|
|
|---|
Flashpoint somehow managed to exceed all my expectations.
Now, my expectations were always pretty mid-range for this particular event. I've never had any huge interest in Barry Allen as a character. But the way things turned out... I think even if my expectations had been high Flashpoint would have surpassed them.
The first reason is this: Flashpoint isn't just a story about the Flash. It's a story about the DC Universe and its history. Its about the things that make the DCU what it is. And everybody knows I love that kind of stuff.
Flashpoint gave me that in spades. A few "what ifs" and everything we know is altered... Mostly. Some things seem to be the same, but there are certain divergence points that have left a world a lot darker than the one we know.
Among the highlights were seeing a Barry Allen I could actually relate to. A man frustrated with the pace of life and his place in it. This isn't the life that Barry wanted... But it's the life he might have had if he'd never become the Flash.
Another cool bit was the chance to see Cyborg shine among a range of altered heroes and villains. Geoff Johns has talked Cyborg up for years. Let's see if he can really make him into a tip tier character.
The best thing about the issue for me was -- and this is a spoiler -- the identity of Batman. I called it correctly and I'm glad that I did. Because I know that this story will be richer and more interesting with Thomas Wayne as Batman. Because what wouldn't he risk to give his son a chance and life? And will Barry Allen risk that if it means the loss of his mother?
Flashpoint #1 has done exactly what a comic is supposed to do: it's made me frustrated as hell that I've got to wait a month for the next issue.
The first issue of Flashpoint hits tomorrow. As is tradition, that means it's time for me to start making predictions.
The big one has to do with the Flashpoint timeline's version of Batman. I think I've figured out who he might be. Here's the thing: in the interview with Brian Azzarello he leaves us with a vital clue about Batman, Knight of Vengeance:
He's older than the Batman we know.
Here's the thing about changes in the timeline: they can't really make people older or younger. Everyone is going to be the same age, it's just going to change the way they've lived their lives. That tells me that this Batman is not Bruce Wayne.
If he's not Bruce Wayne, then who is he? Here's my guess: somehow the Reverse Flash intervenes on that fateful night in Crime Alley. As we would expect, Joe Chill shoots Martha Wayne. Who else does he shoot? Perhaps this time it is not Thomas Wayne, but rather his son Bruce.
How would that change reality as we know it? What would the loss of his wife and son do to the doctor/philanthropist? Would he turn his back on medicine and direct his energies to a war on crime?
We know that this Batman seems willing to help the Flash "fix" the timeline. Why would he willingly offer his assistance? I think it could only be the knowledge that the correct timeline means his own death... But the survival of his son.
Wouldn't that make for a hell of a story?
According to some, today may or may not be Batman Day.
The legend goes that perhaps on this day in 1939 Batman might have made his first appearance. Possibly. As such, some are celebrating today as thought it were a holiday of special note.
And indeed, the day of Batman's first appearance is certainly a worthy milestone. But is it really important to celebrate a specific day? After all, isn't every day a day we think about Batman?
Do we not remember Batman every day in everything we do? Isn't it true that we all try to live our lives as Batman might? To defend the innocent and fight against evil wherever it may lurk?
No, I cannot celebrate one specific day. Batman is ever present in my thoughts. For me, it is always Batman Day.
Warner Bros. continues to pump out the DC direct-to-DVD films. The next one coming up seems to be Batman: Year One. As much as I generally dislike the work of Frank Miller, Year One remains one of my all time favorite Batman stories.
My other big favorite? The Man Who Laughs. The great things about both of these stories is that they tell of meetings that define the character of Batman. Year One is about Batman meeting James Gordan. It's also about Gotham City meeting Batman.
These are enormously consequential meetings, and they'll make for some stupendous on screen action (assuming they do it properly). The Man Who Laughs is also about an important meeting: it tells the story of when Batman and the world first encounter the Joker. It would also make for a great animated movie.
Unfortunately, it will probably never happen. The DC animated films have to follow certain guidelines it seems, and I can't imagine how they'd allow The Man Who Laughs. The story works so well because it gives us the undiluted horror of the Joker. The body count is high and the carnage exceptional.
And without those things you can't really tell that story about the Joker (there are ways to tell stories about other versions of the Joker, but that's neither here nor there).
Still, Year One is no slouch in the violence department. And rumors are they're gearing up for The Dark Knight Returns as well. So who knows...
The next Christopher Nolan Batman movie is apparently going to be called The Dark Knight Rises. That seems like an odd title to me, as they already did a movie called The Dark Knight. You'd think they'd want keep the names clearly delineated.
Anyway, there's word about the film in the news today: apparently Nolan has picked someone to play Catwoman and -- get this -- Bane. Catwoman is not really all that big of a surprise. She's an integral part of the Batman mythos and it's not surprising that she'd show up before Nolan finishes his little "trilogy."
But Bane is a big surprise as far as casting news goes. I have some difficulty figuring out how he'll fit into the "realistic" world that Nolan has created. I could see Hugo Strange or Black Mask being made to work -- and I figured one of them was going to be the villain. In some ways Bane doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
That said, when you look at it another way it makes perfect sense. When we last left Nolan's Gotham City Batman was a fugitive. He's outside of the law, not trusted by anyone but Gordan. In the process of ostracizing himself Batman has cleaned up Gotham.
But what happens when someone comes from the outside to stir things up in Gotham City? Surely Gotham's "Bat-Man" has become famous by now. I can see Bane as a character who comes in from the outside to stir up trouble, forcing the people of the city to rally to Batman again.
Still, I can't help but think that Hugo Strange would make a better villain, considering the point we are in this story arc. It's very similar to where one of my all time favorite stories Prey starts out. That story, unsurprisingly, features Prof. Hugo Strange.
Regardless, Nolan clearly has some interesting plans for The Dark Knight Rises. As much as I might like certain things, I can say I'll be happier in the long run if I'm surprised...
No? Nobody? Okay, never mind then.
Do you think there are two many books starring You-Know-Who and his merry band of bats? I think we've reached the two digit mark here. And know that I'm not counting my successor's soon to be canceled book.
I know that these books sell. They must sell, or there wouldn't be so many of them. But do they really sell that well? Do they sell so good that we need two or three books for each character? I mean, Dick Grayson is starring in three separate books right now. I mean, you think they could find a spot for me to cameo.
Sorry, I got off track there for a second. I guess what I'm really saying is that if popular characters can sustain multiple books where does that leave the rest of us? We know that Azrael will soon be gone. Will it be replaced with another Bat-book? I mean, you know who is only starring in two books right now...
If you haven't seen this yet, take a look. It's pretty impressive.
At approximately 1,700,000 square miles, Africa is the second largest continent in the world. A billion people live in Africa's fifty-four countries. In short, Africa is very big and has a lot of people.
Which is why the "Batman of Africa" is so mystifying.
Now it's true that we don't know what form this story will take. This could simply be a case of crossed wires between the writer and the publicity department. But assuming the statement is accurate, the idea of a single Batman operating in Africa is a little absurd -- even for a comic book about a man who fights crime while dressed as a bat.
There are two thousand languages spoken in Africa. I'm sure Bruce Wayne can speak in a variety of languages but even he can't pull that off. Batman has a lot of trouble fighting crime in one great metropolitan area. How many people do you think live in Gotham? More than a million, I'm sure. Africa has twenty cities with populations of greater than a million. Any "Batman of Africa" is going to need fifty times the skill of Bruce Wayne and a hundred times the money.
I could get behind a series of regional Batmen; maybe that's what we'll get. We could have a North African Batman and a Sub-Saharan Batman. But if France gets its own Batman then why not Algeria? Kenya? Ivory Coast? Nigeria?
Africa is often tragically ignored by people in the Western World. But Africa contains 15% of the world's population. It's the birthplace of the human race. Surely Batman Incorporated can spare more than one man?
So I checked out the first issue of David Finch's The Dark Knight today. Mostly it was okay. The art wasn't bad and the story might have potential.
But I still have a serious bone to pick with this comic. Before I get to that, however, let me say something: I'm not opposed to retcons. Some of my favorite comic book stories involve retcons. But there is a time for and a type of retcon that is acceptable. Dark Knight #1 doesn't have that type of retcon.
Let me take you back to a similar retcon. Recall, if you will, Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee's wildly popular run on Batman. Remember when Tommy Elliot showed up? Remember how it was suddenly "revealed" that not only were Tommy and Bruce friends as children but best friends? Remember how Tommy Elliot was given an oversized importance on Bruce Wayne's childhood even though nobody had ever heard of him before?
That's the kind of retcon I'm talking about. That's what we get again in The Dark Knight. The sudden revelation that Bruce Wayne was friends with a girl named "Dawn Golden" as a child. Not only that, but they were best friends. Even more than that she was his first love. Heady stuff, no?
No. This is the bad kind of retcon. There are hundreds of characters in Batman's past that can make for a good story. Hundreds of villains and girlfriends who were throwaways just waiting to be used again. They have histories with Batman already. They don't need to be manufactured.
That is the problem with this sort of retcon. When a character's relationship with another character is important we see it develop and grow over time. Bruce Wayne's relationship with Alfred is important because it has built over time. On the villain side his relationship with Two-Face is the same way.
No more Tommy Elliots. No more Dawn Goldens. They're the wrong kind of retcon.
Okay, I've got a serious problem with all these Batmen. Specifically, the two main Batmen: Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson. Batman being Batman, one or the other shows up in a lot of different comics.
The problem is, they're so similar that sometimes it's hard to tell them apart. I know I should be checking the gloves or the symbol. But instead, whenever I want to figure out which Batman I'm looking at my eyes go to the crotch.
It's kind of funny, really. The fact that Dick Grayson wears trunks and Bruce Wayne doesn't is one of the key differences. But it still feels kind of weird for me to always be looking at Batman's groin...
I was doing some Christmas shopping today when I came upon a rack of DC t-shirts. I always like to look through those as I have a tendency to buy and wear them (still looking for a good Aquaman shirt).
Anyway, I stumbled across one of the most bizarre DC shirts I've ever seen. Usually super-hero shirts are one of three kinds: they're either the hero's logo, a shot of the hero/heroes, or less often an image of an actual comic book cover.
But today I saw a shirt that had an actual page from a comic. But it wasn't some really iconic or famous image. It was the scene from Blackest Night where "Batman" is brought back to life and everybody waves their hands and something bad happens.
It's a really weird subject for a shirt. It's got all these little boxes of heroes looking on in wonder/confusion/horror at the Black Lantern "Batman" but no caption boxes or word balloons. I mean, I can see such a shirt possibly selling in a comic book niche market. But I saw this at a Target.
I don't think the general public is in the market for a zombie Batman shirt. But then, considering fashion trends in recent years I may be wrong. I mean, when did it become acceptable to wear sweatpants everywhere all the time?
Curse the holidays! I didn't realize until I got to the comic book store today that comics are delayed. I can only assume that this is because of the festivals and making merry of the previous week. Was it worth it? I can't see how.
Without new comics, what can I talk about? How about this: I think I might buy Weird Worlds just for the "Garbage Man" story.
I don't know why, but I've always enjoyed the "monster as hero" tales, which is exactly how Aaron Lopresti describes his Garbage Man character. It seems that in some ways they're trying to use him as a replacement for Swamp Thing (who appears to still be trapped in the Vertigo ghetto).
Now, I haven't read much Swamp Thing stuff, as I'm firmly entrenched in the DCU and Swamp Thing hasn't been a real part of it for a long time. But I've always been intrigued by the character and had been meaning to look into more stories. I got a taste of the character with the Swamp Thing/Batman story from Batman: Hidden Treasures and I really enjoyed it. The "misunderstood monster" is a character we haven't seen much in recent years and there's still a lot that can be done with it.
Will Lopresti's Garbage Man fill that slot? I believe Lopresti said that Garbage Man would be meeting Batman early on. Done right, Garbage Man could be a fresh and interesting addition to the DC Universe.
Okay, maybe "fresh" isn't the best word. But you know what I mean...
I blame this downward trend on the introduction of that brute Doomsday. There was a villain distinctly lacking in panache. Wearing nothing but a ragged pair of shorts, he was incapable of the sort of dialogue necessary between a villain and a hero.
Things have only gotten worse since then. Writers are constantly introducing new villains whom they try to make "hip" and "edgy" by making them grim and taciturn. I have long worried for the state of villainy and all the villains who dwell therein.
This said, there may be hope! Perhaps -- perhaps -- the tide is turning. There are small signs, here and there. Take, for instance, this page from an upcoming issue of Batman:
When was the last time you actually heard a villain decry his heroic foes as "fools"? Yes, I routinely use the term on the very blog. But outside of my august presence use of the term is few and far between.
Perhaps this is a sign that appropriately villainous repertoire is coming back into vogue. I certainly hope so... Fools.
I grew up reading Bronze Age comics and, like any sensible person, hating them. I reserve particular odium for the Bronze Age Batman.
I'm goin' swingin'
We're gonna swing in the crowd
And we'll be clingin'
My head is ringin'
Because I am the dumb
when we dance real slow
Stupid
Bolas away! Suddenly ten, fighting Big Ben, all in day.
Gee, my bed is jumpin'Dick made such a fuss just to go for a drive
Hey, it's Mr. Dick Gray-son, he's shedding a tear;
Swell, son! The music's hot here
Dance like it's nineteen seventy five!
Because I'm stupid Bronze Age Batman
I react real slow
I'm showin' my ass layed out flat, man!
I fight like a girl,'Cause I'm stupid Bronze Age Batman
And I'll shout and pout and grouse every chance I can,
Tune in, dope up, turn on, drop out, I'm on
It was a surprisingly good week for comics, if I do say so myself. Freedom Fighters is as weird and wonderful as ever, Secret Six still has its edge, and Superboy was as fun as I'd hoped.
The book most people will probably be talking about, however, is Batman & Robin #16. What exactly can we say about that book? Well, it came out the wrong week for one. It's frustrating to see Bruce Wayne "return" without understanding how it happened.
What went on with Hush as impostor? How did Batman get back to the present? Those aren't the only questions I've got, either. What exactly was "Barbatos"? Is Doctor Hurt really supposed to Bruce Wayne's ancestor? Am I supposed to think that Professor Pyg is an impressive villain rather than some sort of twisted vanity exercise?
This isn't to say I didn't like it. After all, the comic was full of some of the scenes I love in Batman comics. Batman saving the day at the last moment just in the nick of time. A simple and elegant explanation as to why the Joker is -- and always will be -- a notch above any new villains that are created for Batman.
But even though some of the things I love about Batman were on display there, I feel like Grant Morrison has turned Batman into something I barely recognize. Now, I know that there are multiple Batmans; there always has been. Like any fictional character who has lived as long as Batman there will undoubtedly be a great number of character variations (Scipio calls it a "persona-cycle").
I'm not against the idea of a "globe-trotting" Batman. After all, that's nothing new for the character. But something about the direction Morrison is taking Batman feels "off." Maybe it's the fact that Dick Grayson isn't giving up his cowl. Maybe it's the fact that Batman is "franchising." Whatever it is, it makes "Batman" feel less like "Batman" and more like... Something else.
I'm going to be honest: I'm a bit embarrassed by this blog.
Now, I'm not embarrassed that I read and write about comic books. Or that I lend space to a supervillain. No, I'm embarrassed because I don't post enough.
I mean, honestly; four days out of seven? You would think I could do better than that. I enjoy writing this blog, but sometimes time gets away from me, especially during the weekends. And Doctor Polaris and Azrael can't shoulder a burden that is mine alone to bear. I'll try to get things in a shape a bit more, but as a graduate student I can no promises.
Anyway: Cassandra Cain! She got mentioned in a comic last week! By name. By Batman. Does this bode well for the future? I do not know. But I can tell you this: the explanation Batman gives for her disappearance (retcon though it may be) really helps said disappearance make more sense.
Cassandra was always the surrogate child who tried the hardest to please Batman. She looked up to and idolized him a way similar -- but still very different -- to the other bat-kids. She wanted to make him proud of her in the way her real father never could.
As such, if he told her that he wanted her to do something in the case of his disappearance or death she would follow those instructions. Because as much as she always idolized him she also trusted him. And because she -- like Tim -- probably never believed that he would stay gone.
I'm also happy to hear (again, retcon or not) that Tim has maintained contact with Cassandra. Though the two of them are very different people, they share a lot in common. Though they were never close during their time together they are kindred spirits of a sort.
I'm hoping that Cassandra gets some serious face time in Red Robin. I hope the dangling plot-threads left behind by her disappearance can be tied up. But most of all I hope she finds a place where I can go back to reading about her every month.
Sorry there was no post yesterday; I had a big exam today and spent all day yesterday in my office. So I didn't get out to the comic shop.
But today is a different day. Today is Thursday. That means Thursday Night Thinking!
Batman is back. Will his thinking be as good as it was in the old days?
- Sanction: Batman's degree of sanction/cooperation from law enforcement authorities
- Chumminess: To what degree Batman acts alone or with partners, colleagues, and groups.
- Diurnalism: The likelihood of Batman being seen in costume during the day.
- Spookiness: To what degree Batman's costume is dark and scary.
- Localism: To what degree Batman's sticks to Gotham as opposed to globetrotting.
- Villainism: the degree to which Batman is fighting costumed villains as opposed to regular crooks
- Mundanism: the degree to which Batman's world is non-fantastical.
I can attest to the following: nothing good comes form being Batman when you aren't the original. Dick Grayson thinks he's okay for now, but this will come back to hurt him the same way it came back to hurt me.
I mean, look: before I became Batman I was a maladjusted, brainwashed super-assassin for a religious organization dedicated to the teachings of a phantom pseudo-saint (St. Dumas be praised!). Then I became Batman and everything when to heck. Who could have foreseen such a downward spiral?
Know that I don't want the same thing to happen to my successor. The new guy seems to have his share of problems -- a tormented past, encroaching madness, etc. But I fear that becoming a Batman could only make things worse.
Stay away from that cowl! It's a thankless job, and a death sentence besides...
