Messages

I've read through a few more Epic Collections; "Streets of Poison" and "Hero or Hoax?" Streets of Poison is a really fine 90s run, though I've got to get my rant about Hero or Hoax out of the way first.

As I mentioned earlier, Steve Englehart's later run involved a major retcon around the Falcon's backstory that didn't land. Now that I'm at the beginning of his run, we start with another huge retcon; that the 50s Captain America exists in the Earth-616 continuity, and that he was actually a vile person.

The execution is offensive and wrong, and I think it's centered around a misunderstanding of Cap's character. The very idea itself was flawed; that everything should be part of the same continuity, even if you need to introduce unbelievable retcons to do so. The reality is that silver age Captain America split off from the golden age continuity after being frozen in ice (how Stan Lee re-introduced the character in the Avengers). The stories continued in the original 40s/50s continuity, which can be considered a different universe.

The stories felt oddly vindictive towards the original creators (which included the great John Romita), and somehow came across as politically motivated. Captain America punches nazis? All good. Captain America punches commies? Well actually, it wasn't Captain America, it was a professor who took the super soldier serum and went crazy, and was also now racist for some reason. This is an embarrassment and a dark spot on Englehart's career. "Captain America needs to have MY personal beliefs, and if that's at odds with the character historically, then that wasn't Captain America."

After finishing the book, I have a few more thoughts.

Retconning the chemist from the first film into Hugo Strange actually works for me. It establishes a connection to Joker and Carl Grissom, and doesn't conflict with his role in producing Smylex at Axis Chemicals.

Clayface being a creation of Hugo Strange reminded me of Gotham; not sure if this concept was ever used before.

Strange says he intended to blame the Monster Men on Joker. This is probably coincidence, but in the 1990 Batman NES game, the giant monsters in the sewer were the result of Joker's gene-splicing experiments.

I liked most instances of Returns characters being introduced, but I'm a little conflicted when the Red Triangle strongman was responsible for saving Batman's life. This is a little too much history to have for a henchman character that Batman blows up after a brief encounter.

Overall, an enjoyable book. I've gone on about my nitpicks, but that's just how I critique things. The action really ramped up towards the end and brought the story to an exciting conclusion.

If Miller wanted another villain to appear Clayface does make sense with the cosmetic products poisoning carrying over from the first movie.

Agreed. Clayface is just below the A-list villains, but still has enough of a history to be recognized as a classic villain. I'm not one for making comic book characters so grounded that they lose all style, and I think Clayface struck a good balance when it comes to resembling the character, but only gradually leaning into the more fantastic elements. I'd love to have seen him brought to life through practical effects in the early 90s and not a giant shapeshifting CGI monster as would likely be the case in more modern times.

I do like how it reiterates how important the first film is and doesn't try to minimize it. We see the whole scope and the fallout of the Joker's chemical attack on the city, which isn't something that would go away overnight. The pattern with sequels is to take the lazier route by making the threats larger and the stakes higher (i.e. another, larger Death Star-like superweapon in Star Wars films). Even though the Joker is dead and can't go on to be Batman's constant rival, it's well established that he left a legacy and continues to haunt Batman.

Batman is too chatty even during the first encounter with Knox I've just read. But I feel this book is shaping up to be better than the comics.

This was tough to portray in a lot of the older comics, and likely tougher to portray in a novel. I believe Keaton fought Daniel Waters when it came to the Batman Returns script, arguing it was too wordy. He successfully trimmed down the dialogue. Keaton does one of the best Bat-voices, but I also can't imagine him doing it very long when reading some of the dialogue.

But I agree, this had much more of the feel of films than the comic.

The goons hierarchy is shown by the number of Joker cards on their jacket's right shoulder. Bob had five of them. I'll have to go look how many Lawrence had.

Edit: Lawrence looks like he had only two.

That's an interesting observation that I never picked up on before. I went back to check and see how the hierarchy was set up in the film, but it looks like only Bob got a special jacket with five cards, everyone else hard one card.

Well, Lawrence is the one who jumps down from behind Batman and goes through the floor--he could have easily landed on an intact portion of the stairs and passed out, I think as-much is implied in the book but I don't recall.

I could be overthinking it/misinterpreting it, but a bad guy falling through the floor with a long scream meant the filmmakers probably intended for the character to die, not that he probably managed to save himself. Correct me if I'm wrong and it's mentioned in a primary source, like a script or a novel. But this has always been a pet peeve of mine when sequels bring back dead characters (especially tough as a Star Wars fan).

Also, was the Joker gas/Smylex causing Clayface's mutation a reference to how it was done first in The Batman (2004)?

I'm a slow reader, so I'll be posting some thoughts as I'm making my way through it.

It's apparent early on that Miller is a geek for continuity like the rest of us. I take slight issue with the fact that Lawrence, one of the few goons that seemed to be dead, was brought back. He did seem like the next in line in the hierarchy of Joker's goons, though (after that, maybe Carl Chase's character?)

There's also fixation on some points that some consider continuity errors. Funny enough, both seem to be the result of post-production changes. When Batman wonders why there are goons in the cathedral, this was probably a result of Jon Peters adding additional action scenes to the film, seeing as the sequence was not present in the novelization or later scripts. There's only one logical explanation though; they followed the Joker from the parade. The key is the presence of Philip Tan's character's presence in both the parade and the bell tower. I'm still not certain whether Lawrence was at the parade (I may have spotted him holding one of the floats, but I'm not positive). I'm pretty sure Clive Curtis was one of the professional stuntmen brought in for pick-up shots (like the scimitar fighter), so he wouldn't have been present in any previous scenes.

The Joker saying he was a kid when he killed Batman's parents seems to be the result of the scene being trimmed down. Batman explained early on how the Joker killed his parents when he was a kid, so he's just referencing that. I think less dialog is better for pacing in the final cut, even if Joker's line may not make the most sense under scrutiny. But one can ascertain that Joker was only killing random people's parents when he was still a lowly mugger.

Clayface is interesting, and seems to be an amalgamation of the first three Clayfaces from the comics (making the Mud Pack arc of the comics a good read for some background). We have the civilian identity/occupation of Basil Karlo, the abilities of Matt Hagen, and the insanity of Preston Payne.

Nick and Eddie being back on the street seemed to undo Batman's efforts from the film, but I like the explanation that criminals apprehended by Batman had trouble being convicted since it was done without involvement from the Gotham police. This point was also made in Detective Comics Annual #14 where Batman has to find allies within the justice system.

Julie Madison also makes her first appearance here. I wonder if this was intentional to potentially tie it into Batman & Robin.

Overall, I'm enjoying the read so far. There's a lot for existing fans to sink their teeth into. No real conflicts with the continuity, and plenty of opportunity to expand this universe.

I had my issues with the first film, so to see a follow-up that has similar contempt for comic books as a medium fall short is nothing I'm going to lose sleep over. The odd trend of "supervillain movies without their accompanying superheroes" that was perfected by Sony seems to be drawing to a close.

Why was Tim Burton treated so harshly over not having a background in comic books? Over him giving the Joker a name and backstory? Over his Joker killing the Waynes? The first Joker movie was somehow shielded from any criticism of neglecting the source material, and even the sequel doesn't seem to get criticism in that department.

I had no idea he also branched out to comic book writing. Good Captain America writers can explore a different facet of patriotism, so I imagine he'd have a lot to say.

Re-read Punisher Epic Collection Volume 2, and was surprised by how quick of a read it was. This was essentially the beginning of Punisher's solo appearances*, and it's no surprise to see why he caught on like he did. They introduced him and built up mystique through guest appearances, and finally tested the waters with a limited series an entire decade later. As such, I think the miniseries is the strongest point of the collection. Steven Grant's writing with Mike Zeck's pencils have all the grit and unhinged action that the Punisher demands. Still, Mike Baron keeps the momentum and further fleshes out the character. Not a bad story to be found in the bunch.

Another standout is Punisher's scuffle with Daredevil; it's a fresh and unique experience to read accounts from both heroes' points of view. I even prefer the Punisher issue over the more veteran crew behind Daredevil.

Finally, it's all wrapped up with the graphic novel Assassin's Guild. Despite the drastically different art style, Jo Duffy manages to capture the essence of Baron's Punisher characterization, which makes it read well alongside the ongoing comic. Jorge Zaffino and Julie Michel create a very cinematic art style that works for the character.

Noticed a few parallels when reading through the Michelinie/Larsen run of the 90s (courtesy of the Return of the Sinister Six Epic Collection).

The first comes in Amazing Spider-Man #342. For context, this is part of the Powerless arc, in which Peter voluntarily undergoes a procedure to remove his superpowers. This concept alone shares similarities with Spider-Man 2, but the beginning of issue 342 in particular has a very similar scene; Peter and MJ happen upon a couple being mugged in an alley. Peter is tempted to jump in and help, but is talked down by Mary Jane. He works around it by smashing a store window to scare off the muggers with the ensuing alarm.

Obviously, this isn't recreated shot-for-shot in Spider-Man 2, where a retired Peter Parker is forced to look away from a beating in an alley, against his conscience. These instances are also preceded by a similar scene in the original Spider-Man No More arc, where Peter stops an armed robbery outside of his Spider-Man suit after giving up the mantle.

Another issue, #350 features an appearance by Uncle Ben in Peter's imagination to help him deal with a difficult decision he's grappling with. Both here and the film essentially have Uncle Ben reminding Peter of his responsibilities that come with his superpowers. Comic Peter takes his advice, movie Peter rejects him. In the comics, this was spurred by a concussion, in the movie, it was just a manifestation of Peter's conscience.

This one could very well just be coincidence, but I'm not sure how many times Uncle Ben has appeared and had a conversation with Peter after his death.