COMIC REPORT

[thehefner]

I love Silver Age Lex Luthor. Sometimes I really don't know if I prefer corporate businessman Lex Luthor or mad scientist Lex Luthor, but I've often seen both version stay faithful to the spirit of the character, which is the more important thing.

Lex is just such an awesome villain, and it's a shame that--like the Joker--there are so many writers who fuck him up or lame-ify him because they just don't get the character.



Okay. Who here has read SLEEPER, by Brubaker and Sean Phillips? Because SLEEPER is fucking excellent, like a great HBO series brought to comics. It was seriously hyped up both by the likes of Brian K. Vaughan and Warren Ellis as well as my colleagues at Big Planet, and it still surpassed expectations (of which I had few, for some reason). Can't wait to lend SLEEPER to Danny and Kevin.

Here, have some examples of SLEEPER's awesomeness: the fucked-up-ed-ness that is Miss Misery and and the secret origin of... FagHag?

I am now very sad that I'm not still working at the comic shop so I can't tell people to read SLEEPER instead of overblown similar shit like WANTED.*



On the other hand, I'm still more happy to be out of the store. Because really, it was turning me into a comic grouch, and I don't want to be a comic grouch. Honestly, I don't. Much of my grouchiness came from the overwhelming popularity of certain things that I--for one reason or another--strongly did not enjoy, and it became harder and harder to reconcile objectivity when faced with the rabidness of fans. This is not healthy for anybody.

I'm working on it. I love my comics, but I think we need some time apart.

And there are some frustrations that are stronger than others, like Mark Millar's continued popularity or how THE BOYS continues to be a top-seller. But even these, I could dismiss and get over, one way or another. More so than certain other comics. In fact, I've started to think of my frustrations with modern comics in terms of a three-headed Cerberus: SCOTT PILGRIM, Joss Whedon, and Jeph Loeb.

I've already ranted about SCOTT PILGRIM. Generally considered by many, with little-to-no irony, as the greatest comic of the 21st Century, and one of the greatest comics ever. And the appeal is totally lost on me, no matter how many times I reread the books. And now, with SHAUN/HOT FUZZ director Edgar Wright hemling the SCOTT PILGRIM movie with Michael Cera, the rabid hype of fans is going to be inescapable.**

And I've also already ranted about Joss Whedon, whose work I respect and admire, and I do see his genuine excellence, but it's a style I personally abhor.



Loeb's work is hugely popular even though it is crap. No, this is where objectivity ends. You give me a Jeph Loeb comic, any Jeph Loeb comic, and I can point-by-point show how that comic is riddled with trite cliched dialogue, inconsistent characterization, overblown posturing for the sake of overblown posturing, "smoke and mirrors" Distract-o-CrapTM storytelling, and plot holes plot holes plot holes.

On my last day, a young man came into the store to buy one of the older Loeb/Sale Batman compilations, saying that LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY had changed his life. Those were his exact words. "They changed my life." To my ears, this was sort of like someone saying "TEEN WOLF changed my life." Or "COMMANDO changed my life." Or "Howie Long's epic FIRESTORM changed my life." And guess what? All those films were ALSO written by Jeph Loeb.

My theory is that Loeb keeps teaming up with brilliant (or at least dazzling/popular) artists, which keeps everyone distracted from the scripts. I seriously challenge any LONG HALLOWEEN fan to say whether or not they think the book could possibly have been any good without Tim Sale doing the pretty, pretty art.**

Because people seem to forget that Loeb also wrote Liefeld's CAPTAIN AMERICA. No one gave that book a free pass, but again, I suppose more people were distracted by the shitty art than the shitty writing (maybe that's just it; many fans are into comics for the art as much as--or perhaps more than--the writing. If that's the case, then I can't argue with their tastes, because Loeb certainly does work with excellent, eye-catching artists). And his talents really haven't improved.

My other theory is that LONG HALLOWEEN, DARK VICTORY, and HUSH are all murder mysteries, which means that readers will accept any number of plot holes and crappy storytelling because they're holding out to see where the writer is going with all this. Maybe this really isn't shitty storytelling, maybe it's a clue! And by the end of LONG HALLOWEEN and HUSH alike, we're left with big reveal twist endings that makes the reader go, "Whoa, I did NOT see that coming!!!" until someone stops to actually think about it and realize, "Wait... that actually makes no sense."

Seriously, I am sorely tempted to write a detailed and reasoned critique of LONG HALLOWEEN for scans_daily, but I just don't have the time nor energy to devote to so much negativity, especially when I'd likely only be preaching to the choir. I'd only want to go through all that if it meant changing opinions, or at least opening a thoughtful discussion.

I am genuinely heartened that many are finally starting to see Loeb's hackery with HULK and ULTIMATES 3, the latter of which honestly made Millar's previous ULTIMATES work look nuanced and layered. But I fear that THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY will continue to be counted among the greatest, most essential, and most influential Batman comics of all time. And that's the real crime here.



Oh hell, enough ranting and bitchery. Let's go back to happy things!

Did you know that Daredevil almost had his own 80's cartoon series? With a canine sidekick? A super-seeing eye dog? Named Lightning, the Super-Dog?



That picture fills me with such endless happy.



*Which is now coming out as an even-crappier-looking film. The only thing the comic had going for it was it's premise, and you throw all that out for a shitty MATRIX rip-off five years after MATRIX rip-offs were actually fashionable? Lame.

**On the other hand, with Wright doing the SCOTT PILGRIM movie, maybe I'll finally understand the appeal once I see it in movie form rather than comic.

***Although I do think Tim Sale's Batman and Catwoman are both grotesquely ripped, and I do kinda run hot and cold on his HUGE-PERMA-FUCKING-GRIN Joker, which only serves the heighten Loeb's take on the Batman characters, turning them into flat, quote-spouting, one-note caricatures of themselves.

Comments

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Total change of subject: I'm totally itching to geek about the new Killing Joke with someone. Did you pick it up? What are your thoughts on Bolland's recoloring (as well as other edits)? I'm probably going to spend hours tomorrow comparing the two.

I don't know which I prefer, or if they're even comparable! What think you?

[lovedatjoker.livejournal.com]

I did an agonisingly long review of TKJ in my journal just the other day, prompted by picking it up and remembering how deeply it touched me as a young Joker fan many years ago.

I have yet to do a thorough comparison, but in the colouring - no, they can't be compared, although I do think the recolouring is better. If that even makes sense. I'd be interested in your thorough comparison as my reading copy of TKJ has gone AWOL!

The original colouring is bad-dream-esque - surreal - the new colouring is practically spartan. It's beautiful, delicate, stark and evocative. I still have a great deal of attachment to the original colouring but given how markedly different they are I don't blame Bolland for being disappointed with it as the original colourist and Bolland clearly had very different tones they wanted to convey. I especially loved the flashback scenes. I wish he'd kept Joker's purple eyes though. heh.

I noticed one particular edit to the Joker's mouth in the final few panels, where previously it had been turned down it was now almost smiling. I thought it was an interesting adjustment to make and tied it into some of my theories on what's going on in that end scene there.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I think it makes sense. I dunno, as of right now, I feel like the garishness helped establish a serious shift in tone within certain scenes, effective like an Argento flick, y'know? Like the normal coloring in the scene with Jim and Babs, then then BAM, the Joker at the door. Serious shock, even nightmarish. Now it's just, "Whup, there's the Joker. Hey there." Or the fun house, the fun house sequence really could have used more garish colors. It's meant to be a surreal soul-crushing nightmare!

At this moment, I sorta feel like the garishness of certain parts would play off the seriously improved dank realism of the new edition. I almost fear the tone is too uniform now, know what I mean? No gradation, apart from the flashbacks and modern stuff.

However, there's a hell of a lot going on in Bolland's new coloring that doesn't pop out at first glance. He's invested a hell of a lot of nuance and subtlety into this new work that will require serious study and comparison before I can make a final judgment.

I noticed that edit too, and I love it.

If you do a comparison, I'd absolutely love to hear your thoughts.

[lovedatjoker.livejournal.com]

yeah, I felt that way in the funhouse too, it was a bit anti-climatic for it to be so sombre - is where I really felt like the old colouring was very strong, very spot-on.

I see what you're saying about the uniformity on one hand, on the other I feel it does achieve an over-all sense of despair that, for me at least, pervades the story. Nonetheless, yes, it would be very cool to have that extreme contrast between garish and dank.

but yes, there is so much there to go over in detail and investigate. Hrm. I'll have to go home and pour through it now! Of course I have read TKJ so many times much of it is committed to memory (doubtless taking up valuable space in my brain I could devote to other things,heh) so some of the changes leapt out at me, but there's a lot more going on in far subtler ways. Love that passionately. Joker stories need to be in Bolland's hands more often.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I think the garish colors really work far better in certain places, just as I think the black and white with touches of color worked magnificently in the flashback sequences. In those latter especially, when we get to the big reveal of him now as the Joker, it's almost to say that color equals madness.

If we were to go with that way of thinking, I'd rather like to have certain scenes (any part in the carnival, when the Joker's at the door with the gun) to be awash with that color, while the flashbacks should be that black and white.

Because while Bolland's new coloring is beautiful, I started to really miss the atmospheric colors of Higgins work. Every scene was awash with ambient light, whether from carnival lights or from off the Bat-computer. But with Bolland's coloring, these people could be in the Batcave, in the carnival, underground or on a mountain top; it doesn't matter, since they're all colored with the same tones and lighting. Does that make sense?

I now feel the way I did when I saw the Italian cut of DAWN OF THE DEAD. I want to take both versions and edit them together into my own dream version. It would be jarring, but maybe jarring wouldn't be so bad for certain parts.

By and large I think I'd keep Bolland's new version. But there are some things I think work far better in the original.

I greatly look forward to your thoughts. Let me know what you think of mine.

(On a personal note, though, as someone who is to Two-Face what you are to the Joker: giving Harvey black and green hair? What the hell were you thinking, Bolland?!)

[lovedatjoker.livejournal.com]

LOL to the hair thing, that must've been paaaainful!

I like your thoughts a whole lot and in many ways can empathise - I think, conceptually, a splice of the two styles is a wonderfully idea but if it would actually work in practice - I'm not sure. The resulting effect may then simply be jarring and inconsistent in the not-good way.

I'm having a hard time making a decision. I think that the new colouring is 'better' from a modern aesthetic POV - it's nice and clear, it's pretty, you can see a lot of detail that perhaps got lost before - but I think the old colouring has a great deal of merit for numerous reasons, not least being the surreal, nightmarish impact that it has on the reader. Some things may become lost, but the overall atmosphere is magnificent.
In many ways, although the new colouring has that tinge of despair, it also kind of limits the emotional scope in the reader because it has just the one sustained emotional atmosphere throughout.

But you know what? You and I are both looking at this from the POV of people who've read the original numerous times. So when we open the book we know what's coming storywise and that *doubtless* effects out mindspace and emotions as we begin to read again. I would be interested to know what someone who has never read the book or heard about it thinks when they first open it up.

To be honest, I think the decision I am coming to after spending the last week being just not-sure, is that I am really glad there are TWO versions of the story out there and that they are both so different and so fabulous for very different reasons. Since I don't have to make the choice, I'm not going to. I'm going to let each one rest on its own merits. The original was for a very different time in comics, and my own attachment to it is nostalgic. The new is for a somewhat more self-conscious time, as comic books are being more and more seen as significant art forms.
The thing is, the original KJ actually contributed not-insignificantly to this mentality, odd colouring and all. I guess my concern is now that the new colouring will be touted at its expense and the attitude will gradually come to be that it was a botch job rather than appreciating it for something that was really quite daring and interpretative and effective.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Aye, I agree, I don't think we should have to choose! Quite right! I just hope DC keeps the original in print via the Complete Alan Moore DC TPB, so we'll still have both. Don't want DC to go and pull a George Lucas on us.

And it's true, we are reading it from that perspective. I try to keep that in mind, to speculate what it'd feel like to someone reading it now for the first time. At the same time I'm trying not to be a snob and hold back my strong opinions, "No, you're not reading it right! You understand nothing! NOTHING!"

In the scans_daily post on this, someone just pointed out:

Even the ending loses some impact: In the original, the Joker is bathed in half-dark, half-circus light, as he considers Batman's offer of redemption, a visual indicator of his state of mind. Now? ... *yawn* *sigh*

He has a point. So yeah, let's just keep both versions, just like we can have both versions of DAWN OF THE DEAD. Both give very different but equally valid perspectives on this one work of art (which even the artist--or rather, author--has disavowed it; has Moore ever gone into detail explaining what he dislikes about the story, beyond the regrettable fridging of Babs?)

How about this for an idea: the original version is from the Joker's mindset, a Joker-centric world, whereas the new version is from an outsider's/narrator's detached mindset, seeing all these things as they are through our own lenses, rather than the Joker's carnival-colored ones? I'm not articulating it entirely well, but it's a new thought that just popped in my head.