|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 2, 2014 11:32:14 GMT -5
You mention Batman's status as an Urban Legend in your review which is very perceptive since upon encountering Batman in the final installment of this storyline, a Doctor will remark "I thought you something of a myth". It's a ridiculous statement, but the story didn't really dwell on it. As you noted, Batman is clearly caught on camera in this story and no one else regards him as a figment of their imagination, but they do regard him as something...
After Zero Hour DC would embrace the horrid idea that Batman has always been considered an urban legend within the DC Universe. Not only did this force a certain blandness upon subsequent tales (one issue of Detective actually had a criminal mastermind deduce that if you want to commit a robbery that Batman will be powerless to prevent, ensure that the theft is committed during the day - Batman had to therefore come up with a means through which he could shroud the room in darkness and stop the crime without being seen) but it also made Batman look ineffectual as a crimefighter. I understand the whole "If my true identity were to be learned, my usefullness as a crimefighter would be at an end", but "If the public were to learn that I wasn't a seven-foot demon who could walk through walls; if I were ever spotted by a single individual in light; if I ever appeared outside of a darkened alley, my career would be at an end" made you wonder if Batman was able to do anything other than bluff his way through a fight. I mean, he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes, Harry Houdini, and Bruce Lee rolled into one - none of these guys needed such cheats or were rendered ineffectual because they were caught on camera or known to be flesh and blood, in fact, it made them even more extraordinary. Is Batman really such a coward?
Anyhoo...
Like I said, it's not really dwelled upon in this tale and here actually works as a novel idea. The guy writing this comic will state something along the lines that he bases his stories upon what is known about Batman - hence the car, Joker, Catwoman, etc with a lot of artistic licence taken here and there. In otherwords, it's sort of a "If Batman were real, what would the comicbooks of our world make of him?" Ostrander's tale really lets you travel around this Gotham. What do the radio hosts discuss in a world with Batman? What does the little old lady who gets her info from hearsay make of him? What does a guy tasked with the job of writing/drawing a Batman comic do to make him even larger than life? What does Bruce Wayne think about all of this? Even his decision to do nothing until he determines if it's one of his old enemies up to something, nicely balances the idea that we're seeing real people in a slightly askew world. "Bruce Wayne would have to trademark my Batman identity which hardly seems conducive to having a secret identity".
I liked the bits with the press following him around at the crime scene. In reality, Batman wouldn't be able to sneak in and out of the shadows without being observed, so he's going to have to tolerate cameras in his faces much of the time. The artwork really makes Batman's frustration about this obvious as Shaxper noted, everything looks so real. Batman's cape carries weight and moves as if it were actual fabric (I also liked how Batman's emblem seems to have been inserted into the art afterwards so that it's consistently depicted as the trademark logo of the character on pages 20 and 21). Not crazy either about Dick Sprang drawing his first Batman cover in about 30 years only to not draw Batman, but it is an interesting quirk of the story - the real, human Batman is drawn by a modern day artist, while the demonic Batman of the story is presented in a 1950's fashion. Sprang does at least get to draw the Joker for the next issue, but it's sort of like a Batman/Spawn crossover in which Sprang draws only Spawn while McFarlane draws Batman.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 3, 2014 6:10:31 GMT -5
You mention Batman's status as an Urban Legend in your review which is very perceptive since upon encountering Batman in the final installment of this storyline, a Doctor will remark "I thought you something of a myth". It's a ridiculous statement, but the story didn't really dwell on it. As you noted, Batman is clearly caught on camera in this story and no one else regards him as a figment of their imagination, but they do regard him as something... After Zero Hour DC would embrace the horrid idea that Batman has always been considered an urban legend within the DC Universe. Not only did this force a certain blandness upon subsequent tales (one issue of Detective actually had a criminal mastermind deduce that if you want to commit a robbery that Batman will be powerless to prevent, ensure that the theft is committed during the day - Batman had to therefore come up with a means through which he could shroud the room in darkness and stop the crime without being seen) but it also made Batman look ineffectual as a crimefighter. I understand the whole "If my true identity were to be learned, my usefullness as a crimefighter would be at an end", but "If the public were to learn that I wasn't a seven-foot demon who could walk through walls; if I were ever spotted by a single individual in light; if I ever appeared outside of a darkened alley, my career would be at an end" made you wonder if Batman was able to do anything other than bluff his way through a fight. I mean, he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes, Harry Houdini, and Bruce Lee rolled into one - none of these guys needed such cheats or were rendered ineffectual because they were caught on camera or known to be flesh and blood, in fact, it made them even more extraordinary. Is Batman really such a coward? Anyhoo... Like I said, it's not really dwelled upon in this tale and here actually works as a novel idea. The guy writing this comic will state something along the lines that he bases his stories upon what is known about Batman - hence the car, Joker, Catwoman, etc with a lot of artistic licence taken here and there. In otherwords, it's sort of a "If Batman were real, what would the comicbooks of our world make of him?" Ostrander's tale really lets you travel around this Gotham. What do the radio hosts discuss in a world with Batman? What does the little old lady who gets her info from hearsay make of him? What does a guy tasked with the job of writing/drawing a Batman comic do to make him even larger than life? What does Bruce Wayne think about all of this? Even his decision to do nothing until he determines if it's one of his old enemies up to something, nicely balances the idea that we're seeing real people in a slightly askew world. "Bruce Wayne would have to trademark my Batman identity which hardly seems conducive to having a secret identity". I liked the bits with the press following him around at the crime scene. In reality, Batman wouldn't be able to sneak in and out of the shadows without being observed, so he's going to have to tolerate cameras in his faces much of the time. The artwork really makes Batman's frustration about this obvious as Shaxper noted, everything looks so real. Batman's cape carries weight and moves as if it were actual fabric (I also liked how Batman's emblem seems to have been inserted into the art afterwards so that it's consistently depicted as the trademark logo of the character on pages 20 and 21). Not crazy either about Dick Sprang drawing his first Batman cover in about 30 years only to not draw Batman, but it is an interesting quirk of the story - the real, human Batman is drawn by a modern day artist, while the demonic Batman of the story is presented in a 1950's fashion. Sprang does at least get to draw the Joker for the next issue, but it's sort of like a Batman/Spawn crossover in which Sprang draws only Spawn while McFarlane draws Batman. It is GREAT to have you back in this thread, chad. Sounds like Ostrander's concept for this storyline begins to reveal itself better in the next two issues. I'll keep an open mind. Hadn't noticed the bit about displaying the chest emblem like a trademark. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 3, 2014 20:44:16 GMT -5
It is GREAT to have you back in this thread, chad. Thank you so much, Shaxper I genuinely appreciate that. Thank you for creating a masterpiece that is impossible to not want to be a part of. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 5, 2014 9:21:36 GMT -5
Batman #456  "Identity Crisis, Part Two: Without Fear of Consequence" writer" Alan Grant pencils: Norm Breyfogle inks: Steve Mitchell colors: Adrienne Roy letters: Todd Klein asst. editor: Kelley Puckett editor: Denny O'Neil creator: Bob Kane grade: C- As outlined in the previous issue, this storyline is essentially about two things: Tim becoming the third Robin, and a mystery in which good people don masks and start killing. I could care less about the first and was intrigued by the second, but, unfortunately, the second is already petering out in this issue as the answer proves to be that The Scarecrow is somehow making them do it just because he's lonely for the holidays. Unless the how of it all proves incredibly clever in the next chapter, I count this as an immense disappointment. As for Tim, whereas we were starting to see hints of real characterization from him, he's now turning back into the wonder-child Gary Stu that Wolfman depicted him as in Lonely Place of Dying, literally having the past Robins (one rising from the dead) visit him in his dreams to assure him he's worthy of the mantle, figuring out The Scarecrow is responsible for this mysterious crime wave in a way that made absolutely no sense, and instinctively knowing Batman's in peril for no particular reason. It's really obnoxious stuff. Sure enough, though, it's obvious he'll be Robin by the close of this storyline and, assuming this is apparent to us, assistant editor Kelley Puckett spills the beans in the letter column that, Robin (Tim Drake) will be the star of his own 5-issue miniseries, beginning in November. It's written by Chuck Dixon (his first series work for DC) and illustrated by Tom Lyle (Starman) and Bob Smith (Huntress) AND major changes WILL be made in the Robin character, as we know it. What changes? Well, we can't tell you yet, but we can tell you that Tim Drake makes his first "real" appearance as Robin... I still find it interesting that, on the one hand, there was clear pressure to drive the individuality out of Tim by turning him into yet another orphan with Rites of Passage (enough so that it presumably drove Wolfman from the title and character), and yet only two months later, plans are in place for a new kind of Robin who will be intended to be distinct from what came before. It's a lousy story, and it's making me dislike Tim Drake all over again, but I suppose it was an inevitability. As a kid, I couldn't understand why they waited so long to make Tim into Robin, nor why they kept him away from the Batman titles as often as they did once he assumed the mantle. Now I get it. Minor Details: - Why doesn't anyone spend more than five seconds talking to the murderers after they commit their crimes. We briefly saw that one had no regret next issue, but do they offer any explanation for what they did? Another writer's Batman would have interviewed each of them about precisely what they'd done in the 24 hours prior to snapping and seek out a common thread. Alan Grant's Batman isn't much of a detective at this point, instead following Vicki Vale's whim on a whim and discovering that both were somehow right. - Tim says, " The crimes...don't fit with any of Batman's regular foes any more than they do with the dozens of minor criminals he's faced." Dozens? This is at least year 10 (and, by my figures, Year 14). Batman's only fought "dozens" of minor criminals in that time?? - O'Neil explains in his "From the Den" column that fans have written in, complaining about his taking up so much space to let his ego roam, talking about random things in his life that are of absolutely no interest to anyone but him, and he responds: Many, if not most, people enjoy reading others' letters and diaries. Apparently not yours though, Denny, or there'd be no need to write this response. Then ask Kahn to approve a new DC title: "Denny O'Neil's correspondences," and publish it monthly. See how well that sells. People are reading for Batman, not for you, and that's the crux of much of what I dislike about the Denny O'Neil Batman office. It's about selling more and getting more attention for Denny, not taking any particular interest in the property nor the fans. Taking up an entire third of the letter column (because it's now been cut down to one page) for boring personal anecdotes while more fans than possibly at any other time in Batman's history are writing in and hoping to see their questions answered, is quite simply a d--k move. Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle are getting a space on the letters page? If you consider the letter column, its potential to give a voice to the reader as well as inform, as part of the work, then it absolutely is interfering. plot synopsis in one sentence: More killings, each by previously upstanding citizens, someone named Marcuse appears to be organizing it but is working for another character that ends up being revealed as The Scarecrow, Tim drives himself crazy trying to figure out the pattern, is visited by a dream of Dick and Jason prodding him to keep trying, and inexplicably comes to the realization it's The Scarecrow, Batman follows Vicki Vale as she is being captured by the bad guys and ends up in a trap himself, and Tim instinctively knows Batman is in trouble and decides to risk being told he can never be Robin by going out to save him. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 5, 2014 11:02:10 GMT -5
This was actually published three months prior to the issues I'm currently reviewing. I keep missing these pesky annuals. Batman Annual #14  "The Eye of the Beholder" writer: Andrew Helfer pencils: Chris Sprouse inks: Steve Mitchell colors: Adrienne Roy assoc. editor: Dan Raspler editor: Denny O'Neil Batman created by Bob Kane grade: C+ A 55 page feature set in Year One and featuring the origin of Two-Face. This seems like exactly the kind of thing O'Neil would either try to sell as a graphic novel or a multi-part Legends of the Dark Knight story (and heck, Helfer was editing LotDK at this time!), so why is this story left languishing in a Batman annual? My guess is that the tone isn't right. While the story is set in Year One, and the facts all line up, the characterizations are significantly off. This Batman is a clear goody-goody in this story who supports Gordon in his internal conflict instead of having one of his own. This Batman never really wavers, never relishes in darkness. Similarly, Gordon's relationship with his wife is uncharacteristically happy in this story. Miller had sold the world on a darker, more depressing Batman franchise, and Helfer's story is just too darn positive to fit that tenor, even while featuring a psychopath who cuts his victims into ribbons and telling the story of Harvey Dent going over the edge. Still, let's be clear: When O'Neil wants the first five issues of Helfer's title to himself so that he can insert his own spin into Frank Miller's Post-Crisis Batman origin, he gets it. When Helfer writes a three issue story that revises Two-Face's origin without stepping on any previous writer's work, he can't get it published in his own title. Further suggestion that Helfer's role as editor of LotDK was that of a puppet. O'Neil still called all the shots, just didn't do the actual work. Art-wise, Sprouse and Mitchell do a very impressive job for the first half, but something fall apart badly by the second and it all looks awkward and amateur. Mitchell seems to be doing a lot less inking at this point, so I suspect he was just covering up and compensating for Sprouse's awkwardness better in the first half. As a Two-Face origin, this story is both well thought out and yet not all that compelling. I like the twist of Dent being tempted to cross the lines of the law in order to see justice done, and that being perverted into his becoming compartmentalized, I like the explanation of how Two-Face so quickly amasses an underworld empire, and I like the nice twist of doctors being able to repair his face (it doesn't really make sense in the 1990s why they couldn't), but his scarring it again with his bare hands. This has been incorporated into several more versions of his origin story since and is probably the best contribution this story makes to that mythos. However, I struggle with how under-emphasized his relationship with Gilda is. Moench worked hard to make Gilda a focal point for Two-Face -- a primary motivation for his actions, as well as his ultimate weakness, and many later Two-Face stories will play upon this as well, but she's so incidental in this story, characterized as blandly as Sarah Gordon to the extent that Sprouse seems to confuse the two, depicting them as visually the same person. So, the big contributions this story makes to the continuity: - The story takes place over the course of at least seven months, after Year One. Considering that Helfer was editing Doug Moench's Prey storyline at the time (also taking place during this time period), it's likely the two were intended to run parallel. Gordon works under the same commissioner in both stories. - Harvey Dent was always a psychologically unstable hebephrenic schizophrenic after a childhood of serious abuse by his father, but he got it under control when he began studying law in college. Visiting his father again as an adult begins the process of psychological degradation. - Though Batman briefly partnered with Harvey Dent, he regretted it, deciding Dent was unstable. There was never a strong friendship or mutual respect there, as other stories have suggested. - Dent was set-up by his assistant DA (working for Boss Maroni). When Two-Face learned of this, the assistant DA provided him with dirt on hundreds of crime bosses as barter for his life (Dent kills him anyway) so that Two-Face "could control half of the underworld." Batman's always had a lot of anatagonists who ran criminal organizations, but this would seem to suggest that Two-Face and Penguin are the two major crime lords in Gotham in the Post-Crisis. Maybe Scarface's organization still counts as a third significant presence. Minor Details: - enough with the cursive font on internal narration boxes. I know Year One did it, but let it go. - Two of Gordon's cops in the first scene are Marshall and Rogers. Very cute. - I don't believe Dent is ever referred to as "Two-Face" in this story. Plot synopsis in one sentence: A retelling of Two-Face's origin, set after the events of Year One, in which Batman, Gordon, and Dent are unable to convict a psychopath because he is able to convincingly compartmentalize his killer side, he attempts to coax Dent to do the same, claiming they are a lot alike, Dent is already unstable after having visited his abusive father for the first time in years, Gordon, Dent and (to a much lesser extent) Batman all consider breaking the law to kill or convict the murderer, Dent does so and begins to show signs of being far more aggressive and morally questionable as a DA, Gordon arranges for Batman to partner with him, but they quickly start to argue over where the "line" is, Dent is working to bring Boss Maroni to justice and does so, but he gets the well known acid to the face, learns his assistant set it all up and had been helping Maroni all along, goes after the assistant, is given dirt on over a hundred crime bosses (with which to build a criminal empire) as a bribe not to kill him, does it anyway, is captured and recovering both physically and mentally when his dark side returns, causing him to re-scar his now healed face and resume being Two-Face. |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Aug 5, 2014 16:46:10 GMT -5
Well, 'dozens' would be accurate if not precise.  |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Aug 5, 2014 22:49:28 GMT -5
Then ask Kahn to approve a new DC title: "Denny O'Neil's correspondences," and publish it monthly. Has anyone ever looked inside the 100 issues of Azrael to see if it was all Denny O'Neil rants? I got Batman Annual #14 long after seeing much better Two Face origins elsewhere, so it's just off in Limbo somewhere out of my comic book thoughts. There was some nice panels from Sprouse, but he was to get much better. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2014 12:19:08 GMT -5
Detective Comics #623  "Death of Innocence" writer: John Ostrander pencils: Mike McKone inks: Jose Marzan (comics-within-a-comic) art: Flint Henry letters: Todd Klein colors: Adrienne Roy associate editor: Kelley Puckett editor: Denny O'Neil Batman created by Bob Kane grade: B- Still not sold on this story. The comic within the comic remains moderately interesting, both in art and premise, and no doubt would have made a decent Elseworld's story. As for the outer plot, in which Batman has the public turning against him, it still feels so very done before. The mystery angle is somewhat interesting, but Ostrander forces the red herring a little too obviously this time, so we know the Batman impersonator can't be the guy writing the comic. That pretty much leaves his publisher or Ivor the mortician as the only two named characters in this story who have any chance of being the Batman impersonator/killer, but Ivor hadn't yet read the second issue of the comic when the killer had, and the publisher was there in the radio station studio when the killer called in. So this is some random person' not a character that any amount of thinking will reveal. And then there's the other thing that I find odd about this story: the importance and influence it attributes to a comic book, let alone an independently published one. We saw the media go nuts when Jason Todd died, but that's different than people genuinely living in fear of someone, or even changing their minds about a public figure, because of an unauthorized comic book story. Even New York Times bestselling biographies seldom have that impact. Important Details: - First appearance of Gotham City (head?) mortician Ivor Hall.I doubt he'll come back after this since Ostrander is not a regular writer for the Bat Office. - Intentional to have this version of Robin make his first appearance a mere two weeks before Tim Drake officially dons the costume? Perhaps Ostrander is teasing the audience? Minor Details: - "Well, maybe there's no Bathound..." "You made it up?" "More or less." And fans cheered everywhere. plot synopsis in one sentence: the public continues to turn against Batman in response to the comic (even though the comic still presents him as a generally well-meaning hero, albeit possessed by the Devil), Robin and the Bathound are introduced in the comic, the late night talk show host from the previous issue has the publisher and writer of the comic on his show while trying to determine if the writer is the Batman impersonator/killer, and, after examining the bodies of one of the victims, the real Batman decides he knows where to find the impersonator. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 16, 2014 12:20:52 GMT -5
This arc should get an A+ for those covers alone.  |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimebuster on Aug 16, 2014 12:34:32 GMT -5
It's interesting that Flint Henry was doing the art for the comic-within-a-comic. I wasn't aware that he had done work for DC, but at the same time this issue came out, Flint was doing the art for Ostrander's Grimjack series at First Comics.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2014 12:37:35 GMT -5
It's interesting that Flint Henry was doing the art for the comic-within-a-comic. I wasn't aware that he had done work for DC, but at the same time this issue came out, Flint was doing the art for Ostrander's Grimjack series at First Comics. It seems to me that Ostrander might be subtly commenting on Grimjack with this story in the importance he attributes to independently published comic books in this mainstream comic book story. Perhaps utilizing Flint to do the art for that independently published comic is an attempt to further that implied message. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 12:39:31 GMT -5
I've not read much Batman from this era, but what is up with Batman's get-up on that cover? And is that how the Joker usually looked at the time?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2014 12:41:10 GMT -5
I've not read much Batman from this era, but what is up with Batman's get-up on that cover? And is that how the Joker usually looked at the time? Short answer: no. Long answer: this story is about an unauthorized comic about Batman being published that depicts him as the human incarnation of lucifer and turns the public against him. The cover is actually the cover of the comic-within-the-comic. Batman never looked like that, nor did the Joker. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 16, 2014 12:54:52 GMT -5
Is there any word on a Grant/Breyfogle collection? I still can't understand why DC hasn't released one. It usually wins top honors as the greatest Batman run. It's mind-boggling seeing as how they've been releasing some quasi-obscure Pre-Crisis stuff lately.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2014 12:57:51 GMT -5
Is there any word on a Grant/Breyfogle collection? I still can't understand why DC hasn't released one. It usually wins top honors as the greatest Batman run. It's mind-boggling seeing as how they've been releasing some quasi-obscure Pre-Crisis stuff lately. I wonder if there are problems with how to credit the stories. Grant claims John Wagner left the title pretty quickly but remained credited for many issues as the primary writer. |
|
