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.

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.

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.

It took them fourteen years to do it, too.

It was a long, arduous process, but Marvel finally lost me as a reader. This isn't some grand, OMG I'LL NEVER READ THEIR BOOKS AGAIN statement, a la One More Day or Civil War. No, this was a steady stream of making creative decisions that turned me off of one book after another, until there were none left.

Spider-Man was probably the first to go, although One More Day wasn't the breaking point. Oh, I hated OMD for all the obvious and non-obvious reasons (MJ Fan fo' life), but the talent pool lined up for Brand New Day intrigued me. And I was willing to give them a chance, especially considering people like Roger Stern (<3) saying that Spidey is fundamentally more workable as a single character. Now, I wasn't sure I agreed, but if writers were honestly ham-strung by the marriage, then I suppose I should let them put their money where their mouth was. Dazzle me!

And...I was not dazzled. Ironically, it wasn't the new villains that irritated me, (I liked Mr. Negative, Overdrive, Screwball and Paper Doll), or the new supporting cast, or even the return of Harry Osborn (although he's fallen right back into the same Is He Evil or Isn't He? rut he'd been in just prior to his death). No, it was Peter Parker himself.

The character has effectively been neutered with the OMD-induced realization that he's never going to change. He's even becoming tangential to the stories he's in, being a bystander through most of the Character Assassination arc. When even Aunt Freaking May has a more interesting sub-plot going on than the main character....

I stuck around up to New Ways to Die, mostly because Eddie Brock and the Thunderbolts intrigued me. But I had to force myself through the new Kraven arc, because Kraven will always suck, no matter who he/she/it is. And it was a pretty stupid arc to begin with. But getting to NWtD is when I realized how inconsequential Peter Parker is in his own book. He's a victim of circumstance.

And NWtD also turned me off of another old favorite: Eddie Brock. Sure, Eddie was written as consistently as he'd ever been, but...I just didn't care anymore. When I was younger, I though Brock-Venom was the shiznit, but now that I'm older...well, Eddie whines a lot. And gets preachy for absolutely no reason. And is kind of annoying. Now that I'm long past my teen angst phase, I don't find his character appealing anymore.

Of course, Spidey had another strike against him that was beyond his control: he was my first comic book hero, and the one I followed the most extensively. I mentioned a couple posts back that the original Hobgoblin was really the only major Spidey arc I hadn't read, and...well, it's harder and harder to 'wow' me with Spidey. I've seen it all before at this point.

Besides, any and all Spider-Man is going to pale in comparison to the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon at this point.

New Avengers was next; I just got tired of the post-Civil War status quo of...well, I'm not sure what they're really about, now. The group's very reactionary. And when Clint Barton is a valid contender against Bullseye for the title of "Most Psychotic Person to Wear a Hawkeye Uniform", I'm not heavily inclined to keep following.

I kind of liked Avengers: Initiative, but just about every plot line was comandeered for Secret Invasion. Alas.

The X-Men just can't decide what the heck they've been about since House Of M. I liked Whedon's run well enough, but afterward, you've got Messiah Complex, which blew everything up. Manifest Destiny sent them to San Fran. And now Utopia sent them onto a private island, or whatever that was supposed to be. That's, what, four or five status quo's they've gone through in eighteen months? Gah.

I liked X-Force in a "shoot 'em up" action movie sort of way, but it keeps getting sidetracked for crossovers I don't care about.

I was only ever interested in Captain America when Bucky Barnes was in the role, so...

I've never been able to care about the Hulk, no matter what color they make him.

I gave the new Thunderbolts a chance, and while I like the characters that compose them, for some reason the new direction hasn't clicked with me. I was pretty much holding on in hope of Songbird coming back and kicking ass.

That pretty much leaves Dark Avengers. And I've come to the dawning revelation that the book is going to be taken apart and put back together again after the events of Siege. And I really don't look forward to Siege in general, because I don't like Thor or his mythos.

But while all this is going on, I'm really enjoying the new status quo in the Batman books in the wake of Final Crisis. I like the Third Man, Spoiler, Nightwing, and the Gotham Girls, and they've all got their own titles now. Plus, Bagley on Batman, Hush being used well, and more of Morrison's head-trippiness. And yes, Bruce will return before the end of 2010, but that won't necessitate a complete rejiggering of the status quo.

I also kind of like Green Lantern, but I'll wait until the Blackest Night craziness dies down before committing to that. Or when Larfleeze gets his own series. Whichever comes first.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

This is an ongoing list of the Top 100 Comic Storylines of all Time, as voted by the readers of the blog.

The list isn't important; the responses to each post are. There's plenty of intelligent discussion on the merits of each story, but it's drowned out in waves of elitism and self-proclaimed "anti-elitism", which is of course just another form of elitism. When House of M showed up, I enjoyed watching people just have kittens right on the spot. But now, about a week later...

It's not funny anymore. It's depressing. Or perhaps I'm just naive in thinking that a common love of a niche medium was sufficient to allow for constructive debate.

Besides, we all know Watchmen will be the top storyline, and I'll be the only one saying that it sucked. That should be fun. (And I don't even know if I'm being sarcastic or not when I say that.)

Metafiction and Batman: May Knightfall Rest In Peace

Most folks know that Grant Morrison loves him so metafiction, and he carried that love into his current run on the Batman titles. Morrison's first arc, Batman and Son, was written in an off-beat, anything goes Silver Age style, the 666 issue was an homage to The Dark Knight Returns, and The Clown At Midnight was a reminder of the non-comic mediums that Batman's passed through (Prose for the various original, well, prose stories Bats has starred in, and the CGI artwork looks like it was taken right out of a video game.)

And then we get to the first of the Three Ghosts stories. Readers didn't know it, but we'd already met the first Ghost, Bat-Cop, in the first pages of the run. In the alternate future of 666, we saw a future version of the Bat-Devil, later called the Third Man, now called Azrael. And here, in a very 90's-style story, we meet Bat-Bane, a parody of 90's over-muscled anti-heroes with almost no defining characteristics beyond a permanent case of 'roid rage.

But why Bat-Bane at all? Bat-Cop is a logical perversion of Batman because he uses a gun. Bat-Devil is logical in the hindsight of whom he works for. Bat-Bane seems a bit random, doesn't he? Yeah, Batman had problems with steroids in the obscure "Venom" graphic novel, but while Morrison may like referencing obscure stories, he makes a lot more use of them than this; Batman doesn't even mention the events of "Venom."

So, what other story could Bat-Bane be a call back to? Obviously, Knightfall. This isn't the only call back to Knightfall in Morrison's run; in the Final Crisis tie-in issues, the mental parasite the Lump uses the memory of Bane breaking Batman's back as a a powerful weapon against Batman when he tries to resist the mental tampering. Batman then relives his recovery from that injury, and his battle with the first Azrael to reclaim his mantle.

Now, these two issues are retrospectives, so Knightfall is just one of many classic moments Batman relives. He recalls other tragedies like the death of Jason Todd, Barbra Gorden's maiming, and the events of No Man's Land, as well as the incredibly-recent (a day at most) battle with the Black Glove. But Knightfall was the only memory that the Lump specifically used as a weapon to whip Bruce into submission. When that fails, he tries a carrot instead of a stick, creating a fantasy world where Bruce's parents had survived. The Lump doesn't use another memory as a weapon once he sees Bruce recover from reliving Knightfall.

It'd be fair to say that having his back broken was probably the most physically traumatic thing to even happen to Batman, but a psychic entity like the Lump would have to recognize that the best way to hurt Batman would be to attack him mentally or emotionally. Morrison's own evil mastermind, Dr. Hurt, obviously recognized this. 90% of his plan was dedicated to attacking Bruce psychologically and emotionally; the Club of Villains and the Joker attacking him physically was almost an afterthought.

If the Lump was really trying to strike at Batman, he'd have used any number of guilt-inducing moments to attack, like the death of [Insert Name Here] or the betrayal of [Insert Name Here] or that time [Insert General Tragedy Here]. Hell, just let him see his parents' death over and over. That'll learn him.

But the Lump uses Knightfall. Combined with the obvious love Knightfall gets in the Three Ghosts story, and it's obvious that Knightfall is a story Morrison considers important. Why?

I think Morrison is paying homage to the spiritual predecessor of his own metatextual work; this is speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if Morrison has a soft spot for Knightfall. It's clearly his type of story.

Unlike a lot of the more shallow event comics of the 90's, (Death of Superman and the Clone Saga come to mind....), Knightfall had a rather brilliant premise behind it. Dennis O'Neil, master of the Bat-mythos that he was, was worried about the wave of Watchmen-inspired vigilantes coming onto the comic stands, and worried that people would start to clamor for a grimmer, gritter, 90's Batman, as well. So, he decided to give us one, and then explore why such a character would be unlikable, unworkable, and generally undesirable.

It's easy to lose sight of this core idea given the crossover nature of the story, but Bane and the Arkham break-out are really just stepping stones to get the original Azreal into the cape and cowl. (It's unfortunate that this is probably going to be the only thing Jean Paul is remembered for in the long run, considering he had a fairly respectable solo series for several years. But I can't claim to have read it, or really claim to care about his character one way or the other. Oh well.)

(And, of course, Denny O'Neil's Question also, in a brief and more humorous fashion, showed why Watchmen paradigms don't mesh with the normal DCU. "Rorschach sucks", indeed.)

At the end of the day, what Knightfall demonstrates is that there's only one Batman, and anything else is a pale imitation. But the story is very aware of itself as a story, demonstrating by example why a certain storytelling route is bad form. (It's unfortunate that many lesser writers didn't get the message.) And there are more than a few structural similarities with Knightfall and Morrison's run. In both instances, a mastermind (Bane/Hurt) wears Batman down via proxies (Arkham inmates/Club of Villains) before trying to disable him permanently (Breaking his back/Burying him alive). Also, AzBats and the Third Man are similarly inspired in their use of religious imagery and motivations. (Albeit from opposite sides of the fence, as it were.) It's ironic but appropriate that the Third Man is the new Azrael.

Of course, in the fallout from Battle for the Cowl, it's Dick Grayson who bears the mantle, not a borderline psychotic. (The borderline psychotic is Robin this time around.) And while Dick is clearly the most qualified, (although I agree with those who think Morrison's own stories paint Tim Drake as the better detective), he's still a stand-in for the real thing. Batman is Bruce Wayne, and when he inevitably returns, I have no doubt this will be reaffirmed.

So, while it's easy to write off Knightfall as a trashy gimmick from the 90's, (and the execution on the story is certainly lacking in enough places to reinforce this impressions), we shouldn't lose sight of the ambitious idea at the core of it all. It was RIP before RIP was cool.

He is Vegeance, the Night, etc.

Someone on another blog is seeking answers to these questions for a child's school report on Batman. Seeing as it presents an opportunity to ramble on in self-important prose, I jumped at the chance. So.

1. Why do you think Batman has withstood so many years?

Batman, like most of the great superheroes, is a character who is elegant in his simplicity. Boy sees parents killed by criminal; boy grows up to fight criminals. Everything else is simply window-dressing to young Bruce Wayne striking back against the same people who took his family (and, to an extent, his childhood) from him.

The core concept is hardly new, which is part of why it withstands the test of time. Most great authors write about loss and subsequent vengeance to some degree or another in their body of work; while opinions are divided on how proper vengeance as a motivation is, Batman sidesteps the issue in most incarnations by channeling his need for vengeance into a helpful force.

After all, if it was just about revenge for Bruce Wayne, Batman's career would have ended with the death or incarceration of the man who killed his parents. But Batman approaches the problem from both sides; it's not enough to stop criminals. He also must protect people from suffering the same loss he did.

The simplicity of this concept is also one of the reasons Batman fits into so many forms. Born of the pulp-hero age of gritty crime comics, he's been involved in superheroic adventures, science fiction stories, horror stories, detective stories, psychological examinations, philosophical treatises, and every major form of media to date.


2. Do you think more people like the old or new comics and why?

When you're talking about "old" and "new" for a character who's eighty years old, the terms are a bit relative. Tim Burton's Batman movies, the 1992 cartoon, and the recent Chris Nolan movies have cemented the darker, grittier interpretation into the public mind, but it's hard to discount the campy "Batman meets aliens" stories from the fifties and sixties, or the Adam West television show.

But those "campy" stories of fifty years ago are actually "new" compared to the dark stories of the thirties. Batman's history is very cyclical, in a way; the "newer" stories are actually closer to the character's origin than some of the "old" stories.

So, to get around to answering the question, I think that people prefer the stories that most resemble the character they're familiar with.


3. Do you feel the new movies help or hurt the "true" Batman?

I think anything that furthers a character's franchise is helpful to some degree. But I take issue with the idea that there is a "true" Batman; all interpretations are somebody's "true" Batman. The overwhelming success of the new movies have made the Nolan/Bale Batman the "True" Batman for a whole generation of fans, and considering how many fans they've brought for the character, that can only be good.

4. Batman doesn't need superhuman powers like Superman and Wonderwoman and the others - do you think that makes fans feel differently about him?

It is rather interesting, isn't it? It's technically a misnomer to call Batman a "super" hero in so much as he has no super human powers. It does provide a certain appeal to those fans not fortunate enough to be bitten by radioactive spiders or rocketed to Earth from a dying planet, and it gives Batman stories an added dimension. Batman is a symbol of a physical human ideal, fighting for the philosophical ideal of justice. A writer so inclined could get very deep with these concepts.

Or they could write really cool stories about Batman beating up crazy bad guys. Either one is fine.


5. Please make up your own question and answer it to cover what you think might be helpful for him to try to explain in a 10 minute speech with his powerpoint presentation!!!

Alllllllll righty, then.

5. Do Batman's enemies have anything to with his appeal?

Do they ever. Over time, Batman's enemies have been expanded from simply colorful thematic criminals to characters with as much mythic importance as Batman himself. The Joker embodies chaos and insanity. Two-Face embodies the duel nature of the human spirit. The Scarecrow embodies the destructive potential of fear. I could go on and on. The ultimate fact, though, is that the more popular villains are popular because they have the same elegantly simple appeal as Batman himself. You don't need to explain who and what they are, beyond the basics: the ideas speak for themselves.

Anyway, I hope that is adequate for school-report purposes, little Timmy. Or, you know, whomever you are.

So why not a wishlist?

With exams here, I won't have time to make a full-on post for the next couple of weeks. So just to stay in the swing of things, here's the top five non-existent bits of comic and pop merchandise I really want to see exist. In no particular order:

1) Warren Ellis Thunderbolts Omnibus: Not that there's anything wrong with the two volumes of his run currently out, but to have them both in a single edition would be nifty, especially since they're essentially one big story. It would probably be more akin to one of the oversized hardcovers Marvel used to put out a lot more frequently.

2) 6-inch NECA figures: NECA has some of the best movie and horror licenses around, but uses a scale that no one else in the action figure industry does. Hannibal Lector should not tower over Batman, you know?

3) Marvel Premiere Origin of the Hobgoblin: Since the original trade is over fifteen years old, it'd be nice to have a new edition available of the only remaining major Spider-Man story I haven't read.

4) Re-release the Cassie Cain Batgirl figure: Mattel's re-released every other major figure from their DC Superheroes line into the DC Universe line, except this one. And seeing as it goes for $50+ on eBay, it'd be nice for it to be available in soem other venue.

5) Marvel Legends Dark Avengers: Well, at least Iron Patriot and Moonstone; the Venom and Bullseye figures I have are fine. But the recent Green Goblin by Hasbro is a big pile of fail, and I'd like something else to fill the hole in my much-reduced collection.

At least that last one has a chance of happening.