Question about Long Halloween

[ALP]

Recently read it for the first time in a couple of years and the same thing pegs me as when I first read it.

Someone please tell me what is up with the ending with Gilda Dent. I'm talking about the last few panels with her throwing the clothing and gun into the furnace. Did she do some of the killings or something, or was she covering up for Harv? Never got that bit.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, she did the killings right up til Xmas eve. She killed Johnny Viti on Halloween, the four Irish mob guys on Thanksgiving, and Falcone's bodyguard on Xmas eve.

When Alberto faked his own death on New year's, Gilda assumed Harvey killed him and took up the killings himself, so he'd have more free time from work, so they could work on starting a family together.

 

[ALP]

Jeeeeeeez!

So why in the world did Alberto fess up to all of the killings? To seem worthy of the Falcone name? The heck!

 

[Two-Face]

I think he wanted his father's respect, one of the reasons why he starts the killings too right?

 

[Ipodman]

Yeah, she did the killings right up til Xmas eve. She killed Johnny Viti on Halloween, the four Irish mob guys on Thanksgiving, and Falcone's bodyguard on Xmas eve.

When Alberto faked his own death on New year's, Gilda assumed Harvey killed him and took up the killings himself, so he'd have more free time from work, so they could work on starting a family together.

I think thats the only thing thats certain

We dont REALLY know who did all the killings right?

 

[The Joker]

I think thats the only thing thats certain

We dont REALLY know who did all the killings right?

Gilda said she killed all those people I mentioned above. About how she read about filing serial numbers off guns. Leaving those trinkets at the scene of the crimes to throw the authorities off so they'd think it was some kind of professional etc.

 

[Brother Jack]

I don't think there's an official word on who killed who and how many. I know Gilda killed some, but if I'm not mistaken Alberto did as well. How else could he have been caught? Unless he also planned that.

 

[Ipodman]

Hmm... I may have to look at that book again...

Great Batman story btw. I think it's my fav!

 

[Two-Face]

It's all three people committed the crimes in different months.

 

[SpideyInATree]

This discussion just makes me want to read The Long Halloween again! t:


*runs to graphic novel library*

 

[ALP]

Haha, what's got me is why Alberto fessed up to all of the murders when he didn't do them. So did Alberto only do a few of the murders and Gilda do the others? It would seem real strange that Alberto was the original killer then out of nowhere Gilda takes his place.

Dark Victory is a brilliant follow up but it does not expand on Gilda at all.

 

[Brother Jack]

It's all three people committed the crimes in different months.

Probably, but we don't know who killed who... except for Harvey Dent who killed Falcone.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I thought it was pretty clear. Gilda was the original Holiday for the first three killings. Then Alberto faked his own death and took over the role from there. Gilda thought that this second killer was Harvey, so she stopped at that point. Then Dent killed Falcone and his assistant after Alberto was caught.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Yeah, its a pretty bad story, and an awful twist that makes very little sense, even for Loeb. It's a shame The Long Halloween overshadows the utterly superior Eye of the Beholder, which is a far more thematic, meaningful and psychological look at Harvey's downfall.

 

[ALP]

I thought it was pretty clear. Gilda was the original Holiday for the first three killings. Then Alberto faked his own death and took over the role from there. Gilda thought that this second killer was Harvey, so she stopped at that point. Then Dent killed Falcone and his assistant after Alberto was caught.

See...I did not get this and apparently others did not either so it's far from pretty clear.

I know Gilda did some of the killings but why did she do it in the first place? For sport?...I realize the most likely option was to help Harv's job out.

I gotta agree with the post above me. I mean I absolutely love this book but I felt the last bit with Gilda was not necessary. And she was no where to be found in Dark Victory.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Even at the top of his game Loeb's work is riddled with awful plot holes and leaps of logic, and generally just isn't that good. I've come to despise The Long Halloween/Dark Victory since the attention they recieve distracts many comic buyers from far better, logical and deeper stories.

Gilda as an initial Holiday killer makes no sense. How did she know no one would spot her missing in the hospital? How come she went ahead with it despite no huge motivation beyond "It's tearing my husband up"? How was she able to perform the killings expertly with no training? How did no one notice her? How was she able to get so close to such high-profile gangsters?

This is just going off my memory, a quick dust off the book would let me ask several dozen more. Really, TLH is that worst of stories - the one that seems so neat when you first read it, yet further readings reveal how flawed and irrelevant, and such a waste of a good story it is.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Yup, the ending is just "WTF?" instead of "Of Course", which is the difference between a bad twist and a good twist. Loeb tried to be too clever, thus he totally failed. And ever noticed that virtually nothing happens in the series that progress the story? The Riddler? It's also WAY TOO LONG for its content. Not to mention one of the weirdest Batman characterization ever.The nice pictures cloud the reader's mind.

 

[Cain]

Yup, the ending is just "WTF?" instead of "Of Course", which is the difference between a bad twist and a good twist. Loeb tried to be too clever, thus he totally failed. And ever noticed that virtually nothing happens in the series that progress the story? The Riddler? It's also WAY TOO LONG for its content. Not to mention one of the weirdest Batman characterization ever.The nice pictures cloud the reader's mind.

I can't say I disagree.

 

[Sonic1002]

Yup, the ending is just "WTF?" instead of "Of Course", which is the difference between a bad twist and a good twist. Loeb tried to be too clever, thus he totally failed.
...
...
It's also WAY TOO LONG for its content. Not to mention one of the weirdest Batman characterization ever.The nice pictures cloud the reader's mind.

Sounds like you're talking about Grant Morrison

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Sounds like you're talking about Grant Morrison

Morrison gets a pass, because even his bad stories tend to be somewhat interesting

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Yup, the ending is just "WTF?" instead of "Of Course", which is the difference between a bad twist and a good twist. Loeb tried to be too clever, thus he totally failed. And ever noticed that virtually nothing happens in the series that progress the story? The Riddler? It's also WAY TOO LONG for its content. Not to mention one of the weirdest Batman characterization ever.The nice pictures cloud the reader's mind.

Thank you, it is pretty much as you describe. I'm consistently astonished that TLH is considered by so many to be one of the best Batbbooks ever when its really, really not. It has several things going for it, like Tim Sale's gorgeous art and a brilliant noir feel, but the story is an absolute mess, characterisation is thrown out the window, there is very little progression, Batman is the worst detective in the world and virtually none of the twists make sense.

Not to mention that the main event - Harvey's descent into madness - is given so little focus it might as well be summed up as "No court justice and acid scars make Harvey something something" "Go crazy?" "Don't mind if I do!"

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Not to mention that the main event - Harvey's descent into madness - is given so little focus it might as well be summed up as "No court justice and acid scars make Harvey something something" "Go crazy?" "Don't mind if I do!"

Yup, he also didn't really try to give a reason why Harvey uses his coin.

 

[The Navigator]

Recently read it for the first time in a couple of years and the same thing pegs me as when I first read it.

Someone please tell me what is up with the ending with Gilda Dent. I'm talking about the last few panels with her throwing the clothing and gun into the furnace. Did she do some of the killings or something, or was she covering up for Harv? Never got that bit.

She probably had a mental breakdown.
Alberto was most likely the killer until Harvey took out Poppa Falcone, since he had access, opportunity, and motive to kill (most) of his victims.

A more thorough analysis can be found here.

 

[joker1]

for me, TLH is one of the definitave "must-have" batman graphic novels. i know there are people who will disagree with me and that's fine - we're all entitled to our own opinions and i don't want to get an argument going :P

but for the original question: i think it's a way of painting Gotham. if you stop looking at the characters, and look instead of why these people chose to take the law into thier own hands: it's because harvey and gilda can seee how bad gotham is. okay, so maybe gilda did it for harvey, but there's a similar reason. for me, it's the same principle as Batman himself...ordinary people (no superpowers) taking the law into thier own hands to do "what's right".

alberto was just completely isolated from his family and jumped on the band-wagon as a cry for attention and power. that, and in Dark Victory, we see how insane alberto actually is.

well, that's my two cents, thanks for reading

 

[RustyCage]

My only issue with TLH is in the portrayal of some villains. Riddler was a ratty little wuss that got bullied and just made puns instead of actually challenging anyone with riddles. I prefer the Riddler that was arrogant, classy, and on top of everyone because he was so much smarter than them.

Joker was just a goofy cartoony egomaniac. Mad Hatter just made campy puns, and Scarecrow wasn't much better.

Loved Catwoman though, and Two-Face and Calendar Man were great. I also found Falcone and his son to be interesting.

I don't think there's an official word on who killed who and how many. I know Gilda killed some, but if I'm not mistaken Alberto did as well. How else could he have been caught? Unless he also planned that.

He killed Maroni while Gordon and Batman (in disguise) were transferring him. He used the signature gun and everything.

Damn his shades were cool.

She probably had a mental breakdown.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

I don't see how Gilda being insane is such a huge leap in logic. She was nuts based on her values and acted out accordingly, just like Harvey always ends up doing, just like Batman always has. And most of the other characters in the franchise as well. This should be basic mathematics for Batman fans, so why do you guys need everything explained with ridiculously elaborate scrutiny for you when the answer is that easy?

The only difference between Gilda's insanity and anyone else's is that it's not blatantly spelled out for you in the correct order like you're used to, because it's a twist ending. It's meant to be a shock and confuse the reader, make them think about it. If you can't handle such a simple plot twist, or understand that a character happened to be insane all along to the point that it baffles you into loathing the book, that's pretty sad.

She could get close to those gangsters just as easily as the Joker or Batman or Catwoman did. Her insanity inspired her to go to great lengths (hypothetically).

Yup, he also didn't really try to give a reason why Harvey uses his coin.

Wrong. See Page 241 and on. 'I went to go see dad.'

After that, it's referenced again when he first shows himself as Two-Face to Batman.

If you guys are going to complain about things, make sure your complaints are factual and you haven't just forgotten what is and is not in the book.