The Sad Tale of Bill Finger Continues

Check out this article at Bleeding Cool. 

 The relevant section, a statement from Athena Finger, Bill Finger's Granddaughter:

75 years of Batman! No one could have predicted the longevity and the continued relevance of this comic book hero that has become a cultural icon when my grandfather, Bill Finger, collaborated with Bob Kane back in 1939. My grandfather has never been properly credited as the co-creator of Batman although was an open secret in the comic book industry and is widely known now. It is now my time to come out of the shadows and speak up and end 75 years of exploitation of my grandfather, whose biggest flaw was his inability to defend his extraordinary talent. Due to what I feel is continued mistreatment of a true artist, I am currently exploring our rights and considering how best to establish the recognition that my grandfather deserves.

I'm sure this will lead to another round of "oh, look at how evil DC Comics is!" With our kneejerk vilification of any corporate entity.

This issue isn't about DC - it's about Bob Kane and his estate.

DC has been sending, admittedly modest in relation to the value of Batman as a property, checks to the Finger heirs for years. There's even an interesting story of how a lover of Finger's now-deceased son was receiving checks from DC, instead of Kane's granddaughter, the rightful heir. When Finger biographer Marc Tyler Nobleman brought this to DC's attention, they rectified the situation quickly. At his San Diego Comic-Con presentation in 2012, Nobleman specifically pointed out that DC were not the bad guys in this story.

Finger is denied his rightful credit because of the contracts that Bob Kane, and his estate, have with DC Comics. Aside from the quote in his "autobiography" (Kane didn't really even draw 90%, and that's being generous, of what's credited to him, I doubt he wrote a book), Kane NEVER admitted Finger's central role (likely greater than Kane's) in the creation of the Batman mythos. During the 60's he even wrote personal responses, lashing out at anyone who suggested Finger's contribution.

I am almost certain that if the powers that be at DC could legally name Bill Finger Batman's co-creator, even just to set the record straight, leaving aside the money (which again, is really about Kane's contract - not DC welching), I honestly believe they would. Every creator, editor, etc, etc, I've ever heard speak on this issue knows EXACTLY what happened and how Kane, via his contact with National/DC, secured for himself sole credit, and the financial benefits thereof, for perpetuity. That doesn't mean they can speak openly about it, as legal matters often go.

Kane clearly benefited from coming after Siegel and Schuster, and seeing the vast monies that Superman was bringing in. He, or his father, was smart enough to secure a legally binding agreement with National/DC that paid off for him handsomely. Would that Siegel and Schuster had gotten such advice.

This also allowed Bob to keep Finger, and the multiple other "ghost" writers and artists he employed, from sharing that windfall. It may seem Machiavellian to our modern eyes, but that was the way cartooning worked in those days. Comic strips were often written and drawn by underlings in the paid employ of the person who's name actually graced the newsprint page. All the greats, Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Joe Simon, had "studios" to accomplish the massive amounts of work they would undertake in order to make actual money. The difference, really, is that Bob Kane, reportedly, rarely drew or wrote anything himself.

In 2006, at the San Diego Comic-Con, I had the good fortune to witness a "Golden Age Batman" panel that brought a lot of these creators together. Their differing responses to working for Kane were illuminating, Shelly Moldoff, for instance, was very upfront about who Kane was, what he did, or didn't, actually do, but also felt that Bob had lived up to the agreements they had. This seemed to upset Jerry Robinson, who had long felt Kane had kept him from proper recognition as, at least, the co-creator of characters like Robin and The Joker. It was a lovely panel to attend, but it did leave me with one overriding impression...

Bob Kane was mainly interested in Bob Kane, and making sure that Bob Kane got as much money, attention and fame as he could. Bob Kane made a great deal for himself, and he enjoyed the fruits of his legal foresight. He also guarded his position jealously. You really can't deny it, and I see fewer and fewer Kane apologists as time goes on.

Let's take another look at Kane's quote about Finger from Batman and Me:

Now that my long-time friend and collaborator is gone, I must admit that Bill never received the fame and recognition he deserved. He was an unsung hero…. I often tell my wife, if I could go back fifteen years, before he died, I’d like to say, ‘I’ll put your name on it now. You deserve it.

Yes, he does, and perhaps Kane's widow, Elizabeth Sanders, might remember those times (if they actually happened, frankly) and extend this courtesy to the memory and heirs of Bill Finger. She's the one who can do it, not DC Comics. So, while we can celebrate the legacy that Bill Finger left us, and bemoan the injustice of his lack of credit, let us not forget that DC Comics has already gone beyond the compensation they were legally required to provide (which was nothing). What they cannot legally give, and it's probably the most important, the most meaningful, gesture, is credit. Only Bob Kane's estate can do that...

...And they don't seem to want to.

 

*I would've provided more pictures of Bill Finger, but very few actually seem to exist.

Well, So Much Has Happened

Gosh, I take my birthday off work, and the world suddenly starts buzzing. So, let's hit on a few things that happened, and how they are tied together...

Batfleck.

Ben Affleck is Batman in our Man of Steel sequel, Batman vs. Superman.

Internet explodes with negative commentary.

You people. Seriously. Shatner was right, you need to get a life.

Ultimately, I am good with this casting. In fact, I think it's a really, really good choice after the Nolan/Bale films. Does Affleck have the simmering brutality that Christian Bale brought to the role? Not really, but he does have the sense of keen intelligence that will serve both Bruce Wayne and a JLA-bound Batman well.

The chanting of Gigli and Bennifer, and all that crap...it's ludicrous. It's stupid, because far more people bitch about Gigli than ever actually saw it, and it was a long time ago. It was a time that Affleck himself has talked about as one where he lost his way. He dropped back, took some time to himself, started picking projects more carefully, and made some really good films (I urge you to see Hollywoodland, it's really good). Then he started directing, and he made some truly, truly awesome films. Films in which he also gave top-notch leading man performances.

Ben Affleck is hardly a bad actor. Far from it. In fact, take Good Will Hunting. For all the Matt Damon and Robin Williams love that film generated, it's Affleck who nails, completely, the film's best, and most realistically earned, heartfelt moment:


Is Affleck's Batman going to be a dark avenger of the night? Maybe not, but, with Warner Brothers hell-bent on aping Marvel's shared universe playbook (as is Fox with the Marvel properties they've licensed), that may not be the right take, anyway. Driven? Focused? Of course, but the Batman who's hanging out with Superman and Wonder Woman, as is the plan for Affleck's tenure, will have to be less solitary and extreme.

I think.

But, see? What do we know? Nothing. No pictures, no script, not one frame of footage shot. There is no reason to believe he can't be great, just as there's no reason to believe he will be. However, yes, I am an Affleck booster, and I prefer to err on the side of hopefulness. Y'know, outside of the fact it's still Snyder and Goyer running the show.

So, here's an idea...Let them make their movie, and THEN decide if it's any good. See, because the internet is littered with outrage and bitching about casting. Bitching and moaning that, more often than not...is completely unwarranted, and proven baseless. Heath Ledger, Michael Keaton, etc, etc.

So, if you're the guy with the internet petition? Shut the hell up and get over it. I've had enough of your jealousy. Because that's what it is, you all sound like high school kids who didn't get cast in Grease.

Now, on the other side of the coin....

Anna Gunn has a problem with how her character on Breaking Bad, and, by extension, she, herself, has been treated by the internet. Her take is that this is indicative of how the world reacts to "strong women," and that the vitriolic response by the internet fanbase is emblematic of deep-seated misogynist thinking. I have to admit, I take this less than seriously.

Which, I want to be very clear, should not be taken as a dismissal, by me, of misogynist thinking in our society, because I do think we have a long way to go.

That said:

I can only look at this op-ed piece as an actor. What I'm reading is an actress dismayed about how her performance has been received. I feel for her, everyone puts time and energy into a performance, and it's painful when the response isn't what you expected. Bluntly, this "well, people can't handle strong women" thing, it sounds an awful lot like dressing room grousing after Time Out blasts a show I'm in, i.e: "Well, they just don't get it." 

Dear Anna Gunn: Please see Wil Wheaton, RE: Wesley Crusher, for the EXACT same situation, and I mean the EXACT SAME SITUATION. And he was a 14 year old kid with people saying they wanted to kill him, not a full-grown adult actress.

This is not a new issue, and it's certainly not an exclusively female one. Flat out, sometimes writers create (intentionally or unintentionally) characters that people do not like, and the unwashed masses, for good or ill, tend to regard television actors as their characters. Hell, I've, in my vastly less influential way, played TRULY horrible people on stage, and it changes how people react to you in the lobby.

But, see, that's the thing. A pure audience actually shouldn't know the difference. If they don't know you, personally, then you ARE the character. For good or bad.

The characters she mentions, Skylar (Breaking Bad), Carmela (The Sopranos) and Betty (Mad Men), are all created to act in opposition to the central character. OF COURSE the audience, who tunes in to see the continuing progression of said central character, is not going to like these characters. Why would they?

Perhaps, instead of questioning why the public reacts this way, which is logical, she should ask (Breaking Bad creator) Vince Gilligan why he decided Walter's wife had to become an aggressive antagonist to him? Because that's a decision he, as the creator of the show, likely made for specific dramatic reasons. I'd hazard to guess his hope was that the public would react just as they have.

Gunn seems to feel it's odd that more people didn't identify with her character, "a woman with a backbone of steel who would stand up to whatever came her way, who wouldn’t just collapse in the corner or wring her hands in despair. He and the show’s writers made Skyler multilayered and, in her own way, morally compromised." 

I understand her opinion of her character. She's an actress, and she CANNOT judge her character, but, y'know...everyone else, your audience? They get to, and frankly, their opinion, as your audience, trumps yours. Much in the same way that I feel that any creative endeavor can only be labeled "art" by it's audience, likewise, all your preparation, your steel backbone, and opinions of the character, are really not relevant if the majority of the audience feels like she's a bitch.

(Which also begs the question as to if that is really the case. God knows a very vocal, small group of people can make themselves seem like thousands, via the internet. Reacting in the way Ms. Gunn is really only rewards their behavior.)

She then undoes her own argument, frankly, in saying, "That viewers can identify with this antihero (Breaking Bad's lead Walter White) is also a testament to how deftly his character is written and acted." I would respond that, likewise, if viewers CAN'T identify with her much less traditionally awful character, the answer lies in the same place. Why do people hate Skylar? It's a combination of how she's written and how you play her. You cannot remove your own performance choices from the mix.

After all, we have Glenn Close on Damages playing a character that might very well be Satan, and everybody LOVES it. Rosanne Barr was the Queen of Prime Time for years with a grandly acerbic and aggressive character. We love to watch Angelina Jolie kick the crap out of people. It's not like American society has made a blanket dismissal of "strong women," we love the ones that we personally connect to. Unfortunately, it seems Skylar didn't connect with the audience the way you hoped.

Perhaps, instead of running to write this piece as the show was winding down, you could've discussed the direction of the character with Vince Gilligan during the run, and tried to address the issue. Maybe you did, and he refused, in which case that attitude is what you, very rightly, need to be talking about.
 
Just be proud of the fact that these people care so much about your show to have such strong feelings. Because, that, in itself, is a testament to your work.

Grant Morrison Makes Me Respect THE KILLING JOKE Even More

I was reading Scott Tipton's COMICS 101, as I often do on Wednesdays....

Which sent me to the latest edition of Kevin Smith's FATMAN ON BATMAN podcast. The relevant section being at about 1:07:35 mark.

Says Morrison:

"That's why it's called The Killing Joke. The Joker tells the 'Killing Joke' at the end, Batman reaches out and breaks his neck, and that's why the laughter stops and the light goes out, 'cause that was the last chance at crossing that bridge."

Here's the relevant page:

I am floored by the sheer obviousness of what Morrison asserts that writer Alan Moore and artist Brian Bolland have done here. I mean, granted this is after the fact, after Morrison points it out, but it's ABSOLUTELY in line with the title of the thing, The Killing Joke, as well as the thematic arc of the story.


In brief, The Killing Joke functions as a origin of The Joker, presenting him as a two-bit, failed comedian, recruited by some hoods to aid them on a heist of the Ace Chemical plant, where our unnamed comedian used to work. The comedian, unable to secure paying comedy work, with a wife to support, and a child on the way, desperately needs the money. The criminals give him a "Red Hood" to disguise him during the crime (The Red Hood was revealed in Detective Comics #168 [Feb 1951] to be The Joker's original criminal guise). During the course of the story, his wife (and child) are killed in a bizarre bottle-warmer accident, he's forced to complete the heist despite this, and he's dumped into the famous vat of chemicals. Emerging as The Joker.

That's flashback. The contemporary story involves The Joker kidnapping Commissioner Gordon, in the process shooting his daughter Barbara (traditionally also Batgirl - but that's never mentioned in this story), taking him to a dilapidated carnival and sideshow. He tortures Gordon, shows him pictures of his maimed daughter. Stating over and over again that his goal is to drive the Commissioner insane.

The MOST relevant line for this discussion? The Joker says:

"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day. You had a bad day once. Am I right? I know I am. I can tell. You had a bad day and everything changed."

One. Bad. Day.

How else can you describe what Batman endures? His best friend kidnapped, beaten, tortured. His friends daughter (and possibly one of his crimefighting partners), defiled and paralyzed. All by a man who he has, repeatedly, captured and incarcerated. A man he has, repeatedly, refused to kill, either out of pity or his own moral code.

Flat out, Batman is indirectly responsible for the monster called The Joker existing in the first place. He's also repeatedly refused to permanently end his monstrous work. Now, "one bad day" later, those facts have driven him over the edge.

He kills The Joker. Flat out breaks his neck. The laughter on that page stops abruptly, because the joker is now dead, in front of the arriving police sirens. Even after Gordon had warned Batman that it had to be "by the book," to prove to The Joker that the system still worked. The Joker has finally driven his eternal opponent insane.

The Joker wins, even in death.

I've always liked The Killing Joke a whole lot. A whole, whole lot. However, I've resisted it as "the best Joker story, ever" for a lot of reasons. Frankly, I've always felt that Denny O'Neil and Neal Adam's "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" (Batman #251 - Sept 1973), or Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers' "The Laughing Fish" (Detective Comics #475 - Feb 1978) truly deserved that crown.

However, this re-evaluation of The Killing Joke's ending changes all that. Mainly because it becomes, literally, the ULTIMATE Batman/Joker story. There can be no more. It's also a deeply unsettling and twisted tale, as all Joker stories should be.

It also makes The Killing Joke EXPLICITLY outside of continuity. Which is the grandest thing of all. Even at 17, when the book was originally published, I felt like what Moore and Bolland had crafted should not, in any way, be tied to the regular books. When Barbara Gordon was suddenly confined to a wheelchair in the regular Batman and Detective Comics monthlies, I felt that The Killing Joke had been cheapened.

I've read a few attempts to debunk Morrison's reading, and I find them just as flawed as those who take umbridge with Christopher Nolan's film trilogy. The fan brain seems to be unable to process the concept of "outside continuity." This obsession with determining if stories "count," or not, is just terribly problematic. There needs to be a realization that truly great stories rarely appear when they have to connect A to B, or worse (and part and parcel of the serialized fiction world) connect A right back to A over, and over, and over again.

I Don't Really Believe This Scoop.

That said, IF IT IS TRUE, I'd be very excited. Mainly because Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne, to me, and I think it's STUPID to try to launch a DC Universe on film with a Batman who's not Bruce Wayne. I don't care how popular Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is (and I'm a big fan), but I do not want to see "John Blake" Batman as a cornerstone of a film DCU. Which is also not to say I'm totally against re-casting. I'm not. It's a character thing, not an actor thing, but I am very, very fond of Bale as this character.

Now, that said...I don't see this happening. I don't see Nolan being interested. He was very specific about his Batman films being in a world with no other heroes, and, honestly, despite Marvel's success, I think that is the smartest course of action with this kind of material. Building a world specific to the character you're working on, and allowing that character to be special in that world. As much as I enjoy the Marvel Films productions, there is a generic feel to their world. I've said it often, Marvel Films is making very artful commerce.

Christopher Nolan made very commercial art. I think he said what he wanted to say about heroism and super-heroes in his three films. While I could imagine him finding some interest in telling a story about Superman, being such a diametrically opposed character, I think, based on his other films, shepherding a string of Green Lantern films, for example, isn't going to trip his trigger. Maybe the power running Warner Brothers DC franchise would give him, to do projects he feels more connected to, would. Who knows?

I honestly don't even think that Nolan is all that involved with Man of Steel. I think he lent his name to David Goyer to help move his script forward. Did he look at it and give notes? Sure, but I don't think he was as active a producer as many would like to believe.Will the final product have elements of Nolan's more "real world" Batman take? I would guess so, but I also think that has more to do with the fact that Nolan's Bat-saga was so popular. Not to mention that the same writer (Goyer) was responsible for the original scripts, in both cases.

So, I don't quite believe what El Mayimbe is selling...

But, lets say the WB is trying to circle the wagons, and get the people with a proven track record on board to try to expand the universe. I can't argue that it makes sense from a business perspective, and if Bale is willing to don the cowl again, I'd be happy to see it happen.

I will make this pitch, however...

Just do World's Finest, or Superman/Batman, or whatever you want to call it. I understand that Warners is very high on what Snyder has put together with Man of Steel, if it goes as well as people are apparently expecting, and you bring Bale back, the DC Universe on film is already established. Just by putting those two characters together, the two most universally recognized superheroes in the world (don't even argue - the only thing Marvel has that is close is Spider-Man), you have an epic, event film to rival The Avengers. You also have a cornerstone that you can build from, without eliminating options for the other characters.

IF, in fact, Nolan is actually contemplating jumping into this, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking the same thing.

I Know I Said I Was Going to Get Back on a Schedule

Buuuut..I didn't. Sue me.

But I am back today with some movie/comic book/general bullshit commentary.

Finally got to see Looper the other night. Terrific film, I was very excited about it, due to my love of Rian Johnson's previous effort, Brick, which was a truly wonderful film noir pastiche, set in a high school. That film also starred Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and it truly blew me away. Johnson has a way with tone that is really interesting. I've not seen The Brothers Bloom, but after loving his other two films so much, I will be checking it out.

Looper, I think it's fairly well known by now, is about time travel, and I was particularly impressed with how it's used to warp the the storyline. It allows some pretty fun leaps away from traditional plot structure. In much the same way that the Back to the Future series set it's rules for time travel, and then allowed them to be exploited wildly, so does Johnson with his film. Though, of course, BTTF is primarily a comedy, and Looper primarily an action film, making the way each exploits the concept vastly different.

Mainly, I wish I'd seen Looper before I picked my top ten for 2012, because it would've made it. It's a really smart and entertaining sci-fi that is almost literally dripping with ideas. It sets it's rules, and hews to them. To top it all off there's winning turns from Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, and a really quite stunning, and pivotal performance from child actor Pierce Gagnon. Rian Johnson is the real deal, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

So, they killed off another Robin. It seems like it's almost becoming a joke, like it wasn't already, "Robin, the Boy Hostage" and all that. Still THIS time it's Damian Wayne, Bruce Wayne's son with Talia Al Ghul. Yes, the daughter of one of Batman's most fearsome foes, Ras Al Ghul.

I have to admit, despite a general liking for Damian, that this whole thing left me cold. Mainly because the writing on Batman Incorporated, by Grant Morrison, especially in the 8 issues since the series restarted as a part of the "New 52," has been...less than interesting. Or even coherent.

Grant Morrison has a tremendous imagination, when it comes to conceptual writing, he is unmatched, and I think he has one of the clearest visions of what our comic book heroes should be out there. (The panel where he lambasted a fan who suggested that Batman should carry firearms was amazing, "then he's just a soldier, and the last thing we need are more soldiers!") However, the execution of those ideas, especially since his run on the Batman book began in 2006, has become very, very abysmal.

What started out as a rather fun, if not altogether to my taste, working of the "James Bond"-style Batman, complete with ninjas infused with the Man-Bat formula (Giant Bat ninjas are always cool), ended up unfocused, rambling, and, at times, incoherent. In each of the last eight issues, I have had moments where I felt that pages must have been left out. The plotline simply made no sense, action scenes had no logic, and Batman was acting in ways that simply didn't flow from what I had read on the previous page.

Had the writer not been Grant Morrison, with critical and commercial accolades to back him up, I simply doubt an editor would've allowed this mess of a story to see press. Oh, I'm sure that there are folks out there, the Morrison converted, who will tell me that it all makes perfect sense. Y'know, what? You're right. The overall story does make some sense, it's the individual moments that don't flow logially from one to another. I'm also very much aware that Morrison isn't all that concerned with that.

Which is fine. I don't begrudge anyone who loves his stuff, I've loved a lot of it, too. His early Batman stuff is very fun, even if I prefer Batman not as a jet-setting Bond-type. I really enjoyed All-Star Superman, even while I think it's been overrated. His voice is absolutely unique, and that is precious.

I just think his voice is so unique as to upend good storytelling, sometimes. Damian Wayne, who Morrison created (or should we say Mike W. Barr?), is, in my opinion, been written better by the other writers on the Batman books currently. It's Scott Snyder's and Peter J. Tomasi's Damian that I will miss, not Morrison's.

So, Damian's time as Robin comes to an end, and we'll look for ward to Robin #6 (in continuity - if we take all of them into account we're probably over 10) shortly, because it doesn't look like they're cancelling the Batman and Robin book.

Peyton Place opened on Tuesday, so, for the first time in a good, long while...I am not in rehearsal.

I'm really not at all certain on how this show will be received. One review was very appreciative, but that particular critic tends to love shows more often than not. He also spelled my name wrong, but...pfft!  The other published so far was nice to the cast, but critical of the show. So, who knows what the consensus will be? I don't really care. I'm having a good time, and I enjoy this cast.

So, you should see it.

Outside of that, my main goal in the coming weeks to to get some real work done on these songs I've been playing around with for....well, years now. I re-strung the Les Paul last night, and I am ready to get it on.

Again, I Get Annoyed With the "Fan Press" (TDKR SPOILERS)

FIRST OFF - NO LIE - SPOILERS FOR The Dark Knight Rises.

DO NOT READ THIS BLOG IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!  

Ok, there's this 2-part article over at newsarama.com about where the final moments of The Dark Knight Rises leave us, in terms of the long-term Batman franchise. Yet another example of fanboy supposition and speculation disguised as a legitimate "news" story, because it's on a comic-book news site. Now, let me make this clear...I have no problem with fanboy supposition and speculation. What I have a problem with is that it's presented as a editorial piece by a knowledgeable expert, and it's really just a guy blabbing about what he thinks Warner Brothers should/will do with the Batman Franchise.

What's offensive to me is this: The reason Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" is likely the best live-action interpretation of the Batman we will ever see, not to mention great works of art, is precisely because Nolan approached the entire arc without worrying about how to nurture a continuing franchise. He aimed, at least from The Dark Knight, to END the Batman story he was telling, about the Batman he created for his films.

(This last point is a HUGE reason why Harry Knowles review of the film over on Ain't It Cool News is so utterly stupid. Nolan's Batman has been talking about "when the time comes that I can hang up this cowl" from the first film...incessantly. To act like him actually having done just that as The Dark Knight Rises opens is being willfully ignorant of the themes that Nolan has been laying out...Honestly, I feel like is has more to do with some slight from Warner Brothers, than anything else. Probably because Hollywood has caught up with the fact that AICN isn't the hot-bed of web activity it once was. You're far to easily read, Harry.)

THIS Batman story, Nolan's Batman story, perhaps THE definitive Batman story, is over. Bruce Wayne has left the cowl behind and found love, peace and happiness, and, Like Kevin Smith, I found this deeply moving. There were tears because, here, finally, our hero who had given so much, who had sacrificed for his city and his fellow citizens, who carried the weight for us all, was given the opportunity to have that weight lifted. From the age of 10, Bruce Wayne was carrying more than any person should be asked to, and here, finally, in the end, God, fate, Allah, whoever, let him put that down.

THAT was the most moving thing in the movie, to me. His virtue was rewarded. Yes, Nolan leaves us with the image of John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) entering the Batcave, and the idea that the mantle of the Bat will be carried forward. Even pointing out minutes earlier that his birth name was Robin John Blake (nice touch), but here's the real thing that pisses me off....

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T THAT GOOD ENOUGH?!?!?!

Nolan leaves us with a lyrical, satisfying ending that ties in deeply to the character, and the concept of heroism, on thematic and story levels. It's complete. It's powerful. It's moving. And the first goddamn thing the assembled fanboy brigade can do is start whining about "where do we go from here?" Not in a "wow, I love the questions Nolan left me with" way, but in a "where's my next movie" way.

Nolan has always talked about "the many interpretations of Batman," he understands that every creator puts his mark on the character in ways that the next creator may or may not make use of. This is Nolan's take on a complete Batman epic, unencumbered with bullshit like continuity and shared universes. What we, as fans should take from this is really damn simple....

Continuity, more often than not, hinders storytelling, rather than adding to it.

Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns was NEVER Supposed to tie into the "regular" DC Comics universe. It was Miller's attempt to tell an iconic story about the end of a hero's life, without having to be tied to 10 other books, or what the character was doing in Justice League of America. THAT'S why the story is great. You can say the same about Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke. The reason these stories are great and live on is because there are no rules, period.

It's only after the fact, when these two stories because so popular, and the fans started clamoring about "how they fit" into the comics they were reading on a monthly basis, that things got fucked up. With various elements from these stories, that weren't supposed to fit in perfectly, being forced into the "regular" books. What DC should've had the balls to do, and I hope Warner Brothers learned the lesson, is say, "they don't. We're looking for someone with a visionary new story to tell about this character, period." I think John Blake taking up the mantle of the Batman, and being the first of a continuing line of defenders of Gotham is fun to turn around in your head, but I don't need, or want, to see a movie about it.

 Plus, I don't think Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be interested without Nolan. I know, speaking as an actor, I wouldn't.

Why? Because that was Nolan's story, and Nolan's made quite clear that he is done with Batman and superheroes. (I would advise all of you to quit thinking that Nolan is hands-on with Man of Steel. His own comments make it pretty clear that he was just there to jump-start production as a favor to David Goyer and Warner Brothers) I don't want to see Darren Aronofsky trying to work inside Nolan's version of Gotham City, I want to see what Aronofsky would build from the ground up. I want to see how David Fincher would tell Batman stories, or Joe Carnahan.

And, yes, those three guys, Aronofsky, Fincher or Carnahan, are my dream directors to carry on the franchise. Not the continuity, but the franchise. They encapsulate audacious film-making with deep understanding of the crime genre. What Nolan understood that, say, Tim Burton didn't, is that "superhero" doesn't have to be a genre. Nolan made epic crime films, that happen to have a superhero in the middle of them.

Now, I'll put on my speculative hat....

My best guess is that we won't see Batman in a movie theatre until Warner Brothers gets a Justice League movie off the ground. It will be an all-new Batman, unconnected to any previous film version, and compatible with a unified DC Comics film universe. This isn't the Superman situation, with a lawsuit forcing Warners into having the Man of Steel on screen, or possibly losing the rights. The sad thing is, that's almost guaranteed to generate a much less distinctive and singular interpretation of the character. It will pale next to Nolan's version. Best case scenario, in my mind, is somebody reads a ton of Grant Morrison's JLA run, and casts Batman as the know-it-all/smartest-guy-in-the-room that was so much fun in those stories.

Frankly, I'm asking the fanbase to just stop. Stop trying to do to these films what you've done to the comics, with the incessant need to know how everything fits together. You've reduced the big two (Marvel and DC) comic companies to shoving out books as pacifiers between the big crossovers that "really matter," but never amount to anything. Every single one of those events promise "sweeping change," and it usually amounts to somebody getting a new costume.

Enough.

Nolan gave you sweeping change. Nolan gave you an ending, a deeply compelling, emotional end to the adventures of HIS Batman. Accept it as the gift it is, and demand that the next version be as well thought out and lovingly crafted.

BATMAN: YEAR ONE Animated

Most people would point to The Dark Knight Returns as Frank Miller's greatest Batman work.

Not me. No, while I think Dark Knight Returns is a pretty special work, I was much more blown away by Miller's take on Batman's alpha, rather than omega, Batman: Year One. Miller was tasked to create a "re-boot" of Batman's origins as a 4-issue run in the Batman title, and Year One was the result. Miller has said that all of his Batman stories are "his" Batman, and can be connected. So, yes, Miller's intention was to create a starting point for the embittered, driven old man we see in Dark Knight Returns, but, in a testament to his skill as a writer, the story functioned extremely well as a basis for over twenty years of continuity and storylines.

Miller didn't draw Year One, but brought in his collaborator on several Daredevil stories, David Mazzucchelli. Mazzucchelli was able to embody the gritty, corrupt world of Gotham City just as well as Miller, himself, but also brought a certain elegance to the line and form. There was a grace, and reality, to the figures, whereas Miller, as is his wont, tended to portray Batman as a huge, epic figure.

Again, I think Miller's Batman is amazing, but the almost-Hopper-esque reality of Mazzucchelli's pencils helped with the idea of a re-boot. Gotham felt like a place where there were lives, and stories, around every corner. Miller's Batman in Dark Knight Returns was an epic figure, and the city, and it's population, seemed to be a reflection of him, whereas Mazzucchelli's felt like a reflection of the city.

The other great leap forward, in terms of  characterization, was with James Gordon, here not yet Commissioner, but a police Lieutenant recently transferred from Chicago. A transfer with a hint of some scandal driving him to Gotham. The main character of Year One isn't Batman, or Bruce Wayne, but Jim Gordon. The action revolves around both men finding their place within the corrupt world of Gotham, not to mention finding hope and partnership within each other.

Year One, as a comic book,  is nothing less than a masterpiece, repositioning and re-energizing both characters in one fell swoop. It's essential reading for anyone with an interest in these characters.

So, when Warner Brothers Animation and Producer Bruce Timm announced that Batman: Year One would be one of their direct-to-video DC Comics animated films, I had some mixed reactions. I love the story, and it's nice to think that more people will be exposed to it, but the DC animated program has had it's fair share of stinkers. Though, the projects actually based on certain arcs, or graphic novels, have generally come off better.

Well, my copy came from Amazon, and I watched it on Wednesday night. I have to say that I was more impressed than not. This particular offering being on the upper end of these animated projects.

The script is, for me, the most important thing. A good story can overcome anything. In general, this adaptation is very solid, if a bit staid. There is very little deviation from Miller's work from scene structure down to actual dialogue. There are a few "massaged" elements, one of which bothered me. Gordon's reason for leaving Chicago is fleshed out a bit, where Miller left it very nebulous. In doing so, they've swung Gordon more to the angels, inferring that he was run out of Chi-town for turning in other cops. Well, then why would the Gotham Police, rife with corruption and graft, welcome him, even promising that he'll "fit right in?" The book tends to make you feel that Gordon had no place else to go, that Gotham was the only place corrupt enough to let him continue to be a cop, because he was corrupt, in some way, in Chicago. It's a change that takes a lot of the desperation off Gordon's mission to stay clean.

Some other scenes and events are ejected, and I can't say I missed them. It's a slick, streamlined adaptation, it moved VERY fast. It does, at times, bring home how slim the story is. The film only runs about an hour.

The animation is solid, mid-range stuff. More stylish than your average G.I. Joe cartoon, but hardly a work of art, like the best of the Disney crop. Every one of these projects that's based on an actual book gets the "we're going to replicate the style of the original artist" speech, and it never works. Yes, Batman: Year One features much of the same framing and angles, as well as the color palate of Mazzucchelli's work, but it doesn't, at all, capture the feel of his pencils.

To be fair; it can't, and it shouldn't. Animation is a vastly different medium from a comic book, and animated figures faithfully rendered in Mazzucchelli's style would look odd in motion. It would take a level of personal quality control that just isn't possible with this kind of corporate production, where the animation is being shipped off to an assembly line animation house in Asia. That's the nature of the beast, so, while I note the discrepancy, I don't damn the project for it.

The voice acting is solid, with one GLARING exception. Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) provides the voice of Jim Gordon, and while he does the job, it also is hardly an inspired performance. Fanboy faves Eliza Duskhu and Katee Sackoff are Selina Kyle/Catwoman and Gordon's partner Sarah Essen, respectively. They're both fine in limited roles (Dushku gets a bit more to do, and makes more of an impact, in the Catwoman short included on the Blu-Ray). The weak link is, unfortunately, Ben McKenzie as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Perhaps I'm spoiled after years of Kevin Conroy's amazing work as Batman in multiple animated and video game projects, but McKenzie's voice is just plain dull, and not distinctive as Bruce or Batman. He may be a fine actor, but I don't think he has what it takes to do voice work.

That may seem like a lot of gripes, but I did enjoy the film. It's not the book, it never could be the book, and the book is very special to me. However, it's close. I think, however, adaptation is always a stronger course. Batman Begins mines much of the same material, and is far stronger, story-wise than this film.

Really, all of these DC Animated films, that directly adapt comic stories, function only as "bonus features" to the books themselves. Good bonus features, but still just sauce for the original goose. I do look forward to the rumored adaptations of Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke, but my expectations are well tempered. 

DC Comics' New 52 - Week 4

I did not stray out of my regular pull list this past week, because even with that I had over $20 in books, so the only New 52 book I picked up was...

Batman #1 - $2.99

Written by SCOTT SNYDER
Art by GREG CAPULLO and JONATHAN GLAPION
Cover by GREG CAPULLO
Variant cover by ETHAN VAN SCIVER

Be here for the start of a new era for The Dark Knight from writer Scott Snyder (AMERICAN VAMPIRE, BATMAN: GATES OF GOTHAM) and artist Greg Capullo (Spawn)! A series of brutal killings hints at an ancient conspiracy, and Batman learns that Gotham City is deadlier than he knew.

It's real clear to me that Scott Snyder is the best Batman writer working on a monthly right now. His Detective Comics run, prior to the reboot was fantastic, and, for my money, this is the guy who should be guiding the Batman titles, rather than Grant Morrison. I'm honestly hoping that, with Morrison on Action Comics, and helping re-define Superman, we'll see Batman, Inc., and that whole concept slide into obscurity.  Of course, with that being the basis of a number of the New 52 titles, I'm not going to hold my breath. I, unlike Morrison, don't equate Batman with James Bond, the "hairy-chested love-god."

What's lovely is that I don't think any of the writers on the core Bruce Wayne-centric Batman titles see him that way, either. Snyder, Tony Daniel, and David Finch (Oh, God...**SHUDDER**) all seem to really gravitate toward the urban vigilante that's been the bread and butter of the character since Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams put things right in the 70's. Morrison's unending obsession with the most ultra-bizarre (and, admittedly, ultra-creative) antics of the Silver Age feels right with Superman, but falls down when I see them applied to the Dark Knight.

All that said, Batman, Inc. is in line to be revived within months...

Anyway, Snyder accepts the status quo and shows Bruce Wayne putting forth a rather Batman, Inc.-style plan, but it's also centered on reviving Gotham City. I find this fine, because it reinforces Bruce's iron-clad connection to, and obsession with, his city. Plus, Snyder can write mystery/crime/noir style with flash and panache. It's great stuff, not quite as dark as his final Detective Comics arc, but...I really enjoyed it.

Comic Book Day 6.15.2011

With only one new title this week, perhaps I'll be able to get my 3-4 month backlog bagged and filed.



Batman #711 $2.99

Written by TONY DANIEL
Art by STEVE SCOTT and RYAN WINN
Cover by TONY DANIEL

Batman acts on his suspicions of a newly elected political figure in Gotham City and finds himself in deep water. With piranhas. Meanwhile, Two-Face fights his way back from the brink of death to find an unlikely ally who will show him that there are two sides to every story.

I gotta say, I'm happy to see that Tony Daniel will still be writing Batman when the dust settles in September. I'm also happy for a Two-Face storyline...

God, I love Two-Face.

New Comic Day 4.20.2011

Welcome to a new week of comic buying. It's a nice, moderate week, but I think the time has come to let one series, I've been with for quite a while, go. It just ain't worth it.


Batman #709 $2.99

Written by DAVID HINE
Art and Cover by GUILLEM MARCH

This month's 3-part crossover with RED ROBIN and GOTHAM SIRENTS reaches its conclusion as Batman becomes Gotham City's last hope! Can he help the city avoid a cleansing scourge? Will the Angels of Death find one good man whose soul is pure? And what is the tragic secret in Dick Grayson's past that might doom Gotham? Guest-starring Red Robin, Catwoman and Ra's al Ghul!

Personally, I've always felt the Azrael/replacement Batman/avenging angel storyline was kinda uninteresting. The character served a specific purpose during the "Knightfall" storyline, being the hyper-dark, hyper-violent Batman that a lot of people were pushing for, and making a pretty solid case for NOT going that way with Bruce Wayne.

But since that story? Flatline, as far as I'm concerned. I'm honestly hoping that this mini-crossover will put the final nail in the Azrael coffin. I'd have no problem with that.

Green Lantern #65 (War of GLs) $2.99

Written by GEOFF JOHNS
Art by DOUG MAHNKE and KEITH CHAMPAGNE
Cover by IVAN REIS and OCLAIR ALBERT

The "War of the Green Lanterns" takes a shocking turn! With the entire Green Lantern Corps against them, the four Earthborn GLs make a choice that will rank among the most memorable in GL history. But not all of them agree on what has to be done and what lines are to be crossed. Plus, the countdown to the live-action film continues with another exclusive look at the upcoming GREEN LANTERN movie!

Here's the deal. I REFUSE to buy any title, that I normally wouldn't, in order for a crossover to make sense, period.  I will not be starting to pick up Green Lantern Corps just because half of this "War of the Green Lanterns" is in that book, I just won't. I didn't pick it up for Brightest Day or Blackest Night, either, and it just irks me that DC assumes I will. They even have an online checklist, so you know what you "have" to buy.

There used to be a unspoken trust, in all but very few situations, that you could read your title, and it would make sense if you just stuck with that one title. No longer, and, as much as I admire Geoff Johns as a writer, he's took a turn into a realm of annoyance with me. EVERYTHING the man writes these days appears to be tied to a crossover, and 10 other series. Top that off, he seems to not feel it's needed to recap, or make a single series read as a whole. I do not want, nor can I afford, to buy FOURTEEN miniseries to make sense of Flashpoint. I want to read The Flash.

Come on, DC.

Justice League of America #56 $2.99

Written by JAMES ROBINSON
Art and cover by BRETT BOOTH and NORM RAPMUND
1:10 Variant cover by DAVID MACK

"The Rise of Eclipso" continues as the JLA and the villainous lord of darkness have a showdown on the dark side of the moon!

Am I even going to buy this?

I've been talking about dropping this title for over a year. The artist I loved, Mark Bagley, is LONG gone. James Robinson's writing is less that inspiring on this title, and this Eclipso arc is already skewed because of the ramming off that "Doomsday-whatever" crossover into the last issue. (ANOTHER crossover....*sigh*)

I think it's time to cut. The. Cord.

I mean, you're not even trying with the solicit copy!!

The Spirit #13 $2.99

Written by DAVID HINE
Art by MORITAT
Cover by LADRÖNN

It was a love at first sight when the cartel's assassin set eyes on Ellen Dolan, his target's daughter – though the feeling isn't exactly mutual! But you know what they say about love: If at first you don't succeed, kidnap your intended and build a perfect mechanical simulacrum!

Ahhhh...continuity-free stories featuring Will Eisner's The Spirit.

Books like this, and Jonah Hex, soothe my soul. Yeah, they suffer in sales because the pavlovian-response fanboys out there can't look past, "oh, it's a Flashpoint crossover!!" and see the great work being done on these titles month-in, month-out.

David Hine "gets" The Spirit, the noir trappings wrapped in pure, fun energy, and Moritat's art is classic, cartoony and cool. In other words, it feels like a work connected to Eisner's spirit (pardon the unintended pun). They're creeping very close to the level of genius that Darwyn Cooke hit with this character, but from a much different, and more hewing to Eisner, angle.

It's a great book.

New Comic Day 3.16.2011

So, yeah...I never picked up my books last week. So, the "review" blog will be coming, at some point. as usual, when I get involved with a show, my time starts to get harder and harder to manage.

Batman #708 $2.99

Written by TONY DANIEL
Art by ANDY CLARKE
Cover by TONY DANIEL

Batman uncovers just how deep the Falcone Crime Family has penetrated the inner (and outer) workings of Gotham City, while Kitrina Falcone – a.k.a. Catgirl – is tempted to take over the family business. When she finds herself in hot water, she'll need Batman's help or all of her nine lives may run out.

I really like how the Falcone crime family has become a major recurring factor in the Batman world. It's always easy to throw out elements that other creative teams have introduced, in favor of your own stuff, but having writers go back to the Falcone family has helped establish a real multi-generational feel to Gotham's underworld.

Brightest Day #22 $2.99

Written by GEOFF JOHNS & PETER J. TOMASI
Art by IVAN REIS, PATRICK GLEASON,
ARDIAN SYAF, SCOTT CLARK & JOE PRADO
Covers by DAVID FINCH
1:10 Variant covers by IVAN REIS

As the end of BRIGHTEST DAY approaches, our returned heroes and villains begin converging in one area as the ultimate protector reveals itself against the ultimate menace! 

I used to laugh at the concept of "event fatigue." I always said, "if you're not enjoying it, just stop." I mean, I've never been one to buy something I wasn't enjoying, and there's plenty of events I never even started, because they just seemed vapid.

Yeah, I see you pointing out I still buy Justice League.....

Then I met Brightest Day. Just show me who the White Lantern is, and get it over with.

Red Robin #21 $2.99

Written by FABIAN NICIEZA
Art and cover by MARCUS TO
& RAY MCCARTHY

Unable to control the Unternet, Red Robin is determined to destroy the villains' communications grid. Once the hero learns that the Mad Men have unwittingly become "roaming sentient servers," Red Robin will have to decide between severing Earth's connection to the Unternet before it kills the Mad Men – or leaving them in the throes of insanity forever! 

I'm really liking how the mission for Time Drake/Red Robin has shifted to this "undernet" angle since the return of Bruce Wayne. It's a smart track for a young, yet capable character like Tim.

The Spirit #12 $2.99

Written by DAVID HINE
Art by MORITAT
Cover by LADRÖNN

Death is coming for Commissioner Dolan – and it wears The Spirit's face! The assassin sent to Central City by the South American cartels is a master of deadly automatons, but do The Spirit and the cops even know what they're looking for? They'd take a bullet for Dolan, but can they stop a killer who's taken countless lives without touching a gun?

This book has found it's groove, riding the line between whimsy and noir that marked the best of Will Eisner's work, as well as Darwyn Cooke's run. It's a consistent, solid read, it reminds me of Jonah Hex that way, but Hex has moments of utter genius this creative team hasn't found...yet.

I do really miss the Spirit: Black and White back-up feature.

Ultimate Avengers vs. New Ultimates #2 $3.99

Written by MARK MILLAR
Pencils & Cover by LEINIL YU

DEATH OF SPIDER-MAN! IT. IS. ON! The two most powerful super teams in the Ultimate Universe collide in the brawl of the century! A misunderstanding has brought these two colossal teams to blows and their battle may just spell the end for the Ultimate world! MARK MILLAR and LENIL YU bring you the issue that EVERYONE will be talking about. DON'T MISS OUT!

Yeah, yeah...Let's hope this series is more Mark Millar's run on The Ultimates, and not his Ultimate Avengers minis.

Reading and Writing 2.27.2011

Well, I finally got a chance to sit down and read the last two weeks worth of my pull list....So, from Feb. 16th, 2011 and Feb 23rd, 2011....

2.16.2011

Batman #707

Another solid Batman tale from Tony Daniel. The guy's not the greatest writer in the world, but he certainly know how to keep a story moving. Frankly, he also surprised me. I was certain that Peacock would be a Batman: Incorporated agent by the end of this tale.

Which brings me to another thought. If you weren't reading Batman: Inc. (which has streeted two issues in...4 months?) or The Dark Knight (which published issue #1 to great fanfare, and then fell off the face of the Earth), would you even know Bruce Wayne was alive again? Even "Batman: Incorporated," as a concept, what, exactly, is the deal. It's a plot element that I, personally, find dumb, but I'm willing to have my mind changed. The fact that it, and Bruce's return, seem to have almost no effect on Dick, Tim and Damien (other than a family gathering to watch The Mark of Zorro, apparently) is really annoying.

This is admittedly all sideline thoughts to what is a pretty decent issue. The Asian mysticism was handled pretty well, and Sensei made a fine villain. I'm also a fan of Tony Daniel's art, so that helps.

Booster Gold #41

Being a relative newcomer to the world of Booster Gold, and having dropped this series for a while between the ext of Geoff Johns and the entry of Giffen and DeMatteis, I have to admit the final splash page meant absolutely bubkis to me.

That said, this was another solid story, with the creative team tackling the fact that Booster, as a hero, exists solely because he stole all of his equipment in the far future. No ifs, ands, or buts, Booster Gold is a thief, and I'm glad that's being addressed. This series is ripe for it, too, with the whole point to move Booster toward becoming a better human being.

The continuing General Glory thread, with Booster fighting out-of-time Nazis also tickles me. It's old-school comic books in the absolute best sense. Really enjoy this book.

Brightest Day #20

Six issues to go.

Tiny plot development that SEEMS to move the story forward, but doesn't really, securing last issues that will try to wrap everything up all at once and just end up being confusing? Check.

Ignoring plot thread for weeks on end, until I can barely remember what's going on in them? Check.

Six issues to go.


Green Lantern #62

Oh, great. Here we go with another crossover, or is it still part of Brightest Day?

Or, wait, is War of the Green Lanterns part of Flashpoint? Why are the events in Brightest Day seemingly completely disconnected from what's happening in this book? The book that supposedly spawned said crossover? Why doesn't this book seem to resolve anything?

I mean, why does this suspiciously feel like, "well, Brightest Day wasn't the kicker we expected, what else you got, Geoff?"

"War of the Green Lanterns?"

"Go with that."

Justice League of America #54

I find it a bit of a cruel irony that as Dwayne McDuffie, may he rest in peace, passed on, the title that he was the last good writer on, and was fired from for admitting that editorial made the job more difficult than it needed to be, is going with him.

What the hell happened in this issue? Sure, sure it's a variation on the old war-horse, the recruitment issue. There was a moment, on page 17, when they went to pick up the Shadow Theif, where the whole house of cards fell for me. I couldn't even follow the book all of a sudden. That may be my fault, maybe my brain just shut down to avoid further pain...

I need to drop this book. Bagley's gone, there's no reason to hang on.

The Spirit #11

There's always a danger in bringing honest-to-God, real-word problems into a fantasy world. It's hard to seriously talk about, say Nuclear poliferation, in a world with a Superman. The Spirit, however, doesn't have this problem. From the strips inception with Will Eisner, it's always been more about people, and the city, than simple cheap thrills. Eisner loved the people of New York, and that's who he told stories about.

So, this new Spirit adventure, tied to the underworld of human trafficing, feel right. The writing and art have been uniformly solid since issue one, and this title, sales notwithstanding, is one of DC's jewels again.

2.23.2011

Detective Comics #847

A really, really solid Commissioner Gordon-centered issue. I don't know if any of these issues with James Gordon, Jr. were established before this story, or if they're a retcon. Doesn't matter, what a great idea, and super well executed, too. From the great script by Scott Snyder to the Mazuchelli-style artwork by Francesco Francavilla, this all feels well done and well packaged. This is the right talent for this story. I cannot wait to see where this goes.

Well done, guys.

It's also one of the best Batman covers in a good, long while. Excellent stuff all around.

Captain America #615

Well, that was....

Pretty much what I expected to happen. We can't sully a character like Captain America, even a replacement Captain America, but the character also demands that he take responsibility for his own actions. I've said it time and time again, I really do like how Brubaker and Guice are telling this tale, but, much like what's going on with the Batman titles, once the real deal is back on the scene, you kinda get antsy for the inevitable to just happen. I mean, does anybody think Steve Rogers won't be Captain America again? Does anybody thing Bruce Wayne won't be the sole Batman again? The answer is no.

I also am no fan of Sin as the new Red Skull. Maybe that's just me.

Ultimate Comics Spider-Man #154

The way Bendis used to be on Powers, where every issue felt handed down from on high, with his talent perfectly matched to the material? That's Ultimate Spider-Man, now. I mean, I didn't feel like anything overly relavatory happened, and the conversation with Mary Jane in the last pages seemed a bit silly coming out of the mouth of a kid who's seen the entirety of Manhattan island flooded. That said, it's good stuff, and I love the developing relationship between Peter Parker and Tony Stark.

This is just a great book, and it's been a great book for so long. I suspect it'll continue to be a great book until Bendis leaves it.

Which almost, but doesn't quite, make up for the $3.99 price tag.