excuse me? I'm sorry, the 90's might not have been a wonderful time for marvel comics, but dc's line-up on the other hand was excellent. some of the greatest comic-works to date were released by dc in the 90's. and shall I mention "vertigo comics"? doug moench's run on "batman" and chuck dixon's on "detective comics" still stand out as some of the finest examples for batman storytelling to date. so please forgive me if I say that I absolutely adore the 90's.
oh, and I like batman BECAUSE he is not a pure hero, because he IS a rational human being with issues, because he has deep emotional - and yes - psychological problems. because he still stands out as a complex farcry to many other superhero franchises to date. that's why batman is the only superhero comic I read 'and' like. and I don't even consider him being a "superhero" for that matter.
and knightfall was "not" the reason why batman is the tortured, melancholic human being he is today. he has been portrayed like this in many comicbook incarnations from way back. take for example steve englehart's work in the 70's. the reimagining of hugo strange was a very important factor to show how dark batman's mind and feelings really are. even in the early works by bill finger, you can clearly see that batman was imagined to be much more than just your heroic every day crime fighter.
Now my favorite Batman is the rigidly-characterized 70s incantation that happily says "g'day" to passing pimps while walking down the street in broad day light while wearing a gray leotard with a bright light blue mask and cape.
I also totally understand that there's a dark and brooding dispenser of urban justice who is rarely seen even at night, who coldly and calmly executes his war against crime. Any character that's been around for 60+ years is going to have a wide, wide variety of characterizations. I, myself, choose to enjoy them all in their own way, savor the ridiculousness of the early 60s, while mulling over the gritty crime dramas of the early 2000s... For me, to be a Batman fan, is to understand and enjoy all of those interpretations and truly appreciate how they came to shape and form Batman to what he is today.
I also totally understand that there's a dark and brooding dispenser of urban justice who is rarely seen even at night, who coldly and calmly executes his war against crime. Any character that's been around for 60+ years is going to have a wide, wide variety of characterizations. I, myself, choose to enjoy them all in their own way, savor the ridiculousness of the early 60s, while mulling over the gritty crime dramas of the early 2000s... For me, to be a Batman fan, is to understand and enjoy all of those interpretations and truly appreciate how they came to shape and form Batman to what he is today.
Amen to that my brother of the night. Just because I love the "psychotic, melancholic, gothic romance" characterisation of the dark knight doesn't mean that I can't enjoy any other incarnation of him. It just means that I enjoy the former a little bit more. I mean, I love "the batman", for christ's sake.
CConn said:
That's the same reason I prefer Dora the Explorer over Spongebob.
excuse me? I'm sorry, the 90's might not have been a wonderful time for marvel comics, but dc's line-up on the other hand was excellent. some of the greatest comic-works to date were released by dc in the 90's. and shall I mention "vertigo comics"? doug moench's run on "batman" and chuck dixon's on "detective comics" still stand out as some of the finest examples for batman storytelling to date. so please forgive me if I say that I absolutely adore the 90's.
oh, and I like batman BECAUSE he is not a pure hero, because he IS a rational human being with issues, because he has deep emotional - and yes - psychological problems. because he still stands out as a complex farcry to many other superhero franchises to date. that's why batman is the only superhero comic I read 'and' like. and I don't even consider him being a "superhero" for that matter.
The modern Batman is far from being a "rational being". And all this pseudo-psychology that was shoehorned into the character since the mid-80s... I don't like it.
and knightfall was "not" the reason why batman is the tortured, melancholic human being he is today.
A storyline is of course not the reason, because Batman is not real and obeys (usually) what the writers demand from him. It was about the time when Miller fanboys became writers and changed the character. It was after Knightfall/"Zero Hour", I must know, because I quit reading comics because of that a few months later.
he has been portrayed like this in many comicbook incarnations from way back. take for example steve englehart's work in the 70's. the reimagining of hugo strange was a very important factor to show how dark batman's mind and feelings really are.
no, that's just modern revisionism, the need to interpret these old stories with your modern view of Batman. Early Batman was supposed to be a fearless adventurer, a swashbuckler, complete with funny one-liners. He wasn't a tortured being in any of those stories. The origin was just... well, an origin to explain the readers were Batman comes from, but it didn't really matter. They thought it up MONTHS after the character was published for the first time. The first story his origin became really significant was "There Is No Hope In Crime Alley". Even when he encountered Joe Chill and Lew Moxon it was more like another crime case to solve.
Yeah, I've read other interviews where he's said similar, like he was just coming off doing 'Watchmen' and that's why it has all the first and last panels reflecting each other. and similar to what he said there, he also said he applied his WM sensibility to it, and thought it was a bit too much for the Batman and joker.
But, I have to say, he contradicts himself in that interview you posted. He talks about what he did with 'Watchmen' and 'Miracleman' and says that he hoped more people would do stuff like that: 'take these tired old concepts and turn them on their head.' So he took inspiration from some old Charlton comics characters(originally wanting to use the exact old characters, but couldn't) and the old 'Marvelman' character and did exactly that. But then he does the exact same thing with Batman and The Joker and says 'I think I put far too much melodramatic weight on a character that wasn't supposed to carry it.'
Alan Moore is a genius writer but sometimes he just talks through his beard. Ok, fair enough, the guy ended up not liking his own story, but the reason he gives for that does not make sense, given what he he did already, and has gone on to do further with LOXG. Personally, I think he got embarressed over the amount of attention it gets for such a short story, and that's because it's Batman and the Joker.
Sure, atht period of BM comics he's talking about, 'the smiley uncle', is fun when you're a kid, and I'm sure he would have a lot of fun messing around with those things, but that period of BM comics could have been about any superhero, there's no unique Batman character in those worlds.
I don't think alan moore dislikes the killing joke i just think to him compared to either watchman or v for vendetta its not saying anything about society at large or making a grander point. Therefore it is not up to the level of grandeur as some of his other works.
Its still a good book but its like comparing spiderman 2 to schindlers list. Both good movies but one more culturally important.
Also if anyone thinks batman only became dark and psychological after knightfalll...cough arkham asylum cogh...
The modern Batman is far from being a "rational being". And all this pseudo-psychology that was shoehorned into the character since the mid-80s... I don't like it.
I'll get to the point. I thought it sucked. I've read my fare share of Batman stories. I loved Year One, Hush, and The Long Halloween. I liked The Dark Knight Returns and a few others. There have been stories I've thought were ok, and others I kind of hated. But going into a "TKJ" I had pretty big expectations as I've been told it was one of the best Batman stories ever.
The only thing about it I loved was the art. It was slow, boring, and weird.
Batman catches up to the guy that shot a woman through the spine and then takes pictures of her naked. Upon beating him up, they than stand in the rain together and laugh at an old joke.
It was weird. The Joker just did a terrible, evil thing and they just
stand around laughing at a joke. There's even a part when Batman leans over and puts his hands on the Joker from laughing so hard.
To me it come off just really freaken weird. Did they do that because we're suppose to get from that, that the Batman is just as crazy as the Joker? Because if that's what Alan Moore was going for than I might be able to understand that. Plus what the heck was with those
bald little people beating up on Gordan? Like a seasoned cop couldn't beat up three tiny little chicks...
So help me out. I really wanted to like this comic. I really ended up hating it.
Why is everyone making a big deal out of Batman laughing along to Joker's joke???
I mean, didn't John McClain in Die Hard laugh along with the villain Hans Gruber to distract him while Hans threatening to kill his wife with the gun that he was pointing. That way, I think Batman was laughing to distract Joker till the cops arrive.
Why is everyone making a big deal out of Batman laughing along to Joker's joke???
I mean, didn't John McClain in Die Hard laugh along with the villain Hans Gruber to distract him while Hans threatening to kill his wife with the gun that he was pointing. That way, I think Batman was laughing to distract Joker till the cops arrive.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/s/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
