shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 1, 2015 11:30:24 GMT -5
It really seemed to me at the time that there would inevitably be another Robin following the death of Jason Todd. Just an assumption on my part since I doubt that even Denny O' Neil knew for certain one way or the other what the future held for the identity, but it just felt that way.
Starlin has stated in interviews that Warner merchandizing was furious with O'Neil for killing off Jason Todd and insisted that another Robin be introduced immediately. Keep in mind that the 1989 Batman film was slated to include a Robin at this point. I discuss all this here.
I discuss this too.
You're correct that he did this to tip the balance and, I suspect, also to make the imminent death less distasteful to readers, but no, Starlin had indicated several times that his problem was with the concept of a kid side-kick in general, and that was what he was out to destroy. Starlin has said repeatedly that he had no doubt which way the vote would go. It did end up being a very close vote, but Starlin didn't think it would be. Also worth noting is that Starlin even wrote the alternate ending so that, even if Jason lived, Bruce was still going to turf him and abandon taking on a sidekick. It was never about Jason; it was about making Batman solo, dark, and believable to a Post-Crisis, Post-DKR fanbase. It's a solid theory, but Starlin disagrees with you. Again, I think he was just trying to make Jason's imminent death more palatable and less upsetting to readers. No one wants to see an innocent kid going "golly gee" take a bundle of dynamite to the chest. Absolutely nothing was planned going into the Post-Crisis. Even Max Allan Collins, as the writer of the core batman title, was snapped up on a whim after doing a well-received filler story. Davis, Barr, and Grant have all confirmed at various points that O'Neil completely winged every aspect of the Post-Crisis Batman office until after Death in the Family, and subsequently when he brought on Marv Wolfman to write Year 3. While a terrible story, it's the turning point where Wolfman begins building a continuity for Batman almost three years too late. Prior to that, I estimate that only 19 of the Batman stories published over the course of three years actually contributed to the Post-Crisis Batman continuity. There were and always will be people who wanted to see a Robin by Batman's side, but there was definitely an increasing push for Batman not to have a Robin. DKR, Year One, and The Killing Joke were the most popular Batman stories at the time, and none of them featured the traditional Robin by Batman's side. The 1989 movie further solidified that impression, and some creators (Starlin being perhaps the most outspoken of them) absolutely felt the idea of a kid sidekick was ridiculous and had no place in the Post-Crisis. Don't forget that Denny O'Neil had written a Batman without a Robin during his time on the book as well. Not at all. If we were required to research before speaking, this would be one of the only threads in the CCF in which I'd be permitted to participate  Your opinions are valuable, but I do feel I've built strong cases that run to the contrary in this instance. I think I've argued extensively and convincingly for why Tim wasn't being used in the core titles, but I absolutely agree that the Robin minis proved to be runaway successes, thus Chuck Dixon's rise within the Bat franchise and Tim's ultimate re-inclusion into it. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 29, 2015 23:55:33 GMT -5
So I started an 80s Batman reading project recently, and I've been going back to some of the old posts in this thread and following along with the reviews. It's been a pretty fun run so far. I completed a run of issues of early 80s Batman (#320 to #350) which covered Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, and Gerry Conway. Highlights for me were the R'as Al Ghul stories, a couple of fill-in pencils from Gene Colan and Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, and the issue with the two kids who are deterred from crime after recent run-ins with Batman. Right now, I'm working my way through some post-crisis issues of Detective Comics, mostly covering the Wagner/Grant/Breyfogle issues (late 500s to early 600s I think?). That's some good reading right there. It's sort of refreshing to read these standalone, done-in-one or done-in-two stories without too much continuity, just focusing on single mystery without too much background going on. After I complete the 'tec issues, I'm planning to swing back to some issues of Batman covering roughly the same period. All told, my reading project should get me through about 120 issues worth of Batman from the 80s.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 30, 2015 7:10:45 GMT -5
So I started an 80s Batman reading project recently, and I've been going back to some of the old posts in this thread and following along with the reviews. It's been a pretty fun run so far. I completed a run of issues of early 80s Batman (#320 to #350) which covered Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, and Gerry Conway. Highlights for me were the R'as Al Ghul stories, a couple of fill-in pencils from Gene Colan and Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, and the issue with the two kids who are deterred from crime after recent run-ins with Batman. I'm so glad you're taking the journey, and that it's been an enjoyable one for you! I still maintain the Wein/Conway/Moench continuity is my favorite (though the issues I'm up to now are beginning to harken back to that time). Feel free to comment on my old reviews as you go. There's not a person alive who agrees with even two thirds of my opinions, so let me have it sometimes  I do agree, but I love me some continuity when it's done well (and it most definitely isn't in the pages of Batman at the time). I liked the stories where Wagner was still on board the best, but Breyfogle's art alone makes some of the stories positively epic. They're largely not good  Awesome! |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jul 30, 2015 8:00:14 GMT -5
Those done-in-one and done-in-two stories are what I most miss about current comics, where everything is some multi-part epic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 30, 2015 10:33:12 GMT -5
I'm so glad you're taking the journey, and that it's been an enjoyable one for you! I still maintain the Wein/Conway/Moench continuity is my favorite (though the issues I'm up to now are beginning to harken back to that time). Yeah, I think overall I enjoyed the Wein and Conway issues that I read. But my Batman run has a large gap from about #351 to #430-something (minus the Death in the Family story which I have in trade), so I think I'm missing the Moench issues. I'll have to go back to those someday. I should add that I actually started my current Batman reading project with the Neil Adams Batman collected editions. I won't comment too much on those issues since they technically fall outside the scope of this thread, but I'll say that it was an interesting read. Since the only common thread in the stories was Neal Adams on pencils, they were all over the map in terms of both quality and tone. Not at all a fan of the modern recoloring for the collected edition though. I don't understand why they feel the need to update the artwork this way instead of preserving the original colors. I wonder if there is some technical printing-related reason for this. For me personally, I find the value of most reviews to be the presentation of thoughtful analysis rather than an opinion that I agree or disagree with. I'd rather read a review that I disagree with but is well-written and makes some good points with logical arguments than a two-line review that says "It was awesome! You have to read this issue now!" even if I happened to think the same. I find that with the former type of review, even if I disagree with it, there's enough there that I can glean what I might like or dislike from the review itself even if I haven't read the issue (or seen the movie, or played the game, etc). One thing I like about comics from this era is the ability to have a single story told over a couple of issues while maintaining secondary plots in the background, like the plot with Poison Ivy hypnotizing the board of Wayne Industries. I enjoy it when plot lines are left to stew over the course of several issues, but short, compact stories are also great and something that's really lacking in modern comics. Ideally, I'd like to see a mix of shorter, 1-3 issues arcs interspersed with the occasional 6+ issue arcs. Mark Waid's Daredevil is one of the few modern books that does this -- but then again, he tends to be accused of being a bit of a throwback type of writer. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 30, 2015 23:12:34 GMT -5
Detective Comics #599 "Blind Justice, Chapter Four: Citizen Wayne" writer: Sam Hamm pencils: Denys Cowan inks: Dick Giordano & Frank McLaughlin letters: Todd Klein colors: Adrienne Roy asst. editor: Dan Raspler editor: Denny O'Neil Batman created by Bob Kane *snip snip* I just completed reading Sam Hamm's lengthy three issue story in 'tec, and I was wondering what you meant here. Last I checked, Batman Begins didn't come out until 2005, whereas this issue was from early 1989. Unless Sam Hamm had access to a time machine, I don't see why the Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul connection would have meant anything to anyone back then. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 31, 2015 7:21:20 GMT -5
I just completed reading Sam Hamm's lengthy three issue story in 'tec, and I was wondering what you meant here. Last I checked, Batman Begins didn't come out until 2005, whereas this issue was from early 1989. Unless Sam Hamm had access to a time machine, I don't see why the Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul connection would have meant anything to anyone back then. "Gets a lot of attention" now because of Batman Begins |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 13, 2015 11:43:49 GMT -5
Detective Comics #613 "Trash" writer: Alan Grant pencils: Norm Breyfogle inks: Steve Mitchell letters: Todd Klein colors: Adrienne Roy editor: Denny O'Neil associate editor: Dan Raspler creator: Bob Kane grade: B I'm beginning to think that the only reason Norm Breyfogle isn't my favorite Batman artist of all time is an unfair one; it's that he only does Alan Grant stories, and therefore has rarely brought to life with his pencils a story I actually enjoyed. I'm beginning to wonder if the reverse of this problem helps to explain why there's so much acclaim for Grant out there -- those Breyfogle images made people love his stories, regardless of their innate quality. No, I'm not calling Grant a bad writer -- not even an average writer, but he isn't good enough for Batman, nor for Breyfogle, at this point. I really enjoyed the brief run where he was second writer to John Wagner but, when Wagner jumped off and kept his name on the book, it was obvious to me, and I don't think the quality has really come back since that time. This issue is a perfect example of that. It seems obvious that Grant and Breyfogle were particularly passionate about this issue, but while Breyfogle turned in some of his best art ever in this issue (more on that later), Grant turned this into a textbook example of what happens when you throw too much into one issue and make a half-assed attempt to connect it all together at the end. Is this issue about... 1. America's trash problem and the need to do something about it? We're certainly given this message, over and over, but aside from some weak attempts to draw similarities between Batman and garbage collectors, the story really does nothing to further this message, even when it gets the final panel of the issue. 2. Organized crime moving in on the trash industry? Surely, Grant went there, but it was really just a conflict for the story and never tied into anything thematically. And, by the way, while this was a REAL problem in metropolitan areas in the 1980s, Grant gives it no more believe-ability than armed guerrillas robbing jewelry stores in broad daylight. Rival garbage men jump right to physically pushing around the garbage collector in broad daylight on a populated street. I sincerely doubt the take-over of the trash industry in real world cities ever resorted to physical intimidation and, if it did so, this would only happen as an absolute last resort. Had Grant really committed to telling this story, he could have arrived at the same ending with a much more convincing and gradual escalation. 3. Batman struggling to have a life while being a crime fighter? It's there, and Breyfogle certainly has fun with it on that centerfold page, desperately making me wish he'd been around for Moench's run, which battled with this constantly. Still, Grant gives it little time and utterly forgets it by the close. 4. Crime going over the line? <spoiler alert> Certainly the final fate of the young boy with whom young readers were supposed to identify should have sent some kind of strong message about this, but instead Grant somehow tries to use the tragedy to deliver a final message about the garbage problem (see #1) that absolutely does not fit. Since the boy's fate had nothing to do with his passion for this message, the whole martyr route really doesn't work here at all. </spoiler alert>5. Batman going over the line? Batman's instinctual reaction to the actions of the criminals, semi-accidentally causing their gruesome deaths, is right out of the early Starlin stories, but Grant doesn't seem to want to give any further attention to this idea, either. Meanwhile, as noted earlier, this might be Breyfogle's finest work on Batman yet. The gorgeous title page, two exquisite depictions of Batman in motion (one, the centerfold, depicted in glorious details, while the second, page 15, is contrasted in its simplicity), and the brilliant two page climax. In fact, as an adolescent who really had no appreciation for comic book art, I firmly recall copying and copying Breyfogle's depiction of the Batmobile on page 10, with it's headlights bursting out into the stars. To this day, I suspect I could draw it from memory if I tried. So a very mixed issue with a lot of great stuff battling for attention, but ultimately delivering an absolute mess of a thematic resolution by the close. This could have a been a very powerful story, especially at the close, but it just wasn't because, even in that final panel, it tries to accomplish far too much. Minor details: - The Bat office was having a lot of fun teasing us about Tim Drake at the time. Was it Breyfogle's idea to put a Robin action figure on the front cover, flying out of the trash pouring over Batman? As an adolescent, I remember being sure this was a sign of something to come with the same fervor that Beatles fans once clamored over the clues left in the album art. Of course Tim was going to become Robin, but this cover teased us that it would happen far sooner than it actually did. - Breyfogle's Gotham is far more dilapidated than I recall ever having seen it before, with graffiti strewn right on the walls of a classy restaurant Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale are dining at, and a nudy bar on the same block. - Nice acknowledgement of the NKVDemon story happening in the Batman title, provided in passing on page 6. Certainly, with a three part story placing Batman and Vicki in Russia, it was helpful to explain how this fit into the continuity of this story, in which both of them are in Gotham. Apparently, the NKVDemon story happened first. Are O'Neil and Raspler FINALLY paying attention to inter-title continuity?? Plot synopsis in one ridiculously long sentence: Mike Dell (no relation to the computer mogul) is a kid doing a report on the trash problem in America, his father (who owns a small trash company) is taking him out on his run for the report, Bruce has a date with Vicki Vale in which he is constantly distracted by thinking he sees crimes happening out on the street, a crime boss is threatening Mike's dad to give up his route so that the crime boss's garbage company can move in, and Batman manages to stop them from killing Mike's dad, but not before Mike intervenes and gets killed, himself. I just read this issue the other night. What a strange story. First of all, I found it to be a rather depressing and dreary tale (mostly because of the ending and final body count), even for Batman. Second, I didn't get the sense that this was a story that Grant/Breyfogle were especially passionate about. If anything, the topical nature of the story felt forced, with the excerpts from the kid's paper coming off as sermonizing. This manner of delivering the "moral" of the story strikes me as an example of why writers are told to "show, don't tell". I think the message could have been better delivered in an indirect fashion. In fact, this issue reminded me a bit of Ann Nocenti's Daredevil stories from roughly the same era. She had a habit of injecting political commentary into her Daredevil stories in ways that were even more jarring than this issue of 'tec. There was one issue in particular that took on factory farming and animal abuse -- something pretty out of place for an urban vigilante. At least trash and littering is a city problem. I also get the impression that the environmental angle might have been something that O'Neil asked or strongly suggested that the creative team take on. There have been at least a couple of "Letters from the Den" columns in this run where O'Neil bemoans the state of the environment and predicts doom and gloom. In fact, he wrote in one column about how there hadn't been any snow in the city that winter and wonders if global warming might be the reason. I had to chuckle a bit regarding that one, considering the tons of snow NYC received this past winter. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 13, 2015 11:58:39 GMT -5
Good points all around. Yes, I could definitely see O'Neil pushing for such a topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 17, 2015 21:27:57 GMT -5
Alan Grant did add a few new characters that have caught on pretty well in the Batman mythos.
Scarface & The Ventriloquist - One thing I love about these two characters is that they "seem" like something that should have been created during the Dick Sprang ERA.
Jeremiah Arkham
Mr.Zsasz
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 18, 2015 8:14:55 GMT -5
Scarface & The Ventriloquist Wasn't Wagner still co-writing at that point, though? Seems like all the best villains -- Ratcatcher, Cornelius Stirk, etc, all came about while Wagner was still on the book. Much as I HATE to ever give the man credit, wasn't this Morrison's contribution in the Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth GN? Not up to him yet, but I'm looking forward to it! |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 18, 2015 12:29:50 GMT -5
I don't know if I'd look forward to it, he's a fairly generic serial killer. I've never understood the love the character gets from some people.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 18, 2015 14:40:33 GMT -5
Scarface & The Ventriloquist Wasn't Wagner still co-writing at that point, though? Seems like all the best villains -- Ratcatcher, Cornelius Stirk, etc, all came about while Wagner was still on the book. The Wagner/Grant division of labor was a bit nebulous by that time. John wasn't too happy with DC-- didn't like the 20+ page single issue format, didn't like the treatment that Cam Kennedy got when he visited DC (which was the basis of the classic Judge Dredd story "The Art of Kenny Who?"), felt that they had prolonged the production time and eventually buried Outcasts, etc-- and his working relationship with Alan was on the rocks. Their whole partnership began as a tax dodge (hence, the pseduonyms including the legendary "TB Grover") and an attempt to do as much work as possible, but by the mid-'80s, the British government had gotten wise to the scheme. The old days of them getting together at the pub to plot storylines were over, and they were butting heads a lot more often, something that came to a head with the long JD storyline Oz. John started to think that JD would be more successful if the satirical elements were toned down somewhat and reoccuring elements were introduced, which meant that Dredd wouldn't just kill the bad guys if they became popular. That meant that Chopper, one of Dredd's antogonists in Oz, would survive at the end. Alan disagreed and argued that Dredd should shoot Chopper in the back as he tried to flee. They had a huge argument, then John showed up with a list that divided their shared work in two with Alan getting all the US work with the exception of The Last American, which was almost completely written, even though it would not be published for several years due to Mick McMahon's legendary speed, and Punisher: Blood on the Moors. Strontium Dog was caught in the middle, which is why Alan opted to kill off Johnny Alpha. I'd speculate that the bulk of the Wagner/Grant Detective run was mostly Grant with some concepts from Wagner. I'd also bet that Ratcatcher was a Wagner idea-- psychotic and pissed off former civil servant going after the men that put him away? That's a classic Wagner theme. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 18, 2015 20:24:16 GMT -5
Wasn't Wagner still co-writing at that point, though? Seems like all the best villains -- Ratcatcher, Cornelius Stirk, etc, all came about while Wagner was still on the book. The Wagner/Grant division of labor was a bit nebulous by that time. John wasn't too happy with DC-- didn't like the 20+ page single issue format, didn't like the treatment that Cam Kennedy got when he visited DC (which was the basis of the classic Judge Dredd story "The Art of Kenny Who?"), felt that they had prolonged the production time and eventually buried Outcasts, etc-- and his working relationship with Alan was on the rocks. Their whole partnership began as a tax dodge (hence, the pseduonyms including the legendary "TB Grover") and an attempt to do as much work as possible, but by the mid-'80s, the British government had gotten wise to the scheme. The old days of them getting together at the pub to plot storylines were over, and they were butting heads a lot more often, something that came to a head with the long JD storyline Oz. John started to think that JD would be more successful if the satirical elements were toned down somewhat and reoccuring elements were introduced, which meant that Dredd wouldn't just kill the bad guys if they became popular. That meant that Chopper, one of Dredd's antogonists in Oz, would survive at the end. Alan disagreed and argued that Dredd should shoot Chopper in the back as he tried to flee. They had a huge argument, then John showed up with a list that divided their shared work in two with Alan getting all the US work with the exception of The Last American, which was almost completely written, even though it would not be published for several years due to Mick McMahon's legendary speed, and Punisher: Blood on the Moors. Strontium Dog was caught in the middle, which is why Alan opted to kill off Johnny Alpha. Wow. Thanks for all this backstory. I was not aware of the tension between the two. Grant claims that Wagner was involved at first, but quickly dropped out and simply left his name on the book. Meanwhile, Grant was afraid to tell DC Wagner wasn't involved anymore for fear they'd drop him. So it's very very hard to know for sure when Wagner was involved and when he was not. All I know is that there was a clear drop off point with Detective #594. We went from Scarface, Cornelius Stirk, and Ratcatcher to Joe Potato in a single issue, and the awesomeness never came back again. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 18, 2015 23:06:48 GMT -5
I thought the Ratcatcher was a pretty good villain, but Scarface/Ventriloquist was silly and felt straight out of the Silver Age. I liked the story, but it was in spite of the villain. Also, one of my pet peeves is when writers insist upon scripting a character's dialogue to over-emphasize their particular accent or speech mannerisms. It's just annoying to read. There were instances where Claremont went way overboard with reminding us that Rogue was from the south. A "hey sugah" every now and then was fine, but there were times I felt like I needed a translation of her dialogue.
|
|
Your opinions are valuable, but I do feel I've built strong cases that run to the contrary in this instance.
