|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Aug 20, 2015 4:52:01 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. This was maybe the first comic book I owned to myself as a kid. At least the first I remember, and it was a huge inspiration for me getting into comic book illustration and wanting to be an artist in that field. A dream I'm still working at today. I didn't know what was happening story-wise, because I was too little. This came out in 1991, but I think I got it around 1993. I would have been about 6. I just remember being really pulled in by the art. Also, I was into Robin as a kid probably because I found him relateable since he was a kid. I went back not too long ago and took a closer look at Tom Lyle's work. While he isn't a favorite of mine now, I could see why his style appealed to me at the time. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 20, 2015 5:47:55 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. This was maybe the first comic book I owned to myself as a kid. At least the first I remember, and it was a huge inspiration for me getting into comic book illustration and wanting to be an artist in that field. A dream I'm still working at today. I didn't know what was happening story-wise, because I was too little. This came out in 1991, but I think I got it around 1993. I would have been about 6. I was ten, and the story was a little difficult even for me to follow. A terrible shame the comics we grew up on were no longer written for kids. I was exactly the same way, except that I was really disappointed with how Tim Drake was fleshing out -- solo, not fighting big costumed villains, and sitting around talking a lot more than actually accomplishing anything. As an adult, I get it. This was sort of Tim's Year One, and he was starting small, but as a kid, this series really turned me off to a character I'd been waiting a full year to see in the Robin costume. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 1, 2015 13:45:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 3, 2015 0:32:25 GMT -5
I liked Collins' run on Batman however brief it was. His Tommy Carma two-parter - well, two consecutive issues featuring that character anyway - is probably my favorite Batman story of the 80's after To Kill a Legend and his Penguin tale from Batman Annual 11 even outshines Alan Moore's contribution to that issue.
So much of this interview confirms Shaxper's suspicions about Denny O Neil's abilities as editor. No Bat bible; no word as to whether or not he liked what Collins was doing; "no collaboration". And yet, Collins' short tenure was a nice way of extending the lifespan of the pre-Crisis Batman for a little while longer personality-wise. Had O Neil been doing his job it's doubtful that Collins' emotionally unscathed Batman would have been approved in the immediate aftermath of Dark Knight.
Strange that Collins can't recall if Jason Todd's post-Crisis origin was his idea or not. The similarities between Junior Tracy and Jason Todd 2.0 are so overwhelming that I would have thought it obvious that they came from the mind of a Dick Tracy fan and scribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 10, 2015 22:54:34 GMT -5
Why Bruce Wayne Can't Be Socially Conscious (an opinion)Bruce Wayne has been portrayed as a wealthy socialite from his very first appearance in 1939. Based upon the pulp hero The Shadow, Batman's wealthy man-about-town alter ego kept him above suspicion and also provided him with the limitless resources and time with which to fight crime. Unfortunately, over the years, this wealthy alter ego has presented a problem to the Batman franchise, as people generally aren't fans of wealth inequality and generally don't feel entirely comfortable rooting for someone who is super rich without having earned it. I'm not sure how long this sentiment has been wide-spread in America, but we certainly see writers making attempts to address it as early as in the 1960s when, amidst the counter culture phenomenon that the Batman TV show attempted to be responsive to, Bruce Wayne was presented, from his very first moment on camera in the first episode, as being socially conscious and generously donating to charity in order to make Gotham a better place where what happened to his parents would never happen again. When Julie Schwartz initiated Batman's soft reboot at the end of the decade, he and his writers did even more to ditch the perception of Bruce being undeservedly wealthy, now having him leave Stately Wayne Manor and making his management of the family business a full time job that received adequate attention in the comic, all while his attention to social issues and commitment to charity was further emphasized. Ultimately, Doug Moench felt the need to point out how impractical it was to have Batman run a multi-million dollar company by day and fight crime by night, but the point was still evident: the perception of Bruce Wayne sitting on a ton of cash without having earned it and without explicitly working to give it away bugged people. Now, in this post-Crisis continuity in which Bruce spends some time running his company (according to Marv Wolfman) but generally just happens to have gobs of cash lying around, we see Wolfman address the issue again briefly in Batman #447 and then see Alan Grant once again use social consciousness and charity to throw off the idea that Bruce is somehow a passive participant in wealth inequality in Detective #614, but this ultimately poses a larger problem than just having the guy sit back and be rich. Truly, if Bruce Wayne's primary motivator in life is to eliminate crime and prevent what happened to his parents from happening to anyone else, and if he understands that poverty creates crime (so explicitly understanding in Detective #614 that the poor generally only become criminals because they've been given no other choice) then why keep devoting so much time and resources to fighting crime? Using his wealth and energy to fight poverty is a much more beneficial practice that is likely to yield greater results, whereas just punching people who have already fallen through the cracks while more continue to do so is just putting a very tiny band aid over a much larger problem. A socially conscious billionaire understanding the root economic causes of criminal behavior who devotes his resources primarily to punching criminals at night makes even less sense than a flying invulnerable dude in a red cape. No one wants to read a comic about a wealthy person using their resources to combat poverty, but then if Bruce is going to remain primarily a vigilante, the social consciousness bit has got to go. Like it or not, he makes more sense as a guy sitting on a wad of undeserved cash who is obsessive and blind enough to believe that he can punch crime away. The moment that he understands the root cause of criminal behavior and perceives perpetrators as a byproduct of social injustice, his crime fighting crusade ceases to make any true sense. Sure, he could make Batman appearances intermittently to keep the fear out there that discourages some criminal behavior, but putting his efforts primarily into being Batman just doesn't make any sense in this context. I've been following along with the older posts in this thread for my Batman reading project, and I came across this one that I felt compelled to offer my two cents on. There was a Batman story published a few years ago by Paul Dini and Alex Ross called Batman: War on Crime, and it touched on similar issues. There are two parallel plots running in the story. The first is a Batman plot where he encounters a young kid named Marcus at a crime scene who lost his parents. Later on in the story, Batman busts up a drug dealing operation, and discovers that Marcus is now working for the dealers. This makes him realize that much of crime is not about bad people doing bad things, but otherwise decent people who become desperate and do what they feel like they have to. The second plot is a Bruce Wayne plot that deals with a possible real estate development deal in the same neighborhood where Batman encountered Marcus. The developer wants to build luxury shopping and condos, which would essentially transform the neighborhood, but do nothing to help the existing residents and most likely end up pricing them out of the area. By the end of the story, Bruce Wayne decides that the best thing he can do to help people like Marcus is bring a new factory to the impoverished neighborhood, thereby creating jobs and revitalizing the community. Although not as profitable as the original plan, he deems it to be a better solution to the crime problem by elevating the standard of living in the neighborhood, and thus (hopefully) preventing tragedies like the one that claimed Marcus's parents. In my head, there's a version of Batman's history that takes the elements of this story along with some concepts from Nolan's The Dark Knight to create a plausible explanation as to how Bruce Wayne can be a socially conscious philanthropist while at the same time fighting crime as Batman. This explanation depends heavily on one one of the central themes of TDK: the idea of escalation. Because Bruce Wayne upped the ante against Gotham criminals in becoming Batman, the criminals are now forced to resort to more extreme measures in order to commit their crimes. In TDK, this culminates in the various criminal organizations banding together to hire The Joker to kill Batman. In the version of Batman's history I have in my head, Batman starts out motivated by a desire to stamp out the kind of violent street crime that took his parents, which is largely the type of crime that has poverty and lack of opportunity as a root cause. A few years into his crusade, he has a revelation similar to the one shown in the Dini story, and becomes the socially conscious philanthropist. But this is where escalation comes into play. Batman has greatly reduced unorganized street crime (muggings, drug dealing, rape, etc) but along the way has attracted the attention of more powerful individuals who realize that a new type of criminal is necessary in order to succeed in Gotham. Enter the super-villains. At this point, Batman's crusade changes from fighting petty street crime to fighting the super-villains that he himself is partially responsible for creating. (For an added wrinkle, I envision this switchover as being the point where Batman decides that just beating the crap out of criminals will no longer work. The super-villains have greater resources and more sophisticated tactics, or are just plain more powerful, thereby necessitating that he also escalate his tactics. Instead of brute force, cunning, preparation, tactics, stealth, and detective work become his standard tools.) In this version of Batman, I see no contradiction between him being socially conscious while spending his resources on fighting crime as Batman because super-villains are not the type of criminals who will be eradicated by the means he employs as Bruce Wayne the philanthropist/activist. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 11, 2015 0:07:02 GMT -5
I think Bruce being socially conscious makes too much sense to write off. It makes Batman just another weapon in his mission against crime, rather than THE method. He uses charity to promote long term improvements on a large scale while using Batman to get immediate results on a much smaller scale. Change isn't immedaite and using philanthropy to slowly eliminate poverty isn't going to stop the desperate guy with the gun. He uses his wealth to make Gotham a better place and uses Batman to keep it together in the meantime.
Bruce Wayne not fighting his war in his civilian life makes zero sense. It makes Bruce a short-sighted fool and a foolish Batman is no true Batman.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 20, 2015 7:10:02 GMT -5
Why Bruce Wayne Can't Be Socially Conscious (an opinion)Bruce Wayne has been portrayed as a wealthy socialite from his very first appearance in 1939. Based upon the pulp hero The Shadow, Batman's wealthy man-about-town alter ego kept him above suspicion and also provided him with the limitless resources and time with which to fight crime. Unfortunately, over the years, this wealthy alter ego has presented a problem to the Batman franchise, as people generally aren't fans of wealth inequality and generally don't feel entirely comfortable rooting for someone who is super rich without having earned it. I'm not sure how long this sentiment has been wide-spread in America, but we certainly see writers making attempts to address it as early as in the 1960s when, amidst the counter culture phenomenon that the Batman TV show attempted to be responsive to, Bruce Wayne was presented, from his very first moment on camera in the first episode, as being socially conscious and generously donating to charity in order to make Gotham a better place where what happened to his parents would never happen again. When Julie Schwartz initiated Batman's soft reboot at the end of the decade, he and his writers did even more to ditch the perception of Bruce being undeservedly wealthy, now having him leave Stately Wayne Manor and making his management of the family business a full time job that received adequate attention in the comic, all while his attention to social issues and commitment to charity was further emphasized. Ultimately, Doug Moench felt the need to point out how impractical it was to have Batman run a multi-million dollar company by day and fight crime by night, but the point was still evident: the perception of Bruce Wayne sitting on a ton of cash without having earned it and without explicitly working to give it away bugged people. Now, in this post-Crisis continuity in which Bruce spends some time running his company (according to Marv Wolfman) but generally just happens to have gobs of cash lying around, we see Wolfman address the issue again briefly in Batman #447 and then see Alan Grant once again use social consciousness and charity to throw off the idea that Bruce is somehow a passive participant in wealth inequality in Detective #614, but this ultimately poses a larger problem than just having the guy sit back and be rich. Truly, if Bruce Wayne's primary motivator in life is to eliminate crime and prevent what happened to his parents from happening to anyone else, and if he understands that poverty creates crime (so explicitly understanding in Detective #614 that the poor generally only become criminals because they've been given no other choice) then why keep devoting so much time and resources to fighting crime? Using his wealth and energy to fight poverty is a much more beneficial practice that is likely to yield greater results, whereas just punching people who have already fallen through the cracks while more continue to do so is just putting a very tiny band aid over a much larger problem. A socially conscious billionaire understanding the root economic causes of criminal behavior who devotes his resources primarily to punching criminals at night makes even less sense than a flying invulnerable dude in a red cape. No one wants to read a comic about a wealthy person using their resources to combat poverty, but then if Bruce is going to remain primarily a vigilante, the social consciousness bit has got to go. Like it or not, he makes more sense as a guy sitting on a wad of undeserved cash who is obsessive and blind enough to believe that he can punch crime away. The moment that he understands the root cause of criminal behavior and perceives perpetrators as a byproduct of social injustice, his crime fighting crusade ceases to make any true sense. Sure, he could make Batman appearances intermittently to keep the fear out there that discourages some criminal behavior, but putting his efforts primarily into being Batman just doesn't make any sense in this context. I've been following along with the older posts in this thread for my Batman reading project, and I came across this one that I felt compelled to offer my two cents on. There was a Batman story published a few years ago by Paul Dini and Alex Ross called Batman: War on Crime, and it touched on similar issues. There are two parallel plots running in the story. The first is a Batman plot where he encounters a young kid named Marcus at a crime scene who lost his parents. Later on in the story, Batman busts up a drug dealing operation, and discovers that Marcus is now working for the dealers. This makes him realize that much of crime is not about bad people doing bad things, but otherwise decent people who become desperate and do what they feel like they have to. The second plot is a Bruce Wayne plot that deals with a possible real estate development deal in the same neighborhood where Batman encountered Marcus. The developer wants to build luxury shopping and condos, which would essentially transform the neighborhood, but do nothing to help the existing residents and most likely end up pricing them out of the area. By the end of the story, Bruce Wayne decides that the best thing he can do to help people like Marcus is bring a new factory to the impoverished neighborhood, thereby creating jobs and revitalizing the community. Although not as profitable as the original plan, he deems it to be a better solution to the crime problem by elevating the standard of living in the neighborhood, and thus (hopefully) preventing tragedies like the one that claimed Marcus's parents. In my head, there's a version of Batman's history that takes the elements of this story along with some concepts from Nolan's The Dark Knight to create a plausible explanation as to how Bruce Wayne can be a socially conscious philanthropist while at the same time fighting crime as Batman. This explanation depends heavily on one one of the central themes of TDK: the idea of escalation. Because Bruce Wayne upped the ante against Gotham criminals in becoming Batman, the criminals are now forced to resort to more extreme measures in order to commit their crimes. In TDK, this culminates in the various criminal organizations banding together to hire The Joker to kill Batman. In the version of Batman's history I have in my head, Batman starts out motivated by a desire to stamp out the kind of violent street crime that took his parents, which is largely the type of crime that has poverty and lack of opportunity as a root cause. A few years into his crusade, he has a revelation similar to the one shown in the Dini story, and becomes the socially conscious philanthropist. But this is where escalation comes into play. Batman has greatly reduced unorganized street crime (muggings, drug dealing, rape, etc) but along the way has attracted the attention of more powerful individuals who realize that a new type of criminal is necessary in order to succeed in Gotham. Enter the super-villains. At this point, Batman's crusade changes from fighting petty street crime to fighting the super-villains that he himself is partially responsible for creating. (For an added wrinkle, I envision this switchover as being the point where Batman decides that just beating the crap out of criminals will no longer work. The super-villains have greater resources and more sophisticated tactics, or are just plain more powerful, thereby necessitating that he also escalate his tactics. Instead of brute force, cunning, preparation, tactics, stealth, and detective work become his standard tools.) In this version of Batman, I see no contradiction between him being socially conscious while spending his resources on fighting crime as Batman because super-villains are not the type of criminals who will be eradicated by the means he employs as Bruce Wayne the philanthropist/activist. This makes a lot of sense. Of course, it runs in the opposite direction of the logic being employed by writers who take Batman back to the streets. Those writers: Super villains make no damn sense. Let's put Batman back fighting street crime. Randle-El: Fighting street crime makes no damn sense. Let's put Batman back fighting super-villains. Not that I necessarily disagree with you  Heck, how cool would it be to see a Batman story where Wayne Enterprises has reformed Gotham into a Utopia, and the Joker smashes it all to bits because he can't stand the sanity of it all? |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Sept 20, 2015 8:43:45 GMT -5
The way Gotham has been written since COIE is that the root of crime is not poverty, but corruption. People with money, whether they be the mob or wealthy businessmen, have bought out the elected officials, the police, and the justice system And it is the lack of a functional system that allows the crime to fester and boil over. These mob bosses and socialites have a vested interest in preventing the programs Bruce Wayne would fund to raise the standard of living. Batman is needed to scare those people into being less active in their corruption of the city and to inspire idealistic cops and public servants like Gordon and Harvey Dent into action to bring Gotham back. Only then can Bruce's philanthropy begin to make a dent in the poverty problem.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 20, 2015 9:35:08 GMT -5
The way Gotham has been written since COIE is that the root of crime is not poverty, but corruption. People with money, whether they be the mob or wealthy businessmen, have bought out the elected officials, the police, and the justice system And it is the lack of a functional system that allows the crime to fester and boil over. These mob bosses and socialites have a vested interest in preventing the programs Bruce Wayne would fund to raise the standard of living. Batman is needed to scare those people into being less active in their corruption of the city and to inspire idealistic cops and public servants like Gordon and Harvey Dent into action to bring Gotham back. Only then can Bruce's philanthropy begin to make a dent in the poverty problem. That's one interpretation. If there's any message to be found in combing through the reviews in this thread though, it's that there was no consistency in the Batman franchise for the first four years following COIE. We're still not at a point in these reviews where the interpretation you describe has taken hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 20, 2015 23:07:29 GMT -5
This makes a lot of sense. Of course, it runs in the opposite direction of the logic being employed by writers who take Batman back to the streets. Those writers: Super villains make no damn sense. Let's put Batman back fighting street crime. Randle-El: Fighting street crime makes no damn sense. Let's put Batman back fighting super-villains. Not that I necessarily disagree with you Heck, how cool would it be to see a Batman story where Wayne Enterprises has reformed Gotham into a Utopia, and the Joker smashes it all to bits because he can't stand the sanity of it all? I feel like something like that would have been a better set-up for The Dark Knight Returns. In fact, elements of what you suggest are similar to what Christopher Nolan did in The Dark Knight Rises. From what I remember of the film, after the death of Harvey Dent, Batman was basically in retirement, and meanwhile the police had done a pretty good job of cleaning Gotham up. I distinctly remember some lines of dialogue at the party scene in the opening of the film, when one of the characters comments that Commissioner Gordon is going to be let go because "he's a wartime commissioner" -- implying that Gordon's ways were ill-suited to a city where crime had been mostly eradicated. It took Bane and his machinations to bring Batman out of retirement. I thought this was a better way to set up the notion of a retired Batman going back into action than what Miller did in DKR. Although Batman losing Robin would certainly have been traumatic, I have a hard time accepting the notion that Batman would just let his city go to hell while he lived comfortably in seclusion. It makes much more sense to me that he would retire because he felt he was no longer needed, and only return because a new threat had emerged. As for street crime -- while I generally would agree that it makes more sense for Batman to fight super-villains (or villains that are more organized and have more backing than simple thugs), I still think there's a place for Batman to confront street criminals in his stories. Mostly I see it as a device for writers to use to get inside his head while on a case or show what he can do while he's doing something action-oriented, but without having to use any characters of consequence. To borrow from Star Trek parlance, they are basically Red Shirts. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 16, 2015 9:20:34 GMT -5
Batman #461  "Sisters in Arms, Part Two: Ladies' Night" writer: Alan Grant pencils: Norm Breyfogle Inker: Steve Mitchell colors: Adrienne Roy letters: Todd Klein asst. editor: Kelley Puckett editor: Dennis O'Neil Batman creator: Bob Kane grade: B+ For the second story in a row, Denny O'Neil's efforts to promote social causes on the comic book page are evident. Despite the unintentionally somewhat condescending title, this is an unambiguously feminist storyline, in which Sarah Essen, Vicki Vale, and Catwoman do nearly all the butt kicking, and they fight just as rough as any guy, Catwoman even stealing a classic move from Batman by the close. Batman, in contrast, finds himself demoted to the B story, as he and Joe Potatoe take on the social issue of human trafficking YEARS before it was trendy to do so. All in all, Allison Bechdel would be pleased.  In fact, I hate to admit that Joe Potatoe almost came off as likable this time, having one extremely and unexpectedly dark moment where he pulls out a knife shaped like a giant potato peeler in order to make a thug talk, but it's ultimately revealed to be rubber. I think this encapsulates most of the success of this story -- Grant and Breyfogle so effortlessly blend humor and darkness, and switch between them seamlessly. Even Catwoman is adorably cute at some moments (I loved her exit line: "Bye-EEE!") and dark and savage at others. My favorite Breyfogle panel from this issue captures the cute/silly side of the tale quite well:  In spite of the deliberate female empowerment that drove this issue, I'm not convinced it left me with a stronger opinion of Essen nor Vale, though. They still lack distinct personalities, and Grant and O'Neil miss a key opportunity to explore Vicki Vale's mental instability in the wake of her encounter with Abattoir. She seems fine here. Maybe being focused on her work helps her shut out her issues? That needed to be said somewhere. Similarly, no indication that Essen has the ailing commissioner on her mind either. I suppose that, if the goal was to empower these women, having them dwell on how they are affected by male characters might come off like a step in the wrong direction, but it still felt inconsistent. A throw away line once in the story, explaining how these women are affected by these issues and are coping with them but are not allowing them to interfere with their work, and I would have been happy. Really though, this was a solid issue, light on long term continuity and character development, but strong on entertainment and social agenda. My only real gripe is the final page, where Breyfogle's art comes off as an awkward afterthought:  Out of context, it may not look bad, but it's jarring when compared to the meticulous beauty of his art across the rest of the issue. I just don't think that was the smile/look he was going for, and the pacing drops off on this page too. The story felt like it should have been done by this point; this coda only adding an awkward lull with an equally awkward smile. Plot synopsis in one sentence:
Catwoman breaks into the museum, Vicki Vale and Sarah Essen run into each other while trying to track her, it's all a trap designed to capture Catwoman and sell her to a wealthy client (who never gets named), the three women all get captured and work together to escape, and Catwoman makes off with the statue she came for, all while Batman and Joe Potatoe capture the human traffickers and, ultimately, Batman arrives at the end to clean up the aftermath of the A story (which is loosely related -- they worked for the same human trafficking network). |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Oct 16, 2015 21:51:24 GMT -5
I think Norm was going for a Chesire Cat grin but missed. And the coda was intended as a bookend to the musings about cats that opened the previous issue (if I'm remembering correctly).
Norm certainly did his best with the horrible drab costume Miller had saddled Catwoman. And gave her back her long hair, getting rid of Miller's butch buzzcut.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 17, 2015 8:44:43 GMT -5
I think Norm was going for a Chesire Cat grin but missed. Yes. I'd forgotten. Thank you. Wow, trade-writing in the early 90s. Would the average reader have remembered that introduction from a month earlier, especially while following two other monthly Bat titles? Never minded the costume, but I agree about the hair. Perhaps more importantly, while Prey had worked to lighten the disposition Miller gave to Batman, this story works to lighten the disposition Miller gave to Catwoman. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 18, 2015 18:25:13 GMT -5
Detective Comics #627  A favorite issue of mine while growing up, my appreciation for the book is certainly different now that I look upon it with adult eyes, but I appreciate it still, even if celebrating Batman's 600th appearance in Detective Comics was an utterly ridiculous excuse to drum up more sales and attention for the run away train that was the Batman boom of the late '80s and very early '90s. The absolutely stunning Breyfogle homage cover aside, this issue is noteworthy for including a re-tracing (not exactly a reprint) of the first ever Batman story, followed by three later retellings of that story (two which were new and done by the then current creative teams). "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" writer: Bill Finger pencils: Bob Kane inks: Bob Kane colors: ? letters: ? grade: n/a Come on. You know this one already. I'm not going to review it beyond noting the GCD's observation that: "The Cry of Night Is-- 'Kill!'" (originally published in Detective Comics #387 in 1969) script: Mike Friedrich pencils: Bob Brown inks: Joe Giella colors: ? Letters: ? grade: A- My favorite retelling of the classic origin in some respects. While Wolfman and Grant will do their best to dress up the story and give it more complexity, I felt this one added a different layer of substance to the otherwise simple mystery by making it about the generation gap and the need for people on both sides of it to understand each other better. That final panel, in particular, really got to me, with Robin (representing the establishment and its attitudes towards counter-culture), and Mel Lambert (representing the younger generation's distrust of the establishment) both coming to realize that the other wasn't the bad guy:  Similarly, it's gratifying to see Batman continually preaching about not jumping to conclusions and espousing the attitude that it is his duty to protect everyone, not just those that he likes. This story is from that phase in Batman's career where he could feel darker and moodier but still speak like a tried and true role-model. I miss those days. What's unique in this version: Instead of functioning as a non-entity red herring, Lambert's son takes center stage in this story as a rebellious counter-culture youth who actively opposed his father's work because it was serving the military. This is also the only version of this story to include a Robin (obviously Dick Grayson in this circumstance). "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" writer: Marv Wolfman pencils: Jim Aparo inks: Mike DeCarlo colors: Adrienne Roy letters: John Costanza grade: B+ Marv Wolfman makes the unique choice to embed this retelling in current continuity, with Batman and Det. Hanrahan making references to Commissioner Gordon still being hospitalized and the Mayor trying to use it as an excuse to run him out of the department. Beyond that, what's noteworthy about this version is largely being able to see the signature styles of Wolfman, Aparo, and even O'Neil all clearly at work in this piece. Wolfman: Once again, this story is driven largely by strong women. The villain is no longer Stryker, but instead his determined daughter, and Detective Hanrahan gets in one classy moment where, in response to Mel Lambert saying "Who the Hell are--?", Hanrahan replies with, "Please, no cursing. I'm a damn lady." Hanrahan is really starting to grow on me. At first, I kept confusing her with Sarah Essen (as she strongly resembles Essen back in Year One, and both showed up in this book around the same time), but I'm keeping them straight now. Also, whereas I previously assumed all of Wolfman's new costumed villains were desperate attempts to gain royalty checks, I'm starting to think he just really likes making them. Clearly, "Pesticyde" wasn't coming back after this story, but Wolfman just had to make the mysterious killer costumed and trademarked. Aparo: Man, I had JUST been writing about his work with Michael Fleischer on The Spectre for The Long Halloween, and here we see him employing that gross melting effect once again -- truly the goriest thing you could ever depict in a Comics-Code approved book. This particular moment, where the married couple melts while embracing one another, was quite moving too:  O'Neil: It would appear to be no accident that both Wolfman and Grant's stories take on the same social issue of corporate pollution here. O'Neil really is starting to champion causes left and right and, thus far, it's all been done quite tastefully. The messages aren't weighing down the stories in the slightest. What's unique in this version: In addition to introducing the anti-pollution theme, making Stryker's daughter be the killer, and giving her a name and costume to boot, this is the only retelling after the original in which Batman utilizes his Bruce Wayne alter-ego at all, this time to rekindle his old friendship with Mel Lambert (it makes sense these two young wealthy socialites would move in the same circle) and, in the process, gain valuable information from him. Unethical, but no more so than fighting justice outside of the legal justice system as Batman. "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" script: Alan Grant pencils: Norm Breyfogle inks: Steve Mitchell colors: Adrienne Roy letters: Todd Klein grade: A Making no attempt to frame this one in the context of current continuity (Gordon is doing just fine here) Grant and Breyfogle pour on a tale that functions more as an homage than a story. The detective work is more complex than in the previous versions, and Mel Lambert is now beyond any form of redemption as a Cocaine Dealer, and there's a jumbled B plot about how the homeless were affected by the toxic waste the chemical syndicate was dumping, but the real heart of this tale is in the little nods it makes to Batman's legacy throughout the story. We've got Batman wigging out when a thug who looks A LOT like the Pre-Crisis Joe Chill pulls a gun on him:  We've got Batman randomly looking like a modernized version of the original Bob Kane design on the second to last page:  And, best of all, the issue is quite literally littered with allusions to past Batman creators. Here's a full list of them: Englehart Signs, Inc. Aparo Advertising Breyfogle Table Wine Kane Trucking Chan's Costumes Austin's Art Supply Rogers Hotel Sprang St. Newton Wresting Champ (I LOVE that Don Newton was included, even with such a short and relatively unknown stint!) Sale at Robbins Wein Cola Roussos' Sporting Goods Giordano's (diner) Adams Avenue Roy's (restaurant) Kev's (restaurant; no idea who this is) O'Neil Books Miller Road B. Brown (author of a book) Friedrich (author of a book) Haney Security Moldoff (author of a book) Mooney (author of a book) Lopez (author of a book) Burnley (author of a book) Gulacy (author of a book) Robinson (author of a book) Neary (author of a book) Davis (author of a book) Grell (firearm manufacturer) Paris Supplies Bolland Art Pens McKean Street Infantino's Gym Finger Alley (classic, of course) Off the top of my head, I would have liked to have seen references to Julie Schwartz (technically NOT a creator, but...), Gene Colan, Doug Moench, Gerry Conway, David v. Reed, Mike W. Barr, and Alan Davis. Who else is missing? What's unique in this version: Somewhat more elaborate solution to the mystery (though Stryker did it once again), Mel Lambert is now running Cocaine through his father's distribution channels, and the toxic waste theme is present once again. Finally, Breyfogle provides us with this splash page at the back:  Not surprising to see nearly all of the Wagner/Grant/Breyfogle villains displayed prominently. It is, however, surprising to note that Tim Drake appears nowhere on here while the classic Robin is in prime focus. Once again, this reflects the attitude that, for Grant and Breyfogle, as well as Wolfman and O'Neil, Tim Drake was the Robin that nobody wanted. A classic issue all around, and one well worth rescuing from the dollar bin when you inevitably find it there. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 18, 2015 19:10:34 GMT -5
I'm so glad you introduced me to this earlier this year! The different takes on the same basic story are fun to see and I agree that the Grant/Breyfogle version was the best of the bunch.
|
|
