Am I the only one who feels like B'89 is vastly overrated?

[theMan-Bat]

These "questions" are pointless

These questions are fascinating. Batman is a fascinating character. Half the prestige and intrigue that surrounds Batman is the controversy of his anti-hero/vigilante status.

because Batman IS NOT REAL and he could NEVER BE REAL.

Unlike Superman and Spider-Man, Batman is actually possible. Someone could become Batman.

Please watch ****ing DEATH WISH movies, they are much more realistic.

Not really. Paul Kersey apparently has more bad luck than anyone else on earth. In the first one his daughter Carol is rapped and his wife Joanna is killed, in the second one his daughter is rapped again and killed and his maid is also rapped and killed, in the third one his friend Maria is also rapped and dies and his friend Charlie is killed, in the forth one his girlfriend Karen is killed and her daughter dies from crack, and in the fifth one his new girlfriend Olivia's face is permanently disfigured and she is later killed, too.

So bring on some exciting adventure but not these pretentious psycho-dramas.

Simply fighting the bad guys is not what's so interesting about Batman to me. It's his thought processes behind it and how he acts like a villain. Batman isn't simply a good-vs.-evil thing. You get a lot of gray areas with Batman. With the special aspect of being like Dracula - coming and going mysteriously. Much of what he does to criminals is staged like a horror movie.

Judge Dredd is more badass than than Batman will ever be.

Wrong again.

 

[DACMAN]

It's what defined the original concept of Batman. He exists to stop crime.

He sures the heck didn't stop the crime in the opening act.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

These questions are fascinating. Batman is a fascinating character. Half the prestige and intrigue that surrounds Batman is the controversy of his anti-hero/vigilante status.

Typical 80s.

Unlike Superman and Spider-Man, Batman is actually possible. Someone could become Batman.

No. No one could. Get over it. Superman and Spider-Man's basic premise is unrealistic BUT if we accept this their stories make more sense than a normal guy swinging around rooftops.

Not really. Paul Kersey apparently has more bad luck than anyone else on earth. In the first one his daughter Carol is rapped and his wife Joanna is killed, in the second one his daughter is rapped again and killed and his maid is also rapped and killed, in the third one his friend Maria is also rapped and dies and his friend Charlie is killed, in the forth one his girlfriend Karen is killed and her daughter dies from crack, and in the fifth one his new girlfriend Olivia's face is permanently disfigured and she is later killed, too.

Doesn't change the fact, that it's more like a real "vigilante" would operate. He would not be a billionaire dressed up as a Bat. He is a man with a gun. That's a REALISTIC vigilante.

Simply fighting the bad guys is not what's so interesting about Batman to me. It's his thought processes behind it and how he acts like a villain. Batman isn't simply a good-vs.-evil thing. You get a lot of gray areas with Batman. With the special aspect of being like Dracula - coming and going mysteriously. Much of what he does to criminals is staged like a horror movie.

It's escapist fiction, not philosophy and psychology.

Wrong again.

That's the DC-adapted Judge Dredd, not the "real" 2000AD one.

 

[Dangerous]

No, "BATMAN" is not overrated...Other CB films like "Begins" and The "Spider-Man" movies on the other hand...IMO of course.

CFE

Begins is not overrated, It's the best comicbook movie to date.

Spider-Man, yea, that's overrated.

That is all.

 

[Dangerous]

That's the DC-adapted Judge Dredd, not the "real" 2000AD one.

Wrong, got the book right in front of me- 2000AD BOOKS.

It's the real Dredd, and Batman is more badass.

 

[Superhobo]

Sometimes, the opportunity is too good to pass itself up.

Typical 80s.

What are you talking about? The concept itself may not have been explored until later, but Batman has always been a vigilante - which is why, in his earliest appearances, he's being hunted by the police.

No. No one could. Get over it. Superman and Spider-Man's basic premise is unrealistic BUT if we accept this their stories make more sense than a normal guy swinging around rooftops.

I don't see how. In the thirties, where Batman and the pulp heroes of his ilk originated, there were quite a few non-lethal vigilantes running around. They weren't Batman, sure - but quite a few films have been made about them.

Of course, like all films of that type in that era, they were very law-enforcement influenced, so the subjects all usually "got it in the end."

Doesn't change the fact, that it's more like a real "vigilante" would operate.

I wish people would stop talking about certain concepts as if they'd actually studied them.

He would not be a billionaire dressed up as a Bat.

And that's one of the interesting concepts to be explored with Batman - why does he dress up like a bat? Why does he, specifically, do this?

He is a man with a gun. That's a REALISTIC vigilante.

Because you know vigilantes, right?

It's escapist fiction, not philosophy and psychology.

What is it with you and this deep-seated, almost pathological, fear you seem to have with comic characters actually having depth to them?

That's the DC-adapted Judge Dredd, not the "real" 2000AD one.

I have that book. You're wrong.

 

[El Payaso]

I am not answering the rest because I'm drunken at the moment...

But Batman was not strong enough. It's quite obvious that in the 50s/60s the used the Superman forumla on him, like the did in the 70s with the Marvel one and in the 80s they "Wolverine-ized" him. Sorry. Get over him. His stories changed with the times he lived in. BTW, the current Batman is much nicer.

Ah, alcohol has hammered some sense in you. Yes, this is the first reasonable thing I've read in your posts. Batman has changed a lot, people make different versions of him, from campy to dark, from traditional hero to anti-hero. And he seems to work in all of them. And that's precisely why your attacks against B89 don't work, they're mostly "It's not the version I like thus it's bad."

 

[theMan-Bat]

Typical 80s.

Batman was also a vigilante back in 1939.

No. No one could. Get over it. Superman and Spider-Man's basic premise is unrealistic BUT if we accept this their stories make more sense than a normal guy swinging around rooftops.

Batman's human, but far from a normal guy.

Doesn't change the fact, that it's more like a real "vigilante" would operate. He would not be a billionaire dressed up as a Bat. He is a man with a gun. That's a REALISTIC vigilante.

A crazy billionaire vigilante dressed up as a Bat is realistic, too. Stranger things have happened.

It's escapist fiction, not philosophy and psychology.

It's all of the above.

That's the DC-adapted Judge Dredd, not the "real" 2000AD one.

Thats a cross over published by DC Comics and Fleetway, not an adaption. Its the real 2000 AD Judge Dredd published by Fleetway and written by John Wagner, the creator of Judge Dredd, and Alan Grant, who wrote both Fleetway's 2000 AD and DC's Batman and Detective Comics.

 

[Dark Globe]

You know what, I'm gonna become Batman to proof you wrong. I AM BATMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[theMan-Bat]

You know what, I'm gonna become Batman to proof you wrong. I AM BATMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Superhobo]

I am not answering the rest because I'm drunken at the moment...

But Batman was not strong enough. It's quite obvious that in the 50s/60s the used the Superman forumla on him, like the did in the 70s with the Marvel one and in the 80s they "Wolverine-ized" him. Sorry. Get over him. His stories changed with the times he lived in. BTW, the current Batman is much nicer.

With the exception of the fifties-sixties era, Batman has always been one of the darker comic characters; the only variable being how certain writers chose to explore him, as a character.

I don't get where you're getting they "Wolverine-ized" him in the eighties - is it because Frank Miller also wrote Wolverine? Because that's the only similarity I can spot between the two characters. At all.

During the seventies - wait, Marvel formula? What are you talking about?

 

[Kud-Dukan]

I don't think the movie is really overrated, but I do think Keaton's performance is a tad overrated...just a tad, mind you. I still loved his performance, but I just don't think it was as great as some people think.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

With the exception of the fifties-sixties era, Batman has always been one of the darker comic characters; the only variable being how certain writers chose to explore him, as a character.

No. In the 30s/40s there was the Shadow, the Spider, even Superman was more violent, in the 70s Batman was compared to the Punisher or Ghost Rider a nice guy, in the 80s Wolverine and Co. and in the 90s the Spawn.

I don't get where you're getting they "Wolverine-ized" him in the eighties - is it because Frank Miller also wrote Wolverine? Because that's the only similarity I can spot between the two characters. At all.

Nah. Because they started to make him an anti-hero, mentally unstable and all that things.

During the seventies - wait, Marvel formula? What are you talking about?

"Our heroes are not really better than average people they are just normal guys who happen to have superpowers.". That's the Marvel take. Superman got it pretty bad in 1986, Green Arrow/Lantern in the 70s, Batman became more and more soap-opera.

 

[DACrowe]

These "questions" are pointless because Batman IS NOT REAL and he could NEVER BE REAL. Please watch ****ing DEATH WISH movies, they are much more realistic.

So bring on some exciting adventure but not these pretentious psycho-dramas. Judge Dredd is more badass than than Batman will ever be.

Just gonna' point out most storytelling (thus narrative filmmaking) is fiction and artificial. But the best stories make you invest in the characters, plot and material. The even better ones explore subtexts or subtleties within them. Both Nolan and Burton were after something beneath the surface in their adaptations of Batman and his world and villains. It doesn't matter which you liked, if you like one (I forget who you're arguing for) then you liked one that was trying to make it a meatier movie than simple adventure escapism. There are great escapist films out there, but the best ones engross the audience and it is the difference between a Speilberg movie and a Michael Bay movie. And exploring contradictions or the relavence of a character is exactly what has kept Batman popular for 70 years. If it was just a kick butt adventure it would be as something as shallow and awful as the Death Wish movies. Or the Joel Schumaucher movies for that matter, which by your post I would think you should prefer. After all it is just Batman on adventures with no boring psycho-dramas or pesky character development getting in the way.

 

[DACrowe]

Well said DAC, very good post

Thanks!

 

[Superhobo]

No. In the 30s/40s there was the Shadow, the Spider, even Superman was more violent, in the 70s Batman was compared to the Punisher or Ghost Rider a nice guy, in the 80s Wolverine and Co. and in the 90s the Spawn.

Both Bob Kane and Bill Finger drew inspiration fron the Shadow, and the Spider - that's Batman's ilk, the pulp heroes. Also, read more Golden Age Superman. No he wasn't.

Actually, you realize that the entire point of both Ghost Rider and the Punisher was that they weren't nice guys? Even by seventies standards?

I've never once heard him compared to Wolverine, and it was more like Spawn was being compared to Batman, since several elements were ripped straight from him, among other characters that Mcfarlane worked on beforehand.

Nah. Because they started to make him an anti-hero, mentally unstable and all that things.

Batman's been mentally unstable since the seventies, dude - he was noble, sure. But several stories hinted at the instability underneath. Even Denny O' Neil referred to him as an 'anti-hero' and a 'vigilante' on several occasions.

"Our heroes are not really better than average people they are just normal guys who happen to have superpowers.". That's the Marvel take. Superman got it pretty bad in 1986, Green Arrow/Lantern in the 70s, Batman became more and more soap-opera.

...When?


What I can draw from all this is that you don't enjoy any sort of good writing as much as you do "whoa fist punch awesome," which depresses me.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Both Bob Kane and Bill Finger drew inspiration fron the Shadow, and the Spider - that's Batman's ilk, the pulp heroes. Also, read more Golden Age Superman. No he wasn't.

Golden Age Superman threw people into the air and didn't catch them. The fact is: Batman was never "One of the darkest". He was always quite tame for his times.

Actually, you realize that the entire point of both Ghost Rider and the Punisher was that they weren't nice guys? Even by seventies standards?

You got it.

I've never once heard him compared to Wolverine, and it was more like Spawn was being compared to Batman, since several elements were ripped straight from him, among other characters that Mcfarlane worked on beforehand.

The Spawn sucked from the beginning.

Batman's been mentally unstable since the seventies, dude - he was noble, sure. But several stories hinted at the instability underneath. Even Denny O' Neil referred to him as an 'anti-hero' and a 'vigilante' on several occasions.

Prove it. Bob Haney's Batman was quite emotional but that's far from "unstable". You don't know what "unstable" means. Batman is strong-willed and headstrong, not "unstable". BTW, Denny O'Neil started to destroy Batman when he became editor of the bat-titles.

...When?


What I can draw from all this is that you don't enjoy any sort of good writing as much as you do "whoa fist punch awesome," which depresses me.

You are wrong again. I like well-plotted and good written adventures. But I simply cannot stand the pseudo-philosophic and wannabe-psychologic elements they but in. Where do comic book writers get their qualification to do this? THey write nothing more than juvenile fiction (and that's not a BAD THING) and should accept that. That's one of the reasons why "comic books" aren't really regarded as an "art form" or "real literature", the best writers don't work in this medium. THey write books or movies. Writing some stories where planets get blown up or some costumed clown starts to poison people is one thing, but writing "multi-layered" fiction or true poetic things is something different, and most comic writers are not capable to do so.

Archie Goodwin's "Batman - Night Cries" is mature, it's somewhat deep. THat's a good example of a well-done comic book. "Arkham Asylum" is just CRAP.

 

[El Payaso]

You are wrong again. I like well-plotted and good written adventures.

You like Batman Forever.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

You like Batman Forever.

well, "like" is a little bit exaggerated, but it's definitely much better than "Returns"

 

[El Payaso]

well, "like" is a little bit exaggerated, but it's definitely much better than "Returns"

Far worse than B89.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Far worse than B89.

Batman Forever? Yes.

 

[Superhobo]

Golden Age Superman threw people into the air and didn't catch them. The fact is: Batman was never "One of the darkest". He was always quite tame for his times.

Which is why the editor of the magazine himself made it a mandate that Batman couldn't kill or use a gun some five issues after his first publication?

You got it.

Then I don't really get what you were trying to say in your original comment.

The Spawn sucked from the beginning.

...Yeah?

Prove it. Bob Haney's Batman was quite emotional but that's far from "unstable".

You don't know what "unstable" means.

Yeah, well you don't know what pain is!

Batman is strong-willed and headstrong, not "unstable". BTW, Denny O'Neil started to destroy Batman when he became editor of the bat-titles.

I'd disagree. Then again, you like Batman Forever, and think that Pre-Crisis Lex Luthor was better than the current incarnation. So -

You are wrong again. I like well-plotted and good written adventures.

But I simply cannot stand the pseudo-philosophic and wannabe-psychologic elements they but in.

Except they're not considered wanna-be if they stand up to scrutiny.

Where do comic book writers get their qualification to do this?

Where do political satirists get their qualifications? Where do crime fiction writers get theirs?

THey write nothing more than juvenile fiction (and that's not a BAD THING) and should accept that.

"To paint comic books as childish and illiterate is lazy. A lot of comic books are very literate — unlike most films."

So, you must hate the majority of what Alan Moore has done, right? Like, y'know, "Watchmen."

Which was voted one of the top 100 novels of the century.

And won a Hugo Award.

That's one of the reasons why "comic books" aren't really regarded as an "art form" or "real literature",

Well see, "Watchmen" changed that public perception, as well as "Year One," and "The Dark Knight Returns." People who've never picked up a comic before give change to read these three, and a couple of others.

the best writers don't work in this medium. THey write books or movies.

Actually, most of them do both. Neil Gaiman does all three, as well as Frank Miller and Alan Moore (well, he doesn't write films, but - ). These are just three off the top of my head.

Writing some stories where planets get blown up or some costumed clown starts to poison people is one thing, but writing "multi-layered" fiction or true poetic things is something different, and most comic writers are not capable to do so.

Most novelists or screenwriters aren't able to, either. For every Tolstoy, you'll get a Dean Koontz. For every Miller, you'll have a Bruckheimer. And, for every Moore, you'll have a Jeph Loeb.

The comic book industry is very similar to these two in this regard.

Archie Goodwin's "Batman - Night Cries" is mature, it's somewhat deep.

It was alright. Much more could've been done with the basic premise, though.

THat's a good example of a well-done comic book. "Arkham Asylum" is just CRAP.

Granted, but your opinions are just awful, so -

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Which is why the editor of the magazine himself made it a mandate that Batman couldn't kill or use a gun some five issues after his first publication?

"Cleaning up the act" is quite common once a character becomes popular. Look at Superman, Micky Mouse and... Batman.

Then I don't really get what you were trying to say in your original comment.

Batman was and is much nicer so he is far away from being one of the "darkest characters".

...Yeah?

Of course. The Spawn shows everything what was wrong with comics in the 90s. The success came because of the specular boom.

Yeah, well you don't know what pain is!

Is this psychobabble?!

I'd disagree. Then again, you like Batman Forever, and think that Pre-Crisis Lex Luthor was better than the current incarnation. So -

The "current incarnation" took a big step towards the pre-crisis version. And yes, he was better back then, but you have never read a comic book with him. You just believe the guys that say "yeah, Luthor was just a one-dimensional mad scientist". This is far from the truth. BTW: I do NOT really "Like" Batman Forever but I think it's better than "Batman RETURNS... awfully"

Yes I do. I am quite intellectual and academic.

Except they're not considered wanna-be if they stand up to scrutiny.

They should just stop to make it so... pretentious. Comics may be more "sophisticated" these days, but too often they are also much dumber.

Where do political satirists get their qualifications? Where do crime fiction writers get theirs?

Political satirists are usually into politics. Comic book writers - most of them - use "pop-psychology". They are into funny characters in tights.

"To paint comic books as childish and illiterate is lazy. A lot of comic books are very literate — unlike most films."

So, you must hate the majority of what Alan Moore has done, right? Like, y'know, "Watchmen."

I LOVE Alan Moore's stuff. He has even admitted that he went to far with his deconstruction so he wrote the brilliant SUPREME and TOM STRONG. And he loves the Pre-Crisis Superman.

Which was voted one of the top 100 novels of the century.

And won a Hugo Award.

ONE out of 100. ONE! Got something? And it was stil about guys in tights. Why not write a great comic WITHOUT superheroes and violence and ass-shots? Why not try to write some SERIOUS stories that have some kind of significance to reality?!

Well see, "Watchmen" changed that public perception, as well as "Year One," and "The Dark Knight Returns." People who've never picked up a comic before give change to read these three, and a couple of others.

No it did not change the "public perception". Most people will not even know what "Watchmen" or "The Dark KNight Returns" IS! When people think "comics" they sill think either Disney or funny man in tights. That's the sad truth ("Seduction of the Innocent" is to blame, kinda, because before there were horror stories, western, "real" science fiction, crime comics... But after that the comic industries became "superhero industries". They never tried to fight this.) But instead they tried to make superheroes, which are nothing more than young boy's wishfulfillment SERIOUS, MATURE and SOPHISTICATED by taking it away from its core audience. That is to laugh. "changed that public perception" is just what they put into their advertising and You quote it!

Actually, most of them do both. Neil Gaiman does all three, as well as Frank Miller and Alan Moore (well, he doesn't write films, but - ). These are just three off the top of my head.

Frank MIller is not even close to a grea writer. Gaiman and Moore are, yes, but those are the only(!) TWO.

Most novelists or screenwriters aren't able to, either. For every Tolstoy, you'll get a Dean Koontz. For every Miller, you'll have a Bruckheimer. And, for every Moore, you'll have a Jeph Loeb.

The comic book industry is very similar to these two in this regard.

Of course most aren't. But simply ALL good writers (with the two exceptions) write Movies or Novels! THey are not attracted because "comic books" mean "Man in tights" and pretentious "depth" around those unrealistic guys.

It was alright. Much more could've been done with the basic premise, though.

I'm not saying its the best ever, but for such a serious matter... it was actually well-written.

Granted, but your opinions are just awful, so -

don't care what you think, but I'm right.

 

[Superhobo]

"Cleaning up the act" is quite common once a character becomes popular. Look at Superman, Micky Mouse and... Batman.

Ahuh.

Batman was and is much nicer so he is far away from being one of the "darkest characters".

Of course he is.

Of course. The Spawn shows everything what was wrong with comics in the 90s. The success came because of the specular boom.

I was saying 'yeah,' because you seemed to have just followed up on what I'd already typed. Plus, it's a given.

Is this psychobabble?!

TruetotheCore needs to watch more movies.

The "current incarnation" took a big step towards the pre-crisis version. And yes, he was better back then, but you have never read a comic book with him. You just believe the guys that say "yeah, Luthor was just a one-dimensional mad scientist". This is far from the truth. BTW: I do NOT really "Like" Batman Forever but I think it's better than "Batman RETURNS... awfully"

I've already responded to this in the other thread, and that you think that Forever is anywhere near better than Returns proves me point.

Yes I do. I am quite intellectual and academic.

facepalm.jpg

They should just stop to make it so... pretentious. Comics may be more "sophisticated" these days, but too often they are also much dumber.

...Yeah?

Political satirists are usually into politics. Comic book writers - most of them - use "pop-psychology". They are into funny characters in tights.

I know you said most of them, but this would indicate that comic writers can't have researched certain topics in order to bring them into their character's world. The creator of Wonder Woman was a psychologist, and he acknowledged this influence on his work.

I LOVE Alan Moore's stuff. He has even admitted that he went to far with his deconstruction so he wrote the brilliant SUPREME and TOM STRONG. And he loves the Pre-Crisis Superman.

He also loves Post-Crisis Batman, having praised TDKR and Year One numerous times, as well as having wrote a forward for the former.

ONE out of 100. ONE! Got something? And it was stil about guys in tights. Why not write a great comic WITHOUT superheroes and violence and ass-shots? Why not try to write some SERIOUS stories that have some kind of significance to reality?!

You don't read enough comics, then. "Maus?"

"Cerberus?"

"Berlin?"

Phoebe Gloekner's "A Child's Life?" (Well, any of Gloekner's stuff, actually)

"Stray Bullets?"

"Hate?"

"Love and Rockets?" (Anything by the Hernandez brothers, actually)

I mean, should I go on?

No it did not change the "public perception". Most people will not even know what "Watchmen" or "The Dark KNight Returns" IS! When people think "comics" they sill think either Disney or funny man in tights.

How many people do you actually talk to?

That's the sad truth ("Seduction of the Innocent" is to blame, kinda, because before there were horror stories, western, "real" science fiction, crime comics...

There are still horror stories, crime comics ("Criminal Minds" by Brubaker is great), and 'real' science fiction.

But after that the comic industries became "superhero industries". They never tried to fight this.)

I love how you're showing your complete ignorance of the history of the industry.

But instead they tried to make superheroes, which are nothing more than young boy's wishfulfillment

Actually, much like The Shadow and Doc Savage, as well as most science fiction in fact, they sprung not up as tools of wish fulfillment, but as pulp heroes - the only era they were truly wish fulfillment tools was during the fifties-sixties. That's about it.

SERIOUS, MATURE and SOPHISTICATED by taking it away from its core audience.

"The only reason genre conventions exists is that we may break them."

Also, comics were never truly just for kids - in the sixties, Marvel's biggest fans were largely college kids (Stan Lee recounts this in "An Evening With Kevin Smith") and so on - younger children were a larger part of the fanbase back then, sure - but, they've moved on to other things, for the most part. It isn't because 'we taken them away from their audience,' it's because they've found more attractive interests.

That is to laugh. "changed that public perception" is just what they put into their advertising and You quote it!

What advertising?

Frank MIller is not even close to a grea writer.

Now? No. In the eighties? When he wrote TDKR, "Year One," "Ronin," and all of those? totally.

Gaiman and Moore are, yes, but those are the only(!) TWO.

Wow. You really have a confined view of the comics industry. The ones I mentioned above, especially the writer of Maus, are critically acclaimed writers, who've also wrote books that met with warm reception as well.

Ed Brubaker's working on one as we speak, and I'd love to pick that up.

Of course most aren't. But simply ALL good writers (with the two exceptions) write Movies or Novels!

I wish I had a gif from Scanners of that guy's head exploding.

THey are not attracted because "comic books" mean "Man in tights" and pretentious "depth" around those unrealistic guys.

You know that quite a few novelists have started to branch out into comic writing relatively recently, right?

Orson Scott Card being one of them (writing Ultimate Iron Man), Tad Williams being another, as well as Warren Ellis (writing various series' in the Ultimate line as well as a few others that I haven't picked up). Stephen King, and on and on.

I'm not saying its the best ever, but for such a serious matter... it was actually well-written.

It was 'okay.'

don't care what you think, but I'm right.

If by 'right' you mean 'wrong,' then I agree.

 

[yoshimura]

89>Begins