Messages

I don't think that's a controversial take. Ironically, I think it's when follow-ups are handled by the original creatives, they're more likely to take liberties and switch things up because the original isn't some kind of sacred cow to them.

Now part of my issue with Batman '89 departing from the source material was that the visuals were leaning way too hard into Batman TAS territory. It went beyond Easter egg territory to become distracting. They're similar in their tone and inspiration, but you can't just copy and past stuff without reason. Michael Gough, who has always been clean-shaven, suddenly grows a mustache. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne suddenly wears a yellow and brown suit.

All of that is to say that I think it's actually ideal that a fan is writing this. They'd know the importance of adhering to the source; just the fact that this takes place between movies requires a significant appreciation of the films.

That's what you love to hear. On these "riskier" projects, I do tend to vote with my wallet and buy in person when it's new.

It's funny that the Batman '89 pitch was originally rejected in the wake of Batman '66's success. Did they miss out back then, or was this deliberate to help stagger the releases? It worked out with both series' having periods of renewed interest.

What's interesting is that the BTAS comic series was cancelled due to disappointing sales. It apparently lost when going head to head with Batman '89. I assumed BTAS had a larger fanbase, but more people were buying 89 (I was buying both).

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

You'd think that's a simple, relatively inoffensive statement that everyone could agree on. But you'd sadly be wrong.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

I've been loosely following that case. At what point do contributions turn into creation credit? It becomes especially problematic when at least one of the parties is deceased and can't respond to claims.

Kane and Finger being dead means that fans can project whatever conflict and drama they want onto a complex and foreign scenario.

I'll definitely be picking this one up. I think a novel is the proper medium for this kind of story.

While the Burton films were masterpieces by themselves, they lacked continuity when looked at as a complete story. Here's a chance to really explore that period in between movies and create a smoother transition.

While my enjoyment of the story won't hinge on it, I'm curious if any of the previous Batman '89 continuities will be adhered to. Even if it's not an active thought, I predict it won't conflict with the comic or Batman Forever.

Let me start by saying that it's pretty common knowledge nowadays that Bill Finger co-created Batman. But what is it about this that makes normies vigilant about proclaiming this, or tearing down Bob Kane to make their point?

Firstly, the facts: the prerequisites for being a comic book creator weren't as well established before the silver age. It seems like there was this belief that if you conceived of the character, you were the sole creator (as Stan Lee maintained before Steve Ditko protested). The common understanding nowadays is that there's a conceptual and visual element that goes into creating a comic book character; usually assigned to a writer and artist.

As this became more established, Bill Finger was willfully neglected from the conversation when it came to Batman's creation, even subject to some false claims by Bob Kane before he eventually softened his stance and gave Finger more credit later in life. This became officially recognized in 2015.

The point? I felt compelled to make this point because we've reached a ridiculous point where there's abundant vitriol and misinformation whenever Bob Kane is so much as mentioned.

Michael Uslan, one of the leading champions of giving Bill Finger his credit, simply shared a comic panel from Superman: Zero Hour that showed different Batmen sharing the scene, inspired by the art of Kane, Frank Miller, and Neal Adams (crediting the influences as such).

So a guy comments that it should be Bill Finger. Thinking he made an honest mistake, I just correct him that Bill did not draw that Detective Comics #27 Batman, and that it should rightfully be credited to only Bill Finger because he had the idea to revise the infamous "red with domino mask" Batman prototype. So this guy was willfully being an idiot and it became popular to accept this as fact, calling me incorrect.

So is it right to give Bill Finger credit where it isn't due because of the transgressions against him in the past? Is it productive to only celebrate Bill Finger in the context of tearing down Bob Kane? People honestly made the argument that Kane being callous to Finger, or using ghost artists made it okay to miscredit them. Also, taking this genius's claim to its logical conclusion, the Neal Adams and Frank Miller Batman should also be credited solely to Bill Finger, since he had the idea for the batsuit.

As someone who's well-read on comic history, and especially golden age Batman, it's a little annoying to see the influx of assholes with a surface level knowledge confidently spew disinformation. There was an immediate, positive impact of internet exposés bringing  Bill Finger's contributions to light to a wider audience, but far too many people try to condense this story and parrot their own conclusions. It's only when you're in a forum of serious Bat-fans that you can actually have a serious and objective conversation or debate about the history, and that's a shame.

https://www.dc.com/blog/2024/04/03/from-the-dc-vault-death-in-the-family-robin-lives-1-what-happens-after-jason-todd-survives-his-encounter-with-the-joker

We're getting a continuation of the lost comic in a four-part miniseries.

This is a great concept; some of the wrongful criticism of the alternate ending of #428 is that not enough was changed (the point was just to release the comic as it would have been). So this presents a deeper dive into that alternate timeline, which is essentially what Batman '89 set out to do as well.

Everything looks good so far; J.M. DeMatteis and Rick Leonardi are old pros that were around well before the original Death in the Family arc, with prior Batman experience to boot. 1988 doesn't seem like that long ago, but we're well past three decades.

As I'm always the skeptic, the one burning question is "where's Jim Starlin?" I'm not up to date on his personal life, but I don't believe he's retired yet. I was wondering why Mike Mignola was only on the variant cover, but that question was quickly answered.

My first choice for art probably would have been Graham Nolan after Jim Aparo sadly is not with us anymore. My reasoning is that of the many artists collaborating for Knightfall, In felt the best sense of continuity between Nolan and Aparo's art. That being said, Rick Leonardi already has some work in the examples they've provided (including an amazing cover).

Hope they have a TPB collection that includes the alternate #428. Every comic shop I went to was either sold out or didn't carry it. Wasn't about to go out of my way for a single issue.

I can hear the case for a live action DC movie losing money and damaging the brand. But I doubt that's the case for these cartoons. The only way this would avert a disaster is if it were another Velma, which does not seem to be the case.

Batman looks good. Same with Catwoman and Clayface. But what's going on with Two-Face? It's like their prompt was "what would Two-Face look like in the 40s", but they forgot Two-Face was really from the early 40s.

That honestly felt like a merchandising decision. Remember how there was DC Collectibles toy line tie-in? We got Red Hood and Azrael in BTAS figure style. I'm betting that was the starting point, and they just worked backwards to figure out a story. Fortunately, we didn't get a Batman Who Laughs... yet.

Okay, I picked up Season 3 out of obligation, owning the previous two volumes and all, and ended up really liking it.

To start, I was sad to hear the series was cancelled by DC. Most coverage now seems to infer that the series ran its course, but I recall Ty Templeton saying it was actively cancelled. The quality wasn't peak BTAS by any means, but there was still a lot of top talent that didn't deserve to have their work cut short (including Templeton).

This announcement came around the end of the original run, which was way too premature considering the TPB was a way from being released (and also my preferred medium). I picked it up as soon as I could, having to check two comic book stores: one was sold out, the other had one copy left. Hope these sales allow DC to reconsider.

Anyways, on with the story (spoilers ahead). The weakness of the previous volumes was that they were trying to play catch-up with the comics instead of continuing the story in a meaningful way; for instance, introducing Jason Todd convolutes the universe more and is antithetical to bridging the gap into Return of the Joker/Batman Beyond.

Old characters were used in more meaningful ways this time around. Lock-Up was great to see as a surprise villain during the first story, as was the continuation of Task Force X in Crack-Up! Deadshot was a favorite of mine that had a decent adaptation in JLU despite his limited screentime, so it was nice to see more of him. Professor Strange makes his grand re-appearance as well, and it feels perfectly natural. In the midst of all this, the prototype of the Batman Beyond suit is a concurrent plot point. The series really felt like it was winding down into the Batman Beyond era, and I hope the writers get the opportunity to complete their vision.