|
|
|---|
Newsarama is doing one of those pointless "favorite artist/writer/whatever" polls. These polls are always pointless. Still, I want you to go vote for one of your favorite writers.
Okay, so that's not entirely true. I want you to go vote for one of my favorite writers. Who may or may not be one of yours. You see, Paul Cornell of Lex Luthor's Action Comics and Knight & Squire is in the running in round 1a. And he's up against Grant Morrison.
Now, Paul Cornell is currently losing by about a thousand votes. So what I say here won't make much difference. But it will make my position abundantly clear. I assert that Grant Morrison is overrated, and that Paul Cornell is one of the best writers in comics today.
It is true that Morrison is "known" and that he writes a lot of stuff that's "hip" and "edgy." But you know what he also writes? A lot of stuff that you need some sort of philosophy degree to enjoy. And even when you do enjoy it you only seem to enjoy it on some sort of intellectual level.
You know what kinds of comics Paul Cornell writes? Viscerally fun super-hero comics. Stories about brain-eating super-gorillas and iambic pentametering clones of British monarchs. Paul Cornell's comics don't try to do whatever it is that Grant Morrison's comics do. Paul Cornell just writes comics that are amazingly entertaining.
So if you want to vote for a slightly mad Briton, vote for the guy who has written for Doctor Who. Because Paul Cornell deserves it for that alone.
I've already talked about my problem with the story side of Batman, Inc. But did you know I also have a problem with the art?
You've all seen the new Batman costume by now. You know that they're bringing the yellow oval back. I have no issue with that. What I do have a problem with is Batman's... Lower regions. Namely, they've done away with the black trunks.
I'm sure many of you may think that this is long overdue; the "underwear on the outside" is seen as ridiculous by a great number of people. But for me (and for others as well I imagine) it appears jarring and wrong.
Comics are largely a visual medium. But not like photography. Color and shadow don't exist from the beginning; they must be created. Contrast is vital. That's why most characters are given brightly colored (or darkly contrasting) costumes. It's important for them to stand out. The yellow oval has the potential to add that. The loss of the black trunks does the opposite.
When I look at the new costume I see that they have done away with that color contrast. In its place they've added seam lines and whatnot. This takes away from another key aspect of a super-hero costume: simplicity. The fewer extraneous lines you have the better and clearer you'll be. That's one of the things that has been so successful the DC animated shows. Simplicity. Contrast.
The new Batman costume has sacrificed these in the name of "progress" or "modernity." Too many people think the black trunks are not needed. But me? I say they are absolutely necessary.
I'm finding Grant Morrison's plans for Batman more than a little bit... Odd. I mean, I get where he's coming from in some ways. There's no doubt that Batman is more than simply a thug. He always has been that citizen of the world. And I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that being Batman keeps Bruce Wayne sane.
But the very idea of Batman, Inc. still bugs me. It's not the idea that Batman would have an international reach -- he's done that before with the Outsiders. It's certainly not the fact that Batman would train other heroes -- he's got a long history of doing that. It's the idea of branding that bothers me. In my eyes "Batman, Inc." cheapens the entire idea of "Batman."
Batman has always been a singular hero. It's true that he surrounds himself with allies and assistants, but they've never been a part of Batman. This thing Morrison is going to do will change that. For the first time (at least as far as I'm concerned) there is going to be more than one Batman.
For me, one of the things that always made Batman so interesting was his uniqueness. He can fit into a host of different genres and media. But at the heart of it all he was still Bruce Wayne. Dick Grayson taking over as Batman were the first cracks in that (and we all know that I haven't been all that pleased with Dick as Batman).
I guess what I'm getting at is this: when you dilute something it loses its potency. When you dilute Batman you remove a lot of what makes him special. When Bob Kane and Bill Finger created Batman he was the Batman. But you can't have the Batman if you have more than one.
I know that they're back to having trouble over in Gotham City. With You-Know-Who still apparently "dead" a whole new crop of Morrisonian villains have shown their faces. Old Dick Grayson and that annoying new kid can't seem to keep up with it.
At least that's my way of looking at things. You know what else I guessed (long before the new Robin)? I guessed that that "Oberon Sexton" guy might actually be You-Know-Who. But then, it doesn't take the "World's Greatest Detective" to put those pieces together.
Anyway, know that I'm going to try and get back into the vigilante business soon. As good as Dick is at stepping into You-Know-Who's shoes I sometimes think he's not willing to just thrash the bad guys within an inch of their lives (something they need from time to time). That's at least one thing the new kid and I have in common...
I've been asking for this for almost seven months. When I heard about Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne I knew it was going to be everything I wanted and more.
After all, I asked for Batman fighting Vandal Savage during prehistoric times (which we sure as hell better get). But that's not all we're getting. We're also going to get Puritan Witch Hunter Batman, Pirate Batman, Viking Batman, and probably more.
Grant Morrison's work is sometimes hit and miss for me. But I'll be honest, people. This story sounds like it was created just for me. There are few things I love more than historical tales that play with history. One of those few things is Batman. Put them together?
This is going to be awesome.
I'm terribly tired to night, so I'm not going to make a long post. Instead, I'll just make a quick reference to Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely's Batman and Robin.
Here's what I'm going to say: I may not like everything these two guys have done, and some fo their concepts and methods may leave me cold. But I can say this for the two of them: they know how to instill dread.
Those last few pages of Batman and Robin #1 are some of the most unsettling images and words I've seen in a long time. These guys know that the most terrifying things aren't what we see. They're the things that remain unseen...
Can it be? Can it be?
Can it be? Has Grant Morrison done the impossible? Has he brought back...
I said a little bit about Final Crisis #7, but I wanted to go a little more in depth on my thoughts about the series as a whole. There were some questions about my declaration that I "liked" issue number seven. Well I did like issue seven. But I also didn't like it.
The final issue had a lot to like. It had President Superman, Wacky Japanese Guy, Aquaman, the Zoo Crew, Flash Facts, and 50 Supermen. Those were the panels that made me smile. But those were just a few pieces of one part of the series. As a whole? Final Crisis was a bit of a mess.
It seemed to have a lot of those Grant Morrison "let's throw crazy shit in and see how people flip out" moments. But by and large, it didn't make a lot of sense. Or it makes sense, but only to the fevered brain of one deranged Scotsman. And that's okay. Those are the kind of stories he wants to write and there is a place for them.
But are those the sorts of stories we need in our big blockbuster crossovers? (if we need big blockbuster crossovers at all!) As much as I am loathe to compare my beloved DC to their competition I'm afraid must. Because sometimes you have to give some tough love.
Let's compare some of Marvel and DC's recent crossovers. Now we're not going to compare the minutiae because for these purposes those things aren't important. Civil War may have been a mess as well, but the point I want to make here is about ease of transmission. To the casual reader (if he or she exists), to the lapsed fan, and to the outside world. Consider these sentences:
Civil War tells the story of two factions who fight over the right of the government to regulate super-heroes.
Infinite Crisis tells the story of a number of refugees from a twenty year-old series, two of whom are alternate universe Supermen who along with an alternate universe Lex Luthor decide that our world's heroes are corrupt because they let magic get out of control, chaos erupt on a distant planet, villains unite, and Batman builds a crazy satellite.
You see how complicated that is? I haven't even scratched the surface of Infinite Crisis there. You cannot describe it in one sentence. The title doesn't really mean anything. Civil War -- much to my chagrin -- does a better job of telling you exactly what it is in once sentence. And in a single two word title.
Next up:
Secret Invasion tells the story of a secret invasion of Earth by shapeshifting aliens.
Final Crisis tells the story of a war among the gods which leads to the universe falling apart and... I got nothing. I can't do it. Maybe if I threw in the word "metatextual" it would make sense...
This is the problem with what DC has been doing with its crossovers. They are far to insular. They cannot be understood without being steeped in years of DC history. I won't pretend that I don't like that stuff sometimes. I'm one of a select number (probably including all you reading this) who do know that DC history. But a casual reader couldn't pick up Final Crisis and keep his head on straight. He or she could pick up Secret Invasion and know what it's about simply by reading the cover.
Now, this whole thing has very little bearing on the actual quality of the stories. Final Crisis wasn't my cup of tea, but I thought Infinite Crisis was a rollicking good yarn. And I understand that Civil War was as much of a mess in the eyes of some as Final Crisis turned out to be. But again, you can pick it up and know what it's about by reading the cover.
If DC wants to recover some of that market share that Marvel dominates they need to reevaluate the way they do big crossovers. Maybe Blackest Night is a step in the right direction. After all, "Blackest Night tells the story of dead super-heroes rising from their graves to take revenge upon the living" is both concise and kickass.
...
....
What?
Seriously, what?
I have no idea what just happened there.
But I liked it.
