes around that age, to be honest. Obviously to have Dick Grayson grow up there needs to be some passage of time. I think Post-Crisis there was more of a sense of Batman being older but before, which was helped by having so many major events. It felt like he had been at it around 15 years before they rebooted.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 5, 2015 14:00:44 GMT -5
Yeah, that's about right... starting at 12-14... late twenties at reboot.... the half way point being when New Teen Titans started up and he was in college (thus, 18-20).
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 7, 2015 21:01:01 GMT -5
Batman #460 "Sisters in Arms, Part One, It's a Man's World" writer: Alan Grant pencils: Norm Breyfogle inks: Tim Sale colors: Adrienne Roy letters: Todd Klein asst. editor: Kelley Puckett editor: Dennis O'Neil Batman creator: Bob Kane grade: A It's well documented that I have not been a fan of Alan Grant up to this point, but it's become apparent as of this issue that he's doing what I love best -- building a strong continuity, full of rich supporting cast members with their own story arcs. It's what made Moench's Pre-Crisis run my favorite, and I suddenly feel like I'm reading those old stories again as we've got the relationship between Gordon and Essen, Catwoman's battle with the media, Vicki Vale's emotional instability and troubled relationship with Bruce, and even the return of old supporting characters Legs and (sigh) Joe Potato. Looking even closer though, is it possible that Grant is explicitly borrowing from Moench? Gordon's health crisis comes right from that run, as does Vicki Vale's emotional instability and troubled relationship with Bruce, as does Catwoman's battle with how the media depicts her, and Joe Potato, as a comedic floundering sidekick who thinks he's more hard-boiled than he is, feels like a less threatening Harvey Bullock. Heck, even Batman is characterized as a generally nice guy with a more concealed edge/darkness to him, just as Moench used to write him. Really, I think Grant has simply transposed Moench's run into the Post-Crisis, incorporating the Year One Selina Kyle into it. And I'm okay with that. Great as Moench's run was, it had some serious flaws. If Grant can make Vicki Vale a little more likable this time and keep away from Julia Pennyworth, I think we'll be okay. Grant has been writing Batman for half a decade now, but it's clear that moving to the main Batman title and finally getting more freedom over the franchise has given him ideas. I'm so glad he's widening his scope. And Breyfogle -- you can tell he's excited about this issue, as his pencils haven't been this striking in a long time! Important Details: - This is a very early credit for Tim Sale. His Challengers of the Unknown debuted on shelves this same month. These together mark his second and third jobs for DC after leaving Comico. - Selena is now living with Arizona, a young runaway that she looks after that reminds her of Holly. - Implied that Catwoman has some sort of compulsion to accept challenges offered to her. This is new. Minor Details: - Why is it that in both Alan Grant Catwoman stories, the media is going crazy over her exploits and yet, while it's suggested she's been continually active beyond the scope of these stories, she's never mentioned in any other issue? - Batman doesn't really do anything in this issue beyond saving a bumbling Joe Potato from the Batmobile's security system. Great shades of Percival Popp! Harold Watch: nope plot synopsis in one sentence: Catwoman raises eyebrows once again by saving a couple of mugging victims on her way back from a heist, Joe Potato is trying to get Batman's help in investigating a modeling agency that hires young girls that are never seen again, a TV reporter outright challenges Catwoman to try to rob a museum exhibit about Egyptian cats, and, as she accepts the challenge, it becomes obvious that the curator of the Egyptian cat exhibit is expecting Catwoman and is also likely responsible for the missing girls that Joe Potato is investigating. To be continued...
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jun 8, 2015 5:05:46 GMT -5
Holly was killed in the "The Hot Tin Roof Club" story that ran in Action Comics Weekly in 1988.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 8, 2015 5:18:43 GMT -5
Holly was killed in the "The Hot Tin Roof Club" story that ran in Action Comics Weekly in 1988. It never occurred to me that the story counted in-continuity (as so little that occurred in ACW ultimately did). Thanks much for this reminder.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 8, 2015 5:37:58 GMT -5
Wasn't Holly mentioned in Batman: Arkham City game? I believe she was the character that Hugo Strange threatened to kill while talking to Catwoman. If so, at the very least she seems to be alive and well in that continuity.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jun 8, 2015 5:45:30 GMT -5
Wasn't Holly mentioned in Batman: Arkham City game? I believe she was the character that Hugo Strange threatened to kill while talking to Catwoman. If so, at the very least she seems to be alive and well in that continuity. Holly was brought back in the 2002 Catwoman series. Ed Brubaker apparently either forgot or never knew that she had been killed off. There is a quite funny 2 page story in issue that hangs a lampshade (to use the TV Tropes term) on the whole situation and the confusing nature of comic book continuity.
|
|