shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 23, 2018 22:23:03 GMT -5
Did Doomsday really require a backstory though? He and Bane were both villains invented to come out of nowhere and be the one to somehow succeed where a rich rogues gallery with a half century history had failed. Bane had to have a psychological component since Batman had become a deeply psychological character (and because breaking him wouldn't be that hard). Superman just needed someone to punch him to death. Although I realise that following the Crisis Superman wasn't much of a thinker, it does the character a disservice to present him as someone who could be defeated by a big, dumb brute whose only qualification for killing Superman is that he can punch really, really hard. Even for a story as simplistic as "Superman gets punched to death by a monster over the course of seven issues" it still seems as if DC found themselves in danger of being outwitted by this idiotic formula. "So here's how Supes dies - the monster punches him to death. The End." "Sounds great. So who stops the monster?" "...oh crap. uh, um, uhhhh… how about just as Superman's about to die, he punches the monster and the monster dies at that exact same second too?" "That's a pretty big coincidence." "Just do it!" Superman being punched to death by an opponent he should have been able to defeat by remembering that he could fly would be like Batman dying by being kicked in the head by a mule or something - sure it could happen, but come on. In the mid-60's, DC added a villain to Batman's Rogues Gallery named The Outsider who knew all of the Caped Crusader's secrets. He could and would strike at Batman from the Bat-Cave, in his guise as Bruce Wayne, and even sabotage the Batman's tools and weapons as Batman was using them. It was an ongoing storyline which uncharacteristically for that era, injected an ominous feeling of great foreboding into the proceedings. "We're going to get this guy, right Batman?" "...I hope so, Robin". There was a lack of certainty on Batman's part and a vague sense that this might be the guy to bring him down. Of course, that didn't happen and The Outsider turned out to be Alfred who had been dead for about two years at point, but the character had weight even when he wasn't around. Doomsday didn't have that and I guess he didn't need it either, but there should have been some apprehension on Superman's part in the events leading up to Doomsday's arrival - a feeling that "today feels odd for a reason I can't explain". Knightfall had an arc beginning prior to Knightfall; Death of Superman was just another day in the life of Superman until Doomsday spontaneously popped into existence and beat him to death - it was just seven issues of wrassling. I see your points. To be fair, BOTH the concepts behind Knightfall and Doomsday are inherently insulting to the franchises and the readers, and yet both are done well enough. In the case of Superman, I think you have to consider that: 1. Jurgens, Ordway, and Stern had been doing some of the best character writing and long term plotting anywhere in Copper Age mainstream superhero titles, and yet that still hadn't been bringing in the sales. Heck, so much of that era was about exploring how an overweight, middle aged man with no powers could be a greater threat to Superman than any overpowered villain, but not enough people were interested in that kind of exploration. Doomsday happened because DC needed to bring readers back, and thoughtful, heavily considered work that showed deep respect to the character clearly wasn't keeping pace with X-Force and Youngblood. 2. These guys clearly loved wrestling and had put Superman in several intensely fun battle-royals before. Giving him an all-out, visually fun slug-fest really wasn't all that out of character for the franchise at the time. Vapid and silly, but not out of character. 3. Superman doesn't fly above or take evasive maneuvers because he is obsessed with protecting Metropolis and feels he needs to remain as Doomsday's sole focus while also beating the hell out of him. I felt they explained this motivation adequately in Supes #75, especially with helicopters, reporters, photographers, and onlookers hovering closely. Is it a GOOD story? No. Did it do what it needed to without compromising too much integrity? I think so. And the climactic battle and finale still take my breath away every time. In contrast, the first half of Knightfall depends upon you not having read the earlier Moench scripts he was liberally borrowing from, and the second half depends upon your giving a sh*t about Azrael. Bane comes from out of nowhere almost as abruptly as Doomsday, the only difference being his getting a limited series first (thus your initial astute point). SO I like Death of Superman better. I realize I'm in the minority, but I like to think I know my Triangle Era Superman, and I don't really see DoS as undermining that work anymore than Knightfall undermined Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Aug 24, 2018 4:11:39 GMT -5
Over the course of the story Superman throws Doomsday many miles and tries to fly him into space twice. His heat vision was also ineffective. He's constantly thinking up new strategies when the last one fails until his injuries, growing exhaustion, and desperate need to protect everyone start to take their toll.
I think it was pretty clever to have Doomsday start by taking out the Justice League before Superman showed up - and with one hand tied behind his back. The team had Guy Gardner with a yellow power ring, former-future Superman villain Maxima, and Martian Manhunter in disguise, and they couldn't lay a scratch on Doomsday. It succeeded in selling just how dangerous the monster was and why only Superman could take him out.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 24, 2018 8:30:30 GMT -5
I am getting closer and closer to the start of Knightfall in my project to read every issue of Detective Comics from #390 to the present. If I remember correctly, the prelude to Knightfall starts with #658 and I'm up to #640. I'm feeling like this might be my next read. Presently I am reading through Age of Apocalypse, but all this talk in this thread has got me thinking I'd like to read it. I haven't read it in it's entirety since I started buying the issues in the 90's. I know I still need a few Knightquest issues, but I can manage that. If I do, I'll read all three; Knightsfall, Knightsend and Knightsquest. |
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Aug 25, 2018 15:57:14 GMT -5
I think it was pretty clever to have Doomsday start by taking out the Justice League before Superman showed up - and with one hand tied behind his back. The team had Guy Gardner with a yellow power ring, former-future Superman villain Maxima, and Martian Manhunter in disguise, and they couldn't lay a scratch on Doomsday. It succeeded in selling just how dangerous the monster was and why only Superman could take him out. True, but they're still a D-list Justice League. One of the improvements the new Death of Superman movie makes to the story is that Doomsday trashes all the other top superheroes - Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, et al. Even Lex Luthor in his power armour. It really establishes that Superman, and only Superman, can stop Doomsday. And if he doesn't, there isn't anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 22, 2018 22:48:38 GMT -5
- There was a problematic moment where Batman kicks Poison Ivy in the face. Just going to revive this thread since there was something that bugged me about Batman's ethics in this storyline that I recalled earlier today. I think it's after he's taken down Bird, Zombie, and Trogg and gets back to Wayne Manor that Batman gives some passing consideration to his ride back to the Cave. "I remember the ride home in bits and pieces", he thinks or something like that. I guess the Batmobile can be programmed to drive itself around the city, but the thought that Batman was in no condition to be driving and yet was racing through Gotham City doesn't really sit well with me. I'm kind of surprised he didn't insist on driving himself to the hospital after Bane broke his back as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 23, 2018 12:08:38 GMT -5
- There was a problematic moment where Batman kicks Poison Ivy in the face. Just going to revive this thread since there was something that bugged me about Batman's ethics in this storyline that I recalled earlier today. I think it's after he's taken down Bird, Zombie, and Trogg and gets back to Wayne Manor that Batman gives some passing consideration to his ride back to the Cave. "I remember the ride home in bits and pieces", he thinks or something like that. I guess the Batmobile can be programmed to drive itself around the city, but the thought that Batman was in no condition to be driving and yet was racing through Gotham City doesn't really sit well with me. I'm kind of surprised he didn't insist on driving himself to the hospital after Bane broke his back as well. Chad (if that's okay), you're one of the most knowledgeable and consistently insightful posters on these boards. What always stands out in your Batman commentary is your thesis that an adherence to a character's ethos is crucial if he or she is to be written and portrayed well. It's way too easy to change the rules, so to speak, as in the examples you mention here and above (the Poison Ivy kick) and try to rationalize them. You are so right, The Batman would not kick Ivy; he might want to, but he wouldn't fall prey to sinking to the kind of tactic one of his arch-enemies would. That's what distinguishes him from his foes... and that's why we read his stories. He doesn't do what virtually anyone else would do. Does this make him unrealistic? Not to me. What it does make him is remarkable, one of the few characters who is distinguished by his adherence to a moral code that outweighs his own immediate desires. In other words, he is unlike 99.85 percent of us. And that's the point. Does this mean he can't be write as someone who makes mistakes? Of course not. Does it mean he can't be plagued by doubt, fear, uncertainty, arrogance? No. But it does mean that The Batman, like it or not, is not just a throwaway character who can be molded to fit whatever is the comic trend. Quite the opposite. He is a bellwether, a rock, an anchor, the adult in the room. It is in the contrast between his values and whatever turbulence is raging around him that makes for the best stories. Again, this doesn't mean that Batman can't change; hell, adaptation has always been a crucial aspect of his character. It simply means that Batman long ago decided why he had become a vigilante/ mystery man/ Caped Crusader (even his legendary epithet speaks to his dedication to virtue). That sense of purpose -- his crusade against injustice -- is his North Star. Perfect? By no means. But Batman is not just an exemplar, he knows he is (as does Superman), and in the best of his stories, that responsibility informs all he says and does. Always am heartened and enlightened by your posts, Chad. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 24, 2018 11:02:14 GMT -5
Just going to revive this thread since there was something that bugged me about Batman's ethics in this storyline that I recalled earlier today. I think it's after he's taken down Bird, Zombie, and Trogg and gets back to Wayne Manor that Batman gives some passing consideration to his ride back to the Cave. "I remember the ride home in bits and pieces", he thinks or something like that. I guess the Batmobile can be programmed to drive itself around the city, but the thought that Batman was in no condition to be driving and yet was racing through Gotham City doesn't really sit well with me. I'm kind of surprised he didn't insist on driving himself to the hospital after Bane broke his back as well. Chad (if that's okay), you're one of the most knowledgeable and consistently insightful posters on these boards. What always stands out in your Batman commentary is your thesis that an adherence to a character's ethos is crucial if he or she is to be written and portrayed well. Wow, thank you very much - I truly appreciate the compliment. I'm often just trying to keep up with everyone else with my comments so it's nice to hear such kind feedback. Thank you very much. Oh, and I'd prefer that everyone call me Chad. I tried to register under that name in fact, but since it was taken, went with Chadwilliam instead. I think this sequence stood out for more partly due to the fact that Denny O Neil claimed that Knightfall/Quest/Search was intended to gauge audience reaction to a more violent, darker Batman which buyers in the 90's seemed to go for. 'Could Bruce Wayne stay relevant in an era where The Punisher and Spawn were big sellers?' Hence his being replaced with Azrael. I don't really believe that this was the intent behind the series - I suspect O Neil just didn't want to come out and say "We're just trying to boost sales with a big event" so came up with this line instead - but since he had established that he felt that Bruce Wayne was still a morally upstanding good guy during this period, any transgressions from his being an ethically minded individual stick out like a sore thumb here. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 30, 2018 14:50:51 GMT -5
- but since he had established that he felt that Bruce Wayne was still a morally upstanding good guy during this period, any transgressions from his being an ethically minded individual stick out like a sore thumb here. Much as I love your argument, I ultimately have to disagree. The purpose of Knightfall was to show that even someone with as indomitable a will as Batman could be pushed past his limits. He breaks physically only after he has broken mentally, and compromising his ethics in the process seems appropriate. So much of the Post-Crisis Batman exploited this same concept, most especially under Mike W. Barr and (far less tactfully) under Jim Starlin. It isn't Batman, but I think that was the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 30, 2018 15:05:12 GMT -5
- but since he had established that he felt that Bruce Wayne was still a morally upstanding good guy during this period, any transgressions from his being an ethically minded individual stick out like a sore thumb here. Much as I love your argument, I ultimately have to disagree. The purpose of Knightfall was to show that even someone with as indomitable a will as Batman could be pushed past his limits. He breaks physically only after he has broken mentally, and compromising his ethics in the process seems appropriate. So much of the Post-Crisis Batman exploited this same concept, most especially under Mike W. Barr and (far less tactfully) under Jim Starlin. It isn't Batman, but I think that was the point. <iframe width="27.559999999999945" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 27.559999999999945px; height: 7.360000000000014px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_14234481" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="27.559999999999945" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 27.56px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1314px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_54132891" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="27.559999999999945" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 27.56px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 324px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_71478480" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="27.559999999999945" height="7.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 27.56px; height: 7.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1314px; top: 324px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_56759025" scrolling="no"></iframe> I'd have to say that the scenario you describe here is fair game; I have to plead ignorance of the specifics of Knightfall, as I had checked out of most new comics by then. I do think that writers often use a far different "default setting" for their takes on the character. I think that's where my beef lies. If we start out with the premise that Batman is simply a violent, morally compromised person to begin with, a story such as you're describing wouldn't make sense. I was one who just couldn't believe that Batman/ Bruce would ever sleep with Talia al Ghul. I don't want to get in so deep I can't touch bottom, and you guys know this era of Batman so well that I'll just "listen" from here on.  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 30, 2018 19:39:42 GMT -5
and you guys know this era of Batman so well that I'll just "listen" from here on. To be completely honest, it's been a decade and a half since I read Knightfall. I don't even recall the Poison Ivy moment being discussed. You have as much right to an opinion here as I do. Chad may well wipe the floor with me, though  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 30, 2018 19:49:17 GMT -5
- but since he had established that he felt that Bruce Wayne was still a morally upstanding good guy during this period, any transgressions from his being an ethically minded individual stick out like a sore thumb here. Much as I love your argument, I ultimately have to disagree. The purpose of Knightfall was to show that even someone with as indomitable a will as Batman could be pushed past his limits. He breaks physically only after he has broken mentally, and compromising his ethics in the process seems appropriate. So much of the Post-Crisis Batman exploited this same concept, most especially under Mike W. Barr and (far less tactfully) under Jim Starlin. It isn't Batman, but I think that was the point. From an interview conducted with O'Neil in 1996, "We wondered if our notion of hero was outmoded,” he says. “Looking at other media, not only comics but popular movies, heroes seemed to be not a whole lot different than the villains in that sometimes the only qualification for heroism that the hero seemed to posses was the ability to commit wholesale slaughter and wisecrack about it. Which is antithetical to my idea of hero. I’ve always thought physical prowess has to be balanced by some kind of soul. “We’d been wondering for a long, long time, with his stricture against killing and his Boy Scout morality, if our hero was outmoded,” O’Neil continues. “So instead of continuing to avoid the question, we decided to confront it and put out there a Batman who was as genuinely nuts as our Batman was sometimes accused of being.”
mrmedia.com/2007/08/dennis-oneil-batman-comic-book-writereditor-mr-media-interview-classic-1997/I don't think Batman had a "Boy Scout" morality during O'Neil's tenure and I rather doubt that O'Neil believed that either which is why I'm skeptical of his claims that this was the reason why he did Knightfall. I suspect O'Neil might have felt dirty simply coming out and saying "We needed to boost sales" and so came up with his "Could a Boy Scout like Batman survive in the 90's" cover to make himself feel as though Knightfall was an artistic pursuit and not merely taking a bit of Batman 400 here and Detective 600 there and repackaging that for the next big anniversary tale. Nevertheless, by making the claim that his intention was to highlight the differences between "Crazy Azrael Batman" and "Boy Scout Bruce Wayne", one can't help but have their attention drawn to their similarities. I don't think Bruce Wayne really compromised his ethics - his kicking Poison Ivy in the head, for instance was no less ethical than, say, breaking a guy's arm for pulling a knife on him in Batman 414 (a bad guy yes, but a bad guy who turned out to be innocent of the crime Batman broke his arm for) or driving a car into a group of terrorists in Detective 590 or killing a Parademon in Cosmic Odyssey or... and my example of Batman driving while in no condition to be doing so wasn't introduced into the story to show how Batman was slipping ethically, but as an afterthought which is immediately forgotten - simply because his ethics were pretty vaguely defined Post-Crisis beyond "Batman doesn't kill" (except when he does). |
|
|
|
Post by rom on Oct 31, 2018 14:51:29 GMT -5
I don't find Knightfall or the Death & Life of Superman storylines insulting to the Batman & Superman franchises in any way, shape, or form. Like any company/business, DC was/is out to make money. And, if they feit it was time to create a new storyline that revitalizes their core characters that have been around for 50 years....in order to interest new readers/fans....then more power to them. If you didn't/don't like the storyline, just vote with your wallet & don't buy the comics. I myself never bought one issue of the DOS or Knightfall storyline when they were out due to limited funds (I was a poor college student at the time), but was interested in the story & read the novels from the library. And, I did get some of the CE's much later. These days, I never buy any Marvel or DC comics due to not having any interest in the new stories/artists. However, obviously the comics are still selling since they're still being produced - which I think is great. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 31, 2018 14:57:06 GMT -5
Much as I love your argument, I ultimately have to disagree. The purpose of Knightfall was to show that even someone with as indomitable a will as Batman could be pushed past his limits. He breaks physically only after he has broken mentally, and compromising his ethics in the process seems appropriate. So much of the Post-Crisis Batman exploited this same concept, most especially under Mike W. Barr and (far less tactfully) under Jim Starlin. It isn't Batman, but I think that was the point. From an interview conducted with O'Neil in 1996, "We wondered if our notion of hero was outmoded,” he says. “Looking at other media, not only comics but popular movies, heroes seemed to be not a whole lot different than the villains in that sometimes the only qualification for heroism that the hero seemed to posses was the ability to commit wholesale slaughter and wisecrack about it. Which is antithetical to my idea of hero. I’ve always thought physical prowess has to be balanced by some kind of soul. “We’d been wondering for a long, long time, with his stricture against killing and his Boy Scout morality, if our hero was outmoded,” O’Neil continues. “So instead of continuing to avoid the question, we decided to confront it and put out there a Batman who was as genuinely nuts as our Batman was sometimes accused of being.”
mrmedia.com/2007/08/dennis-oneil-batman-comic-book-writereditor-mr-media-interview-classic-1997/I don't think Batman had a "Boy Scout" morality during O'Neil's tenure and I rather doubt that O'Neil believed that either which is why I'm skeptical of his claims that this was the reason why he did Knightfall. I suspect O'Neil might have felt dirty simply coming out and saying "We needed to boost sales" and so came up with his "Could a Boy Scout like Batman survive in the 90's" cover to make himself feel as though Knightfall was an artistic pursuit and not merely taking a bit of Batman 400 here and Detective 600 there and repackaging that for the next big anniversary tale. Nevertheless, by making the claim that his intention was to highlight the differences between "Crazy Azrael Batman" and "Boy Scout Bruce Wayne", one can't help but have their attention drawn to their similarities. I think it's dangerous to take O'Neil at his word any time he makes any claim as to the intentions behind a storyline. Evidence has repeatedly proven that he was barely involved in the creation process of the stories that happened "under his watch" and seldom provided much oversight even once they were completed. He was a salesman first, and he did it well. He told his writers they needed a big event, maybe outlined some basic ideas beyond that, but then likely left them to do the deep probing and considering without paying them much heed. He can say whatever he wants about the death of Jason Todd, the creation of Tim Drake, and the breaking of Batman, not to mention several dozen other stories that happened in between. We know he was only involved in the stories he didn't himself write in the most marginal of senses. To be fair, O'Neil's Batman Office was a lawless no-man's land for at least the first three years, no one paying much heed to what anyone else did. Starlin was explicitly exploring a Batman on the verge of compromising his moral integrity in those storylines, but he then abruptly abandoned that exploration and transferred it to Jason Todd in time to kill him off. Grant and Breyfogle were always in their own world with Batman. I don't recall the terrorist example, per se, but I'm not under the assumption for even a moment that anyone writing (or editing) Knightfall was aware Batman had done this. We don't really begin to see any cohesion across the Bat Office until Year 3, with Many Deaths of Batman and Blind Justice before it loosely offering some (contradictory) world-building for the franchise. And the Batman we get at that point still has a moral core, even though his rage and grief post-Jason Todd sometimes tests that core. It's been two decades since I read this storyline, but wasn't the point that he was utterly fatigued and barely keeping it together on any level when he did that? |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 31, 2018 23:35:15 GMT -5
Starlin was explicitly exploring a Batman on the verge of compromising his moral integrity in those storylines, but he then abruptly abandoned that exploration and transferred it to Jason Todd in time to kill him off. It's been two decades since I read this storyline, but wasn't the point that he was utterly fatigued and barely keeping it together on any level when he did that? Re: Starlin transferring his exploration of Batman's moral integrity over to Jason Todd - Wow. That never occurred to me but it makes so much sense in hindsight. Starlin's Batman went from breaking arms (Batman 414), leaving The KGBeast to die in Gothams sewers (Batman 420), possibly killing gangsters while under the influence of Deacon Blackfire (Batman: The Cult) to lecturing Jason Todd on how "people can't set themselves above the law... even though you and I skirt along the edges of it, we still operate within the legal system" (Batman 422) and how comic book rules on diplomatic immunity must be obeyed even in cases of rape (Batman 423). Honestly, that whole "Did Felipe fall... or was he pushed?" sequence between Batman and Jason could easily have been used to close Ten Nights of the Beast with Batman and Bundy instead. Re: Batman barely keeping it together during Knightfall. The example I cited of "I remember the drive home in bits and pieces" was something which I suspect the writer (Chuck Dixon perhaps?) gave no thought to beyond, "hmm, Batman's about to face Bane. How do I get across how exhausted he is before their fight begins? Ah! I'll just have him note that he's practically unable to stand at this point". I think it's one of those lines that only comes across as bad only once you think about it and I've had 25 years to think about it as opposed to whatever deadline the author was operating on. I thought Knightfall did a nice job of illustrating how worn down Bruce Wayne was. Actually, by Knightfall, I really mean the Doug Moench issues leading up to it with the introduction of Shondra Kinsolving and Bruce practicing meditation techniques which just weren't working anymore. I agree with you about not being able to use Denny O Neil as the final word on anything - even if he wanted to do a storyline for a particular reason that doesn't mean the writers who went ahead with his directives followed him to the letter - but certainly, Batman was wearing down rapidly throughout the tale no doubt about it. Again, my example isn't great in terms of detailing what the writers intended since I think it was just a throwaway line - but Batman rejecting Robin's help, not coordinating any sort of plan through Gordon, not using Jean Paul Valley, etc. nicely displayed how Batman's stubbornness cost him badly. I still don't think the writers paid much, if any, attention to a compromising of his ethics though during Knightfall unless making Azrael Batman counts (which, I guess it sort of does though even then, it was made clear that he simply wasn't aware of how nuts Azrael was with his mind on other things). |
|
