I like Grant Morrison's Batman. I also like Paul Dini's Batman. I did not realize until a couple days ago that these were mutually exclusive. Oops.
And if you add in the works I enjoy by Geoff Johns, then I become some sort of fandom temporal disturbance...
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Ahhh, Sony....
Since I'm sure the news has already completely circulated at this point, I thought I'd lend my two cents' worth on Sony's upcoming reboot of the Spider-Man franchise.
I am not opposed to a change in direction for the series; although I was one of the three people in the world who apparently liked Spider-Man 3, I can still admit that it's a a good 'jumping off point' for the current film crew, as it firmly wrapped up all the story lines running through the original films. It's the perfect time to change directors, recast actors, etc. In other words, a 'soft' reboot, similar to the changeover from 2003 Hulk and 2008 Incredible Hulk. Except, you know, all the Spidey films made gobs of money.
But a reboot? Putting Peter back in high school? First, I'll always debate the wisdom in the implicit assumption that Peter functions better as a high school student: I think he functions best as a college student, because he's in a realm sufficiently balanced between youth and maturity to enjoy storytelling possibilities from both ends of the spectrum.
But I really don't think this will go over with the viewing public. Most folks will have the same reaction I did:
"Uh, why?"
I am not opposed to a change in direction for the series; although I was one of the three people in the world who apparently liked Spider-Man 3, I can still admit that it's a a good 'jumping off point' for the current film crew, as it firmly wrapped up all the story lines running through the original films. It's the perfect time to change directors, recast actors, etc. In other words, a 'soft' reboot, similar to the changeover from 2003 Hulk and 2008 Incredible Hulk. Except, you know, all the Spidey films made gobs of money.
But a reboot? Putting Peter back in high school? First, I'll always debate the wisdom in the implicit assumption that Peter functions better as a high school student: I think he functions best as a college student, because he's in a realm sufficiently balanced between youth and maturity to enjoy storytelling possibilities from both ends of the spectrum.
But I really don't think this will go over with the viewing public. Most folks will have the same reaction I did:
"Uh, why?"
Monday, January 11, 2010
Do Clothes Really Make The Man?
You ever notice how many of Batman's enemies wear really nice suits? Not all the time, of course, but in one popular incarnation or another, the A-list Bat-foes wear snappy duds.
And our hero dressed in demonic body armor and beats the crap out of them with his bare hands.
Why is this significant? Because Penguin, Scarecrow, Riddler, et al, are firmly in denial. They prance around in the garb of civilization, yet they undermine its foundations at every opportunity. (Or used to, in Riddler's case) The Joker is most likely an exception to this, as he firmly mocks society at large and its values.
Batman, on the other hand, sees himself as what he is: a warrior. He's at peace with that, and dresses accordingly. He doesn't hide guns in umbrellas or use chemical weapons in fist-fights because he doesn't have to; his place in society is already secure.
And our hero dressed in demonic body armor and beats the crap out of them with his bare hands.
Why is this significant? Because Penguin, Scarecrow, Riddler, et al, are firmly in denial. They prance around in the garb of civilization, yet they undermine its foundations at every opportunity. (Or used to, in Riddler's case) The Joker is most likely an exception to this, as he firmly mocks society at large and its values.
Batman, on the other hand, sees himself as what he is: a warrior. He's at peace with that, and dresses accordingly. He doesn't hide guns in umbrellas or use chemical weapons in fist-fights because he doesn't have to; his place in society is already secure.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Attention: DC Direct
If you make this toy, you can help yourself to the contents of my wallet as much as you like. That is all.
Hey, Green Arrow: You Suck!
Now, I'm not sure if Green Arrow actually sucks, or if he is just the victim of sucky writing. But he generally comes off as the type of person I couldn't stand in real life. (You know, not to imply that I generally like to associate with primary-colored sociopathic businessmen in real life...) His politics does play a part in it, I'll admit, but it's mostly the way he goes about his politics that irritates me.
As I've mentioned before, I've got a fairly conservative streak with some libertarian leanings, but you'd actually have to talk to me about politics specifically to discover that, as I don't wear it on my sleeve. People that do, of either stripe, tend to annoy me. Oftentimes, it seems like Green Arrow's entire character is that he's the guy who wears his politics right on his sleeve.
That wouldn't be enough to make him suck, though; crap like this is:
Linked to Scans Daily, which really should have a way to comment without getting a pay account.
Okay, so first off, Arrow interrupts the planning of an important operation to attend to his own special preferences. "Stop! Everyone look at me! I'm different!" And, frankly, admitting that you might be distracted from doing your job because you don't like what your protectee is saying means you're a pretty crappy superhero to begin with.
But that's not what really irritated me. What bugged me was his argument with Hal Jordan, after Arrow gave his opinion of a candidate on national television. He almost immediately calls Hal a Nazi.
That's stupid enough, but think about what's going on, here. Arrow is calling the guy trying to keep the military/police force that is the JLA out of politics a Nazi.
Like the man says, "You use that word; I don't think you know what it means."
Shut up, Green Arrow.
As I've mentioned before, I've got a fairly conservative streak with some libertarian leanings, but you'd actually have to talk to me about politics specifically to discover that, as I don't wear it on my sleeve. People that do, of either stripe, tend to annoy me. Oftentimes, it seems like Green Arrow's entire character is that he's the guy who wears his politics right on his sleeve.
That wouldn't be enough to make him suck, though; crap like this is:
Linked to Scans Daily, which really should have a way to comment without getting a pay account.
Okay, so first off, Arrow interrupts the planning of an important operation to attend to his own special preferences. "Stop! Everyone look at me! I'm different!" And, frankly, admitting that you might be distracted from doing your job because you don't like what your protectee is saying means you're a pretty crappy superhero to begin with.
But that's not what really irritated me. What bugged me was his argument with Hal Jordan, after Arrow gave his opinion of a candidate on national television. He almost immediately calls Hal a Nazi.
That's stupid enough, but think about what's going on, here. Arrow is calling the guy trying to keep the military/police force that is the JLA out of politics a Nazi.
Like the man says, "You use that word; I don't think you know what it means."
Shut up, Green Arrow.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Because Everyone Else Has Already Done It...
My pitch for the third Nolan Bat-flick. Unifying theme: Nature abhors a vacuum.
Think about it: after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham's criminal underworld is in a state of chaos. Between Batman, Two-Face, and the Joker, all the major leaders are gone. But beyond that, there's no heroes for Gotham, either. Harvey Dent is dead, and Batman's a murderer.
So it's gang war time, baby!
I see it like this: a battle of "professional" criminals against the "freaks". The "professionals" are led by Oswald Cobblepott, who's made the sane, businesslike move to create the "Penguin" persona. Cobblepott isn't demented, so much as he realizes that "freaks" get the job done in Gotham, and it's in his best interest to become freak-like if he wants a piece of that pie.
The real 'freaks', remnants of the Joker's gang, are led by Harley Quinn. Quinn, despite her eccentric behavior, isn't as vapid as one might think; she's using the appearance and legacy left by the Joker to inspire terror. Her band is smaller and less-organized than the Penguin's, but still very effective because people understandably panic and flee at the sight of any criminal in clown regalia.
Quinn is actually a disciple of Johnathan Crane, who is offering her guidance from inside Arkham. She considers her crime wave part of a large-scale social experiment, and is therefore harder to predict than Kingpin, not being motivated by profit, per se.
GCPD, while dealing with this mess, is also receiving some new help from Eddie Nigma, the self-styled Riddler. Riddler is determined to be the "new" Batman, helping to predict the crimes of the new powers in Gotham. However, Nigma is actually under the employ of Cobblepott, being used to focus the police on his enemies rather than his own activities.
Batman himself is growing increasingly frustrated and angry with his crusade; not only has it cost him, personally, but it seems like there's no end in sight to it. He puts down one freak for two or three more to come out of the woodwork. It's taking a huge personal toll on him.
On top of all of this, almost no one notices a rookie GCPD cop named Dick Grayson, or the mysterious, black-and-blue clad vigilante who started operating around the time Grayson arrived in Gotham.
And, for giggles, I'd throw in Selina Kyle and Tommy Elliot in civilian identities, to plant seeds for the fourth film.
Think about it: after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham's criminal underworld is in a state of chaos. Between Batman, Two-Face, and the Joker, all the major leaders are gone. But beyond that, there's no heroes for Gotham, either. Harvey Dent is dead, and Batman's a murderer.
So it's gang war time, baby!
I see it like this: a battle of "professional" criminals against the "freaks". The "professionals" are led by Oswald Cobblepott, who's made the sane, businesslike move to create the "Penguin" persona. Cobblepott isn't demented, so much as he realizes that "freaks" get the job done in Gotham, and it's in his best interest to become freak-like if he wants a piece of that pie.
The real 'freaks', remnants of the Joker's gang, are led by Harley Quinn. Quinn, despite her eccentric behavior, isn't as vapid as one might think; she's using the appearance and legacy left by the Joker to inspire terror. Her band is smaller and less-organized than the Penguin's, but still very effective because people understandably panic and flee at the sight of any criminal in clown regalia.
Quinn is actually a disciple of Johnathan Crane, who is offering her guidance from inside Arkham. She considers her crime wave part of a large-scale social experiment, and is therefore harder to predict than Kingpin, not being motivated by profit, per se.
GCPD, while dealing with this mess, is also receiving some new help from Eddie Nigma, the self-styled Riddler. Riddler is determined to be the "new" Batman, helping to predict the crimes of the new powers in Gotham. However, Nigma is actually under the employ of Cobblepott, being used to focus the police on his enemies rather than his own activities.
Batman himself is growing increasingly frustrated and angry with his crusade; not only has it cost him, personally, but it seems like there's no end in sight to it. He puts down one freak for two or three more to come out of the woodwork. It's taking a huge personal toll on him.
On top of all of this, almost no one notices a rookie GCPD cop named Dick Grayson, or the mysterious, black-and-blue clad vigilante who started operating around the time Grayson arrived in Gotham.
And, for giggles, I'd throw in Selina Kyle and Tommy Elliot in civilian identities, to plant seeds for the fourth film.
Monday, December 14, 2009
I'm Not Prone to Fan Fiction, But If I Were...
See, Batman Beyond had it wrong. So did The Dark Knight Returns, and Kingdom Come. Granted, it's not their fault, because most of them were written before this change in the modern Bat-mythos were fully embraced. But there has been a change, and I offer a new idea in alternate future storytelling in order to make best use of that change.
In the future, after the death of Batman, the good guys win.
Now what?
In the past, it was in vogue to show that without Batman, Gotham fell into a cesspool of crime and corruption that only the return of Batman in some form could stem the tides. Kingdom Come was a bit of an exception, but even they portrayed worldwide super villain chaos. However, if you look at the trend in the Bat-mythos since the No Man's Land event, you'll see a difference in how Batman is approached.
Specifically, Batman can no longer even remotely claim to be alone. Three Robins, three Batgirls, two Azraels, Huntress, the Outsiders, and even converted former enemies like Catwoman and Riddler...Batman essentially has a militia at his command, and it's ever-expanding. Battle for the Cowl drove home the point that in Batman's absence, his allies would rally together to do what needed to be done. So why should it be any different when Batman dies for reals?
And why should competing bands of super villains be able to stand up to that kind of force?
In the wake of the BftC, it's not hard to imagine that Grayson, Oracle and co would have a better contingency plan in place in the event of similar chaos. Batman, by himself, cleaned up super-crime in Gotham at the start of Morrison's run. I don't think it's unreasonable to think his militia could do the same, if they had to.
That's where the story would start. Bruce Wayne is dead. Supercrime is all but dead. And now you've got a small army of vigilantes without a guiding purpose anymore. Does that sound like a recipe for success?
I propose a schism in the extended Bat-family, based solely on the question of where to go, next. In my mind, you've got Dick Grayson and Jason Todd as leading the opposing sides: the former would promote the current status quo, using the Wayne Industries to heal Gotham while using their vigilante tactics in a reactionary fashion to isolated outbreaks of crime.
Jason Todd would embrace the latent fascist undertones always a bit present in the Bat-mythos, as well as the more violent tendencies Todd has always had. The members of the Bat-family would have to choose sides based on their own personal beliefs and histories.
But rather than just a physical brawl on the streets of Gotham, this is a full-fledged cultural campaign, with physical combat only being a distraction compared to the political and social clashes happening all around them. One of the Bat-family will run for public office. Perhaps another will work for reform within the GCPD. It would be a full-on battle for the hearts and minds of Gotham City, trying to decide its own destiny.
So, I guess, it'd be kind of like Civil War. But good.
In the future, after the death of Batman, the good guys win.
Now what?
In the past, it was in vogue to show that without Batman, Gotham fell into a cesspool of crime and corruption that only the return of Batman in some form could stem the tides. Kingdom Come was a bit of an exception, but even they portrayed worldwide super villain chaos. However, if you look at the trend in the Bat-mythos since the No Man's Land event, you'll see a difference in how Batman is approached.
Specifically, Batman can no longer even remotely claim to be alone. Three Robins, three Batgirls, two Azraels, Huntress, the Outsiders, and even converted former enemies like Catwoman and Riddler...Batman essentially has a militia at his command, and it's ever-expanding. Battle for the Cowl drove home the point that in Batman's absence, his allies would rally together to do what needed to be done. So why should it be any different when Batman dies for reals?
And why should competing bands of super villains be able to stand up to that kind of force?
In the wake of the BftC, it's not hard to imagine that Grayson, Oracle and co would have a better contingency plan in place in the event of similar chaos. Batman, by himself, cleaned up super-crime in Gotham at the start of Morrison's run. I don't think it's unreasonable to think his militia could do the same, if they had to.
That's where the story would start. Bruce Wayne is dead. Supercrime is all but dead. And now you've got a small army of vigilantes without a guiding purpose anymore. Does that sound like a recipe for success?
I propose a schism in the extended Bat-family, based solely on the question of where to go, next. In my mind, you've got Dick Grayson and Jason Todd as leading the opposing sides: the former would promote the current status quo, using the Wayne Industries to heal Gotham while using their vigilante tactics in a reactionary fashion to isolated outbreaks of crime.
Jason Todd would embrace the latent fascist undertones always a bit present in the Bat-mythos, as well as the more violent tendencies Todd has always had. The members of the Bat-family would have to choose sides based on their own personal beliefs and histories.
But rather than just a physical brawl on the streets of Gotham, this is a full-fledged cultural campaign, with physical combat only being a distraction compared to the political and social clashes happening all around them. One of the Bat-family will run for public office. Perhaps another will work for reform within the GCPD. It would be a full-on battle for the hearts and minds of Gotham City, trying to decide its own destiny.
So, I guess, it'd be kind of like Civil War. But good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
