|
|
Post by foxley on Jul 30, 2014 2:12:08 GMT -5
I will admit I was not of fan of Tim when he first appeared. As a Titans fan, I thought an excellent job had been done in turning Dick Grayson into a adult hero who stood on his own, clear of the shadow of Batman. We had just got rid of the incredibly irritating Jason Todd, and now we had new Robin being foisted on us? I liked Batman as a solo hero.
I didn't really start to warm to Tim till his first mini-series. The new costume (and the character development, I guess) really helped a lot.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 30, 2014 9:47:46 GMT -5
Perhaps Tim Drake is the Robin Batman fans deserve, but not the one they need?  Batman 1966 the TV show was just like the comic books. This is the crux of why some people detest the 1966 TV series. It perfectly encapsulated the silliness that was no longer in the comics. By this point, Julie Schwartz had re-branded the Batman franchise into something more grounded and a tad more serious and, while most Superhero comic books were attempting to strike a similar tenor, this show came along and gave everyone the message that comics were still simple and silly. I've always felt the 1966 series was closer to the Atom Age Batman stories of a decade earlier, only sans aliens and time travel. I've actually owned the 1966 series for a long while now (I burned the old TV Land reruns to DVDs) and I can tell you that I have a hard time respecting the show. It's fun nostalgia from my own childhood watching these on re-runs, some of the villains are fantastic (especially Frank Gorshin and Julie Newmar), and the intended over-the-top campiness was cute in the first season, but the show quickly became an institution unto itself, no longer laughing at itself as much as it should have, and then it was just kind of stupid. I will admit I was not of fan of Tim when he first appeared. As a Titans fan, I thought an excellent job had been done in turning Dick Grayson into a adult hero who stood on his own, clear of the shadow of Batman. We had just got rid of the incredibly irritating Jason Todd, and now we had new Robin being foisted on us? I liked Batman as a solo hero. One of the problems with the arrival of Tim Drake is that, whereas it made sense to give Batman a second Robin so that Dick could move on (New Teen Titans #39 is still my favorite individual comic book story of all time), adding a third, especially so soon after, turned the Robin mantle into an assembly line. Inevitably, there's be a fourth Robin, and a fifth, and each would likely therefore become a little less special than the last. Robin isn't a character anymore, and the transitions haven't been handled with enough dignity to call Robin an institution either. It's just a role, and I find that immensely disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 30, 2014 10:09:53 GMT -5
This is the crux of why some people detest the 1966 TV series. It perfectly encapsulated the silliness that was no longer in the comics. By this point, Julie Schwartz had re-branded the Batman franchise into something more grounded and a tad more serious and, while most Superhero comic books were attempting to strike a similar tenor, this show came along and gave everyone the message that comics were still simple and silly. I've always felt the 1966 series was closer to the Atom Age Batman stories of a decade earlier, only sans aliens and time travel. I've actually owned the 1966 series for a long while now (I burned the old TV Land reruns to DVDs) and I can tell you that I have a hard time respecting the show. It's fun nostalgia from my own childhood watching these on re-runs, some of the villains are fantastic (especially Frank Gorshin and Julie Newmar), and the intended over-the-top campiness was cute in the first season, but the show quickly became an institution unto itself, no longer laughing at itself as much as it should have, and then it was just kind of stupid. If the show was like Atom Age Batman but without aliens and time travel, that's because the early to mid-1960s Batman comic books were also just like Atom Age Batman but without aliens and time travel.
I wasn't reading 1956 or 1960 Batman comics when I noticed how close it was to the TV show. I'm reading 1964 and 1965 "New Look" Batman.
And they are writing stories like these way into the 1960s. Look at the first appearance of the Clue-Master in Detective #351 or the "7 Wonder Crimes of Gotham City" in Detective #368 or almost any issue of Batman or Detective concurrent with the show.
A tad more serious than the 1950s Batman? I'll grant you that, but only just a little.
You can take "the New Look" label literally. Modernizing the art was the main aim. The changes to the scripting and plotting were minimal.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 31, 2014 11:47:58 GMT -5
This is the crux of why some people detest the 1966 TV series. It perfectly encapsulated the silliness that was no longer in the comics. By this point, Julie Schwartz had re-branded the Batman franchise into something more grounded and a tad more serious and, while most Superhero comic books were attempting to strike a similar tenor, this show came along and gave everyone the message that comics were still simple and silly. I've always felt the 1966 series was closer to the Atom Age Batman stories of a decade earlier, only sans aliens and time travel. I've actually owned the 1966 series for a long while now (I burned the old TV Land reruns to DVDs) and I can tell you that I have a hard time respecting the show. It's fun nostalgia from my own childhood watching these on re-runs, some of the villains are fantastic (especially Frank Gorshin and Julie Newmar), and the intended over-the-top campiness was cute in the first season, but the show quickly became an institution unto itself, no longer laughing at itself as much as it should have, and then it was just kind of stupid. If the show was like Atom Age Batman but without aliens and time travel, that's because the early to mid-1960s Batman comic books were also just like Atom Age Batman but without aliens and time travel.
I wasn't reading 1956 or 1960 Batman comics when I noticed how close it was to the TV show. I'm reading 1964 and 1965 "New Look" Batman.
And they are writing stories like these way into the 1960s. Look at the first appearance of the Clue-Master in Detective #351 or the "7 Wonder Crimes of Gotham City" in Detective #368 or almost any issue of Batman or Detective concurrent with the show.
A tad more serious than the 1950s Batman? I'll grant you that, but only just a little.
You can take "the New Look" label literally. Modernizing the art was the main aim. The changes to the scripting and plotting were minimal.
I need to revise my original statement. I'm not particularly familiar with the Batman comics of 1966; my closest familiarity to them is with a run from 1968 which I have read and enjoyed on multiple occasions (Detective #373-381), and those were much darker stories, often more concerned with imminent death (either for the Dynamic Duo or innocent victims) than with stopping a crime spree, and the art followed the new tone beautifully. I suppose it's possible the comics of 1966 were no better than the show (though even 1963's "Robin Dies at Dawn" suggested a darkness the TV series could never capture), but by 1968, the comics were clearly struggling to mature while the show communicated to a much larger audience that comics were silly children's fare. Thus the tension between fans of the show and fans of the comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 31, 2014 12:00:59 GMT -5
Yes. By 1968, they were still calling it the "New Look" in the letter pages, but it had definitely taken on a different tone, and the start of that "Late New Look" (as I call it) is almost exactly at the point where your run starts.
I don't know that the tone is "darker," though. They are just expanding the kinds of stories they are telling and some of them are darker. Contrast "Batgirl's Costume Cut-Ups" in Detective #371 (Batgirl starts being careless as a crimefighter because she's worried about her make-up) with #385's "Die Small, Die Big" where the protagonist is a dying mailman who comes up with a scheme to protect Batman from a criminal conspiracy.
I also recommend the two Ginny Jenkins stories in Detective #380 and #391.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 31, 2014 12:04:44 GMT -5
I don't know that the tone is "darker," though. Not sure what your criteria for dark is, but each of the antagonists in the brief run I mentioned are plainclothes homicidal maniacs, and the art is generally moodier and more expressionistic than the generally literal depictions of action from the earlier stories. If anything, these stories felt like precursors to what Grant and Breyfogle would do on the title 25 years later. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2014 10:52:13 GMT -5
Detective Comics #622  "Dark Genesis!" writer: John Ostrander pencils: Mike McKone inks: Jose Marzan (comics-within-a-comic) art: Flint Henry letters: Todd Klein colors: Adrienne Roy associate editor: Dan Raspler (guess this issue was done ahead of schedule. Dan's been gone for a month now, and even the letters page confirms this) editor: Denny O'Neil Batman created by Bob Kane grade: B- What an...interesting issue in that at least three wildly different facets to this issue exist, and none seem to get along well with the others. First, we've got to discuss the cover. Dick Sprang is brought back to do a retro cover that in no way fits the tone of either the comic within, nor the comic-within-the-comic within (and this cover is ALSO the cover of that comic). I'd rather have seen Sprang doing a cover with the actual Batman on it. Then there's the comic-within-the-comic, which easily could have made for a best-selling Elseworlds version of Batman or an entirely different creator-owned property all together. In fact, Spawn (which will premiere in a little more than a year's time) shares a lot in common with this story about a moral protagonist who has lost everything, infused with the powers of Hell. There are differences, to be sure, but my point is that Ostrander could have done a lot more with this idea than making a two part story for a regular Batman title. Finally, there's the main plot, in which Batman finds that the public is reacting differently to him in the wake of this comic, and someone (heavily implied to be the comic's creator, but that seems too easy) is impersonating Batman but going over the edge and killing criminals. It's really a rehash of two incredibly cliche superhero story concepts: 1)Why don't superheroes cross the line in order to make a bigger dent in crime, and 2)What happens when the media and public turn on a superhero and view him/her as a public enemy? Even as an eleven year old, I found this main plot cliche and tiresome, though I didn't have the appreciation I now have for the comic-within-the-comic; at least that component is fresh, original, and well-executed. The art is beautiful in both places, with Henry creating striking visuals in the "Bat-Man" story that are both moody and almost unstable with insanity and rage. Meanwhile, McKone and Marzan give new life to the "real" Batman's cowl, somehow making it look more real and striking than even Alex Ross's photo-realistic art ever could. So this issue is a mixed blessing at best, with something truly special at its heart that would have been better utilized elsewhere. Unless we're going to get a major twist in regard to who the Batman impersonator is, though, I could do without the main plot. Minor Details: -While this issue plays up the idea that was put forth early in the Post-Crisis that Batman is now viewed as an urban legend and is rarely seen/photographed, at one point in the issue he clearly stands there for reporters and answers their questions as if this is totally normal. -I give Ostrander credit for resisting the urge to utilize the depiction of an independent comic book creator as a platform for making nods to himself and his colleagues. That would have felt....egotistic. plot synopsis in one sentence: The story begins with the devil begging for a way to redeem himself to God, ultimately being allowed to choose a human as his earthly avatar to enact justice and bring good back to the world -- thus a demonically powered Bat-Man, we learn that this is a comic book, meet the odd/moody creator of the comic and his obliging but creeped-out publisher, Alfred alerts Batman to the existence of the comic, but he dismisses it at first, someone starts killing thugs and purporting to be the Bat-Man of the comic book, and public opinion begins to turn against the real Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2014 10:53:18 GMT -5
YES! We finally got it!  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2014 10:59:04 GMT -5
YES! We finally got it! Sorry I didn't love it as much as you wanted me to! |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -5
YES! We finally got it! Sorry I didn't love it as much as you wanted me to! It's all good. I figure it's my sentimentality that makes me like it that much. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2014 11:02:15 GMT -5
Sorry I didn't love it as much as you wanted me to! It's all good. I figure it's my sentimentality that makes me like it that much. I'm curious now. What do you love about this issue that I'm missing? Is it the comic-within-the-comic, or do you love the outer story too? |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2014 11:15:11 GMT -5
It's all good. I figure it's my sentimentality that makes me like it that much. I'm curious now. What do you love about this issue that I'm missing? Is it the comic-within-the-comic, or do you love the outer story too? It's actually like both. The comic-within-the-comic story arc that is played out over the three issues is laughably silly, but enjoyable none the less. In regards to the outer story, the mystery itself isn't one of high quality, but the artwork and mood created makes it engrossing and sucks you in. Since it was my first Batman story, it's what created my impression of what Batman stories should look like. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2014 13:03:48 GMT -5
I'm curious now. What do you love about this issue that I'm missing? Is it the comic-within-the-comic, or do you love the outer story too? It's actually like both. The comic-within-the-comic story arc that is played out over the three issues is laughably silly, but enjoyable none the less. Uh-oh. That was the one part I was enjoying thus far. I can agree with that. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 1, 2014 13:16:23 GMT -5
I think the whole package is what makes Detective #622 to #624 such a favorite (for me) among Batman stories circa 1990. For one thing, those Dick Sprang covers are amazing. And I really like the comic-within-a-comic structure.
If you want to tear apart the story and examine each element separately, then yeah I can see why it looks like a bunch of stuff that's been done before. But all together, it's a unique combination of elements and I very much enjoyed it at a time when I wasn't reading Batman very often. (I was reading a friend's copies from time to time, but before I got #622, I hadn't bought Detective Comics since #580.)
Those covers really Sprang out at me.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Aug 1, 2014 18:37:17 GMT -5
I loved the Sprang covers, but was fairly ambivalent about the story itself.
|
|
