I got several different Comic compilations from various companies. I've got Marvel's Maximum Carnage compilation and still keeping an eye out for compilation book two of the Death and Return of Superman as I already have 1 and 3. I also have the Start Trek compilation of who killed captain Kirk.
More of a Marvel fanatic here, grew up on Spidey and the X-Men. But when I got into my teens my bro turned me onto stuff from 2000AD, DC Vertigo, and I also got into Spawn as well (though not so much). Sandman and Watchmen blew my mind back in the 90's.Yeah as I get older I find I'm more attracted to Marvel, which I never would have expected as a kid. I think social awareness (and Damian Wayne/Batman Inc.) has dulled my ability to enjoy Batman somewhat, and without Batman the DC universe is a lot less interesting.
Still a massive comic book dude.... collected all of the Ultimate Marvel series up to the present arcs, which vary but are mostly good - also into stuff like The Walking Dead, Crossed, Hellblazer, Brian K Vaughan's stuff (Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Runaways, Saga), Fables, DMZ.... lot of different titles.
I got several different Comic compilations from various companies. I've got Marvel's Maximum Carnage compilation and still keeping an eye out for compilation book two of the Death and Return of Superman as I already have 1 and 3. I also have the Start Trek compilation of who killed captain Kirk.
I was a pretty adamant Marvel fan when I was younger. If I could narrow my interests down to a specific series though, it would either be Uncanny X-Men or Immortal Iron Fist.
There has been talk of an Iron Fist movie; I can only imagine he'll end up talking to Bruce Lee's jedi ghost or something.
I've always thought superheroes were retarded with the exception of Batman whom I don't exactly consider one since he has no superpowers. He's just a brilliant minded vigilante detective...who plays dressup.
I did enjoy some '90s superhero shows though, like Superman, X-Men, and Spider-Man. Still find superheroes ridiculous, and both Marvel and DC have their fair share of really stupid heroes (Green Lantern? Fantastic Four?). It bugs me that superheroes are the dominant form of American comic books to the point where practically nothing else exists or sells well.
(yes, including Strikes AgainI think I just threw up a little. :P
My main comic love is TMNT, primarily the Mirage/Image continuity (although Laird officially retconned the Image line, the dickbeater), but the Archie and current IDW lines are really cool, too.
Currently reading my brother's books for Berserk. Really insane so far; tons of originality in the story and art (even if there's a lot of inspiration from and you've-gotta-be-shitting-me homages to western movies). Really loving it to bits, probably gonna pick up the Old Boy manga when I'm through.
Got too many books I was reading but put down and haven't resumed. Preacher, Spawn, Usagi Yojimbo, Kirby's Fourth World, From Hell, Watchmen, Tales from the Crypt, Uncle Scrooge... I stopped reading comics for like a year and really gotta get back to it.Lot of good books in that list, gotta love Usagi Yojimbo. Though a lot of the old EC comics (especially the horror ones) are kind of one-note and cheesy from the perspective of the modern reader. And I absolutely hate the recoloring job they did for the hardcover line of reprints. Looking forward to getting my grubby mitts on the Carl Barks Donald Duck reprints from Fantagraphics one of these days though, Fantagraphics always does a terrific job.
I don't think Laird is involved with the turtles comics in any capacity is he now?
The creator intentionally has tried to create a western style mythos by the way, western fantasy movies being one influence. For example the look of Guts is based on Rutger Hauer.
Though a lot of the old EC comics (especially the horror ones) are kind of one-note and cheesy from the perspective of the modern reader. And I absolutely hate the recoloring job they did for the hardcover line of reprints.
Looking forward to getting my grubby mitts on the Carl Barks Donald Duck reprints from Fantagraphics one of these days though, Fantagraphics always does a terrific job.
Also back in middle school we had a big comics section I remember reading IIRC something called showcase it's oldschool comics like the first all into a book I recall reading a lot of the teen titans and showcase green lantern with hal jordan good classic stuff.
I don't mind the idea of Batman Inc. It's actually pretty great; Batman finally utilizes the power and money of Bruce Wayne to fight crime globally. Also, it enabled Dick to continue as Batman even after Wayne returned, which was cool (I understand that he's back to Nightwing in New 52). What bothers me is how Bruce did it, at least in the former canon. He announced to the whole world he's been funding Batman. Now, I can somehow tolerate the citizens of Gotham not realizing there's only one guy rich, traumatized and with enough free time to jump from rooftops, using stuff so expensive and elaborate no average joe could ever get his hands on. But announcing a direct tie to Batman? No. Just no. Not only does it obviously raise too many questions, but it also makes Wayne a target.
The mindboggling stupid "Bruce Wayne announcing he funds Batman" bit bothered me a lot, but it's also the fact that Batman becomes a brand and not much of an individual when you do this. I mean sure there's been the "Batman family" of individuals inspired by and associated with him for decades, but when you make it this big corporate thing "Batman" is infinitely less unique. It just becomes like the name of the hundreds of other super groups. How is he going to spread fear in the "superstitious, cowardly lot" of criminals when they all know for sure he's just one of dozens of assholes being funded by some company?
Criminals need to die.Whoa what the hell, are we talking about Batman or the Punisher? I wouldn't even expect rhetoric that absolute from Judge Dredd, and he's largely a caricature of American fascism. If this was really what Batman was all about he could, you know, just fire a missile into Arkham Asylum. Hunt down all of his foes and shoot them, most of his rogues gallery would be dead in a week.
You guys aren't looking at this from a DC universe perspective. You're only looking at this from the standpoint of "tradition" which is irrelevant here.
Bruce Wayne going public in terms of "funding Batman" doesn't put him at any more risk than say Lex Luthor who has backed heroes in the past (for diabolical plots later on down the line) or on the Marvel end there is Kingpin whose villainy led him to publicly back people like Hammerhead or Tombstone. In essence the argument I'm making is that Bruce Wayne isn't in that much danger from making a public announcement that he is backing the Bat.Only if the writers choose to ignore the above piece of logic. Which even in a universe full of superheroes would just be lazy writing. What's the POINT of secret identities if someone can just come out and say "Oh yeah I'm a very important funder and close associate of this hero." without any fear of reprisal whatsoever?
Secondly I'm not sure how long you guys have been reading comic books but criminals haven't been superstitious cowardly lots since the 1970s.I was referencing the famous corny speech Bruce Wayne gave right before being inspired by a bat flying in his window, in which he described criminals thusly. The last Batman arc I really followed closely was HUSH, which as you know was a long ass time ago. Great run though, up there with The Long Halloween as one of my favorite Batman stories. One of the reasons I've been out of comic book collecting for a long time is it's a very expensive hobby if you try to follow all of the current goings on.
Batman as an answer to crime is no longer effective... …Batman as a symbol, as a hero has to change, it has to become bigger, and the gloves need to come off.Then I have to ask at exactly what point he ceases to resemble anything Batman has been or stood for in the past? Because that’s the point at which I cease to give a crap because he might as well be an entirely different character. I suppose this is one of the reasons I always detested Batman Beyond.
Batman Inc. as an organization is more effective than Batman as an individual or a "family" because criminals are now faced with the fact that Batman is just as organized as the crime he's fighting against. That makes Batman dangerous.Like there weren’t already enough JLA clones? It makes him and his associates like all the other generic supergroups, except with a more consistent “theme”.
Whoa what the hell, are we talking about Batman or the Punisher? I wouldn't even expect rhetoric that absolute from Judge Dredd, and he's largely a caricature of American fascism. If this was really what Batman was all about he could, you know, just fire a missile into Arkham Asylum. Hunt down all of his foes and shoot them, most of his rogues gallery would be dead in a week.
Whether tradition is relevant or not for characters who've been around for three quarters of a century is opinion, but it's a logical assumption that Wayne would be a target.
Only if the writers choose to ignore the above piece of logic. Which even in a universe full of superheroes would just be lazy writing.
What's the POINT of secret identities if someone can just come out and say "Oh yeah I'm a very important funder and close associate of this hero." without any fear of reprisal whatsoever?
I was referencing the famous corny speech Bruce Wayne gave right before being inspired by a bat flying in his window, in which he described criminals thusly. The last Batman arc I really followed closely was HUSH, which as you know was a long ass time ago. Great run though, up there with The Long Halloween as one of my favorite Batman stories. One of the reasons I've been out of comic book collecting for a long time is it's a very expensive hobby if you try to follow all of the current goings on.
Then I have to ask at exactly what point he ceases to resemble anything Batman has been or stood for in the past? Because that’s the point at which I cease to give a crap because he might as well be an entirely different character. I suppose this is one of the reasons I always detested Batman Beyond.
Like there weren’t already enough JLA clones? It makes him and his associates like all the other generic supergroups, except with a more consistent “theme”.
My god such RAGE!!! ;DWe're nerds, being too emotionally and intellectually invested in commercial properties is kind of our thing.
You don't understand what I'm saying. Batman as a hero has failed to achieve what he set out to do. Batman Inc. will likewise fail in turn. The reason for this is that criminals do not fear Batman and thus see no reason to curb their activities. How many times has Batman or a member of the Fam tracked down criminals, only to lock them up, only to have them escape? You cannot provide me with a just reason for that outside of the narrative structure where writers are going to need these characters for later stories.
Even if Batman has a "no kill" modus operandi common sense would tell any vigilante that it is better for the people of Gotham to kill say, the Joker or Penguin rather than lock them up, only for them to escape, and threaten the lives of millions.
We're clearly talking about Batman who by the way has been far "less" successful than the likes of the Punisher because criminals fear the Punisher. Criminals do not fear Batman and that is the key problem I'm addressing here.The Punisher actually is a monster, Batman is not, he just dresses like one.
So you're expecting Batman in 2012 to be the same as Batman in 1939?I'm expecting a few things to be consistent if they're going to call him Batman. Such as his moral compass, especially if they are going to continue to label him a hero and not a villain.
Comics are full of lazy writing. I'm not justifying it but really, addressing what DC did with the death of Superman, as well as A Death in the Family, and what Marvel did with the Clone Saga - this - it is THIS that makes you call out DC on lazy writing. Tony Stark says hi.
Which is exactly my point. You've been out of the game a long time and that's why you cannot grasp why Batman Inc. exists. As I already alluded to, the events of Knightfall showed the world that Batman is not a symbol, he is a man - a man who could be defeated and broken. Bane showed that Batman was just flesh and blood like anyone else, thus the myth became a mere man who criminals no longer feared. Everyone understands that Batman is just a nut in a costume and so striking fear into the hearts of criminals - which truly was an excellent deterrent - was no longer possible. Batman Inc. is needed to fight crime on a higher level, a global level. You of course don't have to like Bruce Wayne publicly backing it nor do you even have to like the existence of Batman Inc. However, my point to you is you cannot deny that Batman Inc. is needed just because you don't know how DC in-universe has changed.
Future gloss aside Batman Beyond is realistic - which may have something to do with you not enjoying it.
It doesn't matter how many heroes there are, crime will never cease. Heroes cannot end crime they can only keep it from escalating which is what Batman in the original continuum, failed to do. Batman Beyond shows us a realistic future because sorry to break the news but there will never be peace, the world will never be crime free, and the general masses will never stop being more than animals.This sounds like a defeatest rather than a strictly realist outlook, also how do you *know* all of this for a fact?
Batman Beyond embraces that reality and it refuses to take the easy way out by ignoring that fact. The entire point of Batman Beyond can be seen by the astute viewer in it's opening. And I'm not saying you're not astute I'm just pointing out that for the viewer who knows their comic books they would have understood the point of Batman Beyond - hope. Hope is what the people of Gotham need. Hope is what the world needs. That was what Batman Beyond was a symbol of. Not of fear, not of an end to crime, but rather a symbol of hope.But you just said Batman Beyond is realistic because there is no hope for the future?
It doesn't matter if Batman Inc. resembles the ideals that Batman stood for because he failed. It is the ideology of Batman that prevented him from fulfilling his objective.
So I reiterate this: "Criminals need to die."
Groups like the Justice League, the Outlaws, Teen Titans, the Avengers, X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, the list goes on were created because criminals or intergalactic threats upped the ante. It's like you expect Bruce Wayne as Batman should have the power to solve all the worlds problems. He doesn't. And he's accepted that.
We're nerds, being too emotionally and intellectually invested in commercial properties is kind of our thing.
Yes, I can. Batman and the family are not killers (with the possible exclusion of Jason Todd aside) they are morally superior to the criminals they fight.
Batman is not a murderer, he has never been a murderer. (Aside from the Tim Burton movies and other elseworlds style stuff naturally.) You're asking to change a fundamental part of what makes him who he is.
The Punisher actually is a monster, Batman is not, he just dresses like one.
I'm expecting a few things to be consistent if they're going to call him Batman. Such as his moral compass, especially if they are going to continue to label him a hero and not a villain.
No I'll call all of those other things lazy writing to, but that doesn't make what I'd gone over earlier any less lazy. Also as I recall wasn't Stark like, the figurehead of the superhuman registration act during the civil Civil War arc?
Knightfall was like 10 years before HUSH, Batman got along about as fine as he ever did (at least as he ever did post-grim and gritty reinvention) all that time without Batman INC. And that was BEFORE the DC universe got rebooted.
Superhero stories are not realistic, they can sound more or less plausible, but by their nature they're unrealistic. Escapist/wish fullfillment fantasy.
This sounds like a defeatest rather than a strictly realist outlook, also how do you *know* all of this for a fact?
But you just said Batman Beyond is realistic because there is no hope for the future?
And I reiterate that if he gives up the core of his character it's not actually Batman anymore. He becomes a different, much more generic, much less interesting character.
He accepted that he can't solve every crime a long time ago, why else would he have joined the JLA, or the Outsiders etc. What Batman is "about" is open for interpretation, but I think it fairly safe to say Batman has never (or never until the current writers) been about "solving" all of the worlds crime through assassinations or even through fear.
Yeah that would probably be the "Showcase Presents" line you're thinking of. Big 500 - 600 odd pages of silver and bronze age (roughly the 1960s and 1970s) comics. As long as you don't mind them being in black and white, which is often not as big a deal as you'd thinking considering how clean the the old linework was, it's a great way to read tons of old comics for about $10 - $20 a pop. Marvel has a line just like this called "Marvel Essentials". If you want color books though Marvel has the slightly pricier line of paperback "Marvel Masterwork" editions, and DC has the "Chronicles" reprints for some characters.
Some amazon links if you want to peruse them.
Big Black and White Books
Showcase Presents (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=showcase+presents&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ashowcase+presents)
Marvel Essentials (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=marvel+essentials&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Amarvel+essentials)
Smaller all color books
Marvel Masterworks Paperbacks (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_p_n_feature_browse-b_mrr_0?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Amarvel+masterworks%2Cp_n_feature_browse-bin%3A2656022011&bbn=283155&keywords=marvel+masterworks&ie=UTF8&qid=1357361556&rnid=618072011)
DC Batman (Golden Age)/Superman (Golden Age)/Wonder Woman (Golden Age)/Flash (Silver Age)/Green Lantern (Silver Age) Chronicles (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dc+chronicles&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Adc+chronicles)
The mindboggling stupid "Bruce Wayne announcing he funds Batman" bit bothered me a lot, but it's also the fact that Batman becomes a brand and not much of an individual when you do this. I mean sure there's been the "Batman family" of individuals inspired by and associated with him for decades, but when you make it this big corporate thing "Batman" is infinitely less unique. It just becomes like the name of the hundreds of other super groups. How is he going to spread fear in the "superstitious, cowardly lot" of criminals when they all know for sure he's just one of dozens of assholes being funded by some company?
Starfire still has her figure after all these years. Glad to see she didn't let herself go like Lois Lane.
Batman is not a murderer, he has never been a murderer. (Aside from the Tim Burton movies and other elseworlds style stuff naturally.)
Well you have considerably more time to waste and less self-respect at your disposal if you think I'm going to reduce myself to raging over ink and paper as you have. Whereas your arguments only consist of "I'm a mark and I want things to be the same and if DC doesn't keep things the same I'm going rage. RAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEE E!!!!!" On the other hand my view is the only one that matters. This is a fact so I don't need to rage at you to get you to understand why I'm right. Your logic - what little you do exercise is seriously busted and pointing that out is my main objective here.
Now you're addressing factors that aren't of any real importance and which have nothing to do with the topic in question. Congratulations on airing so far off the mark you've ventured into a separate discussion. We know the Bat Fam is morally superior to criminals. Who cares? Y'know, besides you. The answer is no one. Superman is morally superior to all of his foes and yet we still have Darkseid, we still have Doomsday, we still have Lex Luthor doing what they do i.e. making life hell for millions of people as they aim to get what they want. But I guess you think the Bat's moral superiority actually makes a difference. I'll bet you also think Gotham city has a crime rate of zero.
What you know about Batman could barely fill a coffee mug. You say Batman has never been a murderer? I have news for you, when Batman was first created he killed criminals all the time.
He had no issue beating them to death, setting them on fire, and Batman even used guns.
Issues arose however because at the same time Batman was on the market, there was another superhero called The Shadow. Maybe, just maybe you might have heard of him. The similarities between Batman and The Shadow were staggering.
Batman Killing People
http://io9.com/5759535/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-batman (http://io9.com/5759535/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-batman)
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_movies/news/?a=49514 (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_movies/news/?a=49514)
*Cough* mark.
He carried a gun for defense in the very first comics and also breaks a guy's neck by swing-kicking it. Those first few issues he kills quite a few criminals, actually.
Then Robin came along and pussified the whole show.
I read alot of manga so b/w only does not affect me and the clear art work you said would help me understand lines abit more. but I did look these up and these were not the ones I read back in middle school I searched on-line abit and these were the two I read
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20090316151052%2Fmarvel_dc%2Fimages%2F8%2F81%2FGreen_Lantern_Archives_Vol_1_1.jpg&hash=5784f36d4f4f960866e33a0481a86a52)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.dcentertainment.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fbook-covers%2F1164_400x600.jpg&hash=9887b1fee704961d6d18e637f601c351)
This is where it's at ;D good classic stuff.
He carried a gun for defense in the very first comics and also breaks a guy's neck by swing-kicking it. Those first few issues he kills quite a few criminals, actually.
Then Robin came along and pussified the whole show.
Not sure what you mean by "I'm a mark" as in a target? I didn't say if DC doesn't keep things the same I'm going to rage though, just that I'll cease to really care about the character because it's so OC it's only the same one in name only. (The quote you're directly replying to was also an observational joke.) If you think your opinion is the only one that matters that's fine, but that doesn't prove your argument is logically sound. Taking thinly veiled digs at and outright insulting me doesn't prove your argument either.
Lol wat, the moral superiority doesn't make a difference? It's an integral part of his character, and it's what makes him a hero instead of a villain. It's pretty clearly important.
Yes yes, I read all of those stories here http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Chronicles-Vol-Bill-Finger/dp/1401204457/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357451083&sr=8-1&keywords=batman+chronicles (http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Chronicles-Vol-Bill-Finger/dp/1401204457/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357451083&sr=8-1&keywords=batman+chronicles) I've read most of these, still need to get volume 10 tho. Back when Batman was a generic pulp hero/"The Shadow"/The Spider ripoff for about a year before Robin came in, he did kill a few criminals. One he tipped over into a vat of acid during a fight, he also killed some men who had been mutated into monsters in his plane. But if you'll read this book http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Complete-History-Daniels/dp/B000A1ETTC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357451246&sr=1-1&keywords=batman+the+complete+history (http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Complete-History-Daniels/dp/B000A1ETTC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357451246&sr=1-1&keywords=batman+the+complete+history) you'll see that shortly after the latter case, DC instituted a rule that heroes couldn't kill villains. This policy is one of the things which kept DC in the clear during the 1950s comic book witch hunt, because it was something they could point to to show their comics weren't turning kids into murderers.
Really? I don't remember this happening, can you cite which issues this happened in? I might be mistaken but I just don't remember that.
Batman was more inspired by Zorro but yes I'm aware of many of the masked pulp heroes who were around at the time. James Gordon was a police commissioner/vigilante hero for example. http://www.adventurehouse.com/contents/en-us/d160.html (http://www.adventurehouse.com/contents/en-us/d160.html) It's awfully strange that they didn't change his name if they were really worried about getting sued. Seems more likely that DC would just say Batman was naturally inspired by Superman, since they used the claim to having the first real "superhero" as a way to sue a better-selling competitor out of business not long after by claiming Captain Marvel was infringing on Superman.
Already addressed this both in my previous post (which you somehow called "irrelevant" to his character) and in this one.
Since all of the rest of your post is just you insulting me and claiming that I must know nothing about the character, despite a lack of actual proof** because I disagree with you, I see no reason to respond to the rest of it or to you again. The only thing I don't get is if you really think your opinion is the only one that matters, why you're on a board to hear other's opinions in the first place? Or do you just like to hear yourself talk (metaphorically speaking) and no one followed your blog? That's not an insult I'm just genuinely curious as to the thought process there.
*Like not noting how I said he got along about as fine as he ever had post grim/gritty reboot, which means yeah shitty as compared to the pre-Death in the Family days. But I didn't say it didn't change anything about his character, just that there wasn't anything showing the necessity of Batman Inc. or of changing Batman's character in such fundamental ways.
Addressed this above. If you want to read the earlier Batman stories though you really should check out that volume of the Batman Chronicles, it's only about $10 and I think you'll really dig it.
Oh yeah the archive editions, I remember getting some of them through inter-library loan, great stuff. Too bad they're so expensive though. The New Teen Titans now actually has a couple of giant hardback omnibuses you can buy that would be cheaper than the archive editions. But still might be less expensive to get copies of the original comics, since the Wolfman/Perez era Teen Titans sold very well.
PS- I remember there was one time Batman pushed a giant Buddha statue onto a bunch of chinese thugs/drug smugglers to, that was pretty messed up. Especially how it shows a random Chinese woman telling her daughter they should thank Batman for ridding them of this menace at the end lol. But then this was the era of the racist "Yellow Peril" (earlier issues of Detective Comics actually featured Fu-Manchu himself) so what can you expect.
Thank you. The sheer fact that you've both denied actual events in the comics and the fact that you've chosen to make things up and pretend your imagination is canon simply proves my point.
1) You argue Batman never killed anyone. People point out comics in which he did. Yet you claim that things we've actually seen in the comics never happened.
But you seem to think that the rampant super villains in DC are all nice guys right. In fact there are no super villains because Batman's morality has eliminated all evil doing. Right.
3) You don't even know who The Shadow is. :-\ That's just shameful.
4) You think that Batman as a character has never changed from 1939 to 2012.No I just think some things that are essential to the character. *shrugs* We differ in our opinions on where the elasticity of what defines Batman breaks. I think his moral code and individuality is a strong part of that. But I'm not going to sit here gnashing my teeth or insulting people who disagree with me, Batman joins the many things I don't enjoy the modern incarnations of, but there's already been more stuff written about the Bat-family in the last century than I could hope to read in a single lifetime, so I can always just go wallow in the retro stuff when I feel I need a Batman fix.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I have some magic beans. Would you care to buy them?
Robin came along because batman was considered too "dark" at time right?Eh that's kind of a misconception. Bob Chipman explains it better than I could.
but hey look at the good side at least we got knightwing.
He carried a gun for defense in the very first comics and also breaks a guy's neck by swing-kicking it. Those first few issues he kills quite a few criminals, actually.
Then Robin came along and pussified the whole show.
So, what with all this talk about Batman, how do people feel about the way Frank Miller handled him after TDKReturns? As in All Star Batman And Robin? Do you feel that FM was just completely extracting the urine at this point? It's one of those comic arcs that reveled in it's own awfulness, IMO. Couldn't be seen as anything more than a piss-take on Batman's character - the start of THE GODDAMN BATMAN.
Robin came along because they needed someone to balance the brooding of Batman. To please the younger audiences. He had nothing to do with the "no kill" rule, seeing as how Robin was in the first issue and Batman killed long after that.
So, what with all this talk about Batman, how do people feel about the way Frank Miller handled him after TDKReturns? As in All Star Batman And Robin? Do you feel that FM was just completely extracting the urine at this point? It's one of those comic arcs that reveled in it's own awfulness, IMO. Couldn't be seen as anything more than a piss-take on Batman's character - the start of THE GODDAMN BATMAN.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F000%2F234%2FGoddamnBatman.jpg&hash=02234fe83b3ba7d8adb3ab3e8e275040)
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lq8xk7n8zu1qh1cr6o1_500.jpg&hash=c06e064484ea22a14f4caa33be2f92fd)
Of course, I reckon this was exactly what FM wanted to get across, but I haven't read a huge amount of his other stuff apart from his Dark Knight books and Sin City.
I love Holy Terror (and everything Miller's done for that matter--one can't not give respect to the guy who did Ronin unless one is a complete dolt).
He's done great work in the past, but he's like Alan Moore in that he started out already kind of crazy and only seems to get nuttier as time passes.
Oh I don't know, were Laird and Eastmen respecting it when they made their little parody? ;P
Yes, actually. :) Eastman is a big Miller nut.
Right now I'm wondering if DC's "New 52" is worth checking out, or if I should abandon current age DC altogether. I hate the concept of Batman Inc. so, so much. But then some titles like Justice League Dark and maybe the new Green Arrow sound interesting.
Comig from a Marvel guy, you defitinely SHOULD check out the new 52! Even I'm impressed! ;D My fav. DC titles are Action Comics (seriously, check it out from the beginning!), Batman & Robin, JLA and *GASPP* Aquaman! Demon Knight was fun too, for a change of pace, it's a medieval fantasy title. ;D
(but then I'm not all that familiar with Luthor, so maybe that's how he always is? Not sure)