Aaaand fuck you, Tony Daniel (?)
Nov. 11th, 2009 11:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefner***This post contains spoilers for the new issue of BATMAN, which hit stores today***
Y'know, when it was announced that Tony Daniel was going to be writing BATMAN, I steeled myself for whatever might come. I thought about how he made Jason Todd go completely out-of-character, turning him irrevocably evil for no reason in BATTLE FOR THE COWL, which already seems to be sorta-ignored by Grant Morrison's current BATMAN & ROBIN storyline (which I have problems with for different reasons, but whatever).
As such, I really hoped to be able to weather the imminent crapfest that was sure to be Tony Daniel's current run on BATMAN, taking it in stride when the first issue brought in Mario Falcone and thereby made THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY canon. Whatever, I can deal with that. It's no biggie.
And then, in his second part, this happened.
If you don't understand what those scans are about, the gist is that the Riddler--who had become mostly-reformed into a complex and shady private investigator--is now crazy and evil again. So all character development he's had over the past few years is shot down the tubes in the name of good ol' status quo, juuuuuust like what FACE THE FACE did to Harvey.
Now, my immediate reaction is to say, "Fuck you, Mr. Daniel," but the comments of some folks on scans_daily have got me thinking. Stig, my distinguished opponent, welcomed this reversion with glee.
"YESSS! THANK YOU TONY DANIEL! No more lame-ass-can't-get-anything-right-missing-his-balls-Dini-Riddler. At last we get the real Eddie, the masterful Eddie, the Eddie of "When Is A Door" back. If Daniel is going to make this permanent, here's to him, I say!" And when someone else pointed out what I'd say, that they've wasted all of Paul Dini's efforts to make the Riddler more interesting and complex, Stig responded with, "Under Dini, he had all the mental brilliance and style of Watson in one of the Basil Rathbone Holmes movies - i.e., stripped of ALL of his brilliance and style in order to be the bumbling comic relief."
I've gradually been discovering that many people dislike Dini's work on DETECTIVE COMICS,* so I'm going to assume he's not alone in his opinion on Dini's Riddler. Furthermore, there are those who, like![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
icon_uk, see Dini's work on the Riddler as less character development, and more a plot device.
I don't agree with that, but even if I did, that doesn't erase my rage because it still amounts to the same thing: wasted potential for character development. And few things in comics piss me off quite like that.
Want an example of just one possibility of what could have been done with the Riddler Dini had established? Check outbox_in_the_box's excellent essay on what he would do if he wrote the Riddler. But then, I realize that sort of thing probably wouldn't happen for the same reason that Harvey Dent was doomed to become Two-Face again.
The problem is, superhero comics are doomed to the status quo. Things may change, characters may grow, but only for a little while. Sooner or later, everything goes right back to the way it was. Sometimes, I take comfort in this knowledge, just as I did knowing Hal Jordan would return as GL someday, and I know that Ted Kord will come back to life.
But I have a special affection for the Bat-villains, and therein lies the problem. Because they aren't the stars. Oh, in a very real way, they are; everyone knows Batman has the best rogues gallery in comics, hands-down (what's his competition? Only Spider-Man's comes to mind, with the Flash's getting an honorable mention since the Rogues are a wee bit different than your average villains). But the problem with being so beloved is that they're sort of stuck in their roles, with little wiggle room for lasting growth. At the end of the day, everything has to be reduced to this simple idea: they're the villains, therefore evil, and Batman is the hero, therefore good, and thus he has to fight them.
It's things like this which really make me sympathize with fanfic writers, y'know?
But don't get me wrong. I LOVE these characters in their archetypical depictions. Mostly. For me, I feel like writers should start with the characters as they were depicted on BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and build up from there, because those are generally as iconic and definitive as we'll ever see for these guys. I'm not saying they should adhere to those depictions, though. Hell no! I want them to just *start* with that, and go from there!
As such, even with this lame-ass setback, I still hold out hope for Eddie Nigma, just as I did little over a year ago when I wrote my "On the Riddler" essay. I still want to see that Riddler. Not some drastic reinvention like bishie!Riddler, nor some grinning one-note evil madman like Daniel's created. I want a Riddler who incorporates the Riddler of Frank Gorshin, John Glover, and Robert Englund's performances, the Riddler from Gaiman's "When is a Door?", Jones' "Run Riddler Run,"... hell, even Jeph Loeb's HUSH.** Perhaps in time, someone will actually care enough about supporting characters like Eddie to actually give him and the rest of them the treatment and development they deserve.
Until then: fuck you, Tony Daniel.***
*I confess, I don't entirely understand why some people have hated Dini's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but good grief, did you folks read his Christmas Joker issue, or the Ra's al Ghul epilogue? The former is one of the most perfect Joker stories of all time, and the latter was better than the *entirety* of the RESURRECTION OF RA'S AL GHUL storyline! Including Dini's stuff!
**God, saying that burned. I fucking hate HUSH so much, and am still sorry I subjected my poor Henchgirl to it. She keeps meaning to write an epic critical essay as to why HUSH sucks so much, but every time she starts, she grows too furious to continue.
***Unless of course, you're actually planning on going somewhere fresh and new with this reverted Eddie. But I seriously doubt it. For god's sake, Daniel pulled a "Guy Gardner" on Eddie! I'm not even joking! Remember when Guy got bashed in the head and became nice for fifteen issues, then got bashed again and returned to his jerkish self? He grinned evilly and declared "I'm BAAAAAAAACK!"
Remember that? Huh, how about that, that's exactly what Daniel did in those panels. I'm sure it works just as well here, except that it's a cliched-as-hell line that only worked in JLI BECAUSE JLI WAS A FUCKING COMEDY YOU ASS I'm okay I'm okay.
... with my luck, Mr. Daniel's probably reading this. Well, if he is, I'll use this opportunity to tell him why he's wrong for preferring Jim Lee's costume design for the Huntress.
Y'know, when it was announced that Tony Daniel was going to be writing BATMAN, I steeled myself for whatever might come. I thought about how he made Jason Todd go completely out-of-character, turning him irrevocably evil for no reason in BATTLE FOR THE COWL, which already seems to be sorta-ignored by Grant Morrison's current BATMAN & ROBIN storyline (which I have problems with for different reasons, but whatever).
As such, I really hoped to be able to weather the imminent crapfest that was sure to be Tony Daniel's current run on BATMAN, taking it in stride when the first issue brought in Mario Falcone and thereby made THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY canon. Whatever, I can deal with that. It's no biggie.
And then, in his second part, this happened.
If you don't understand what those scans are about, the gist is that the Riddler--who had become mostly-reformed into a complex and shady private investigator--is now crazy and evil again. So all character development he's had over the past few years is shot down the tubes in the name of good ol' status quo, juuuuuust like what FACE THE FACE did to Harvey.
Now, my immediate reaction is to say, "Fuck you, Mr. Daniel," but the comments of some folks on scans_daily have got me thinking. Stig, my distinguished opponent, welcomed this reversion with glee.
"YESSS! THANK YOU TONY DANIEL! No more lame-ass-can't-get-anything-right-missing-his-balls-Dini-Riddler. At last we get the real Eddie, the masterful Eddie, the Eddie of "When Is A Door" back. If Daniel is going to make this permanent, here's to him, I say!" And when someone else pointed out what I'd say, that they've wasted all of Paul Dini's efforts to make the Riddler more interesting and complex, Stig responded with, "Under Dini, he had all the mental brilliance and style of Watson in one of the Basil Rathbone Holmes movies - i.e., stripped of ALL of his brilliance and style in order to be the bumbling comic relief."
I've gradually been discovering that many people dislike Dini's work on DETECTIVE COMICS,* so I'm going to assume he's not alone in his opinion on Dini's Riddler. Furthermore, there are those who, like
icon_uk, see Dini's work on the Riddler as less character development, and more a plot device. I don't agree with that, but even if I did, that doesn't erase my rage because it still amounts to the same thing: wasted potential for character development. And few things in comics piss me off quite like that.
Want an example of just one possibility of what could have been done with the Riddler Dini had established? Check out
box_in_the_box's excellent essay on what he would do if he wrote the Riddler. But then, I realize that sort of thing probably wouldn't happen for the same reason that Harvey Dent was doomed to become Two-Face again. The problem is, superhero comics are doomed to the status quo. Things may change, characters may grow, but only for a little while. Sooner or later, everything goes right back to the way it was. Sometimes, I take comfort in this knowledge, just as I did knowing Hal Jordan would return as GL someday, and I know that Ted Kord will come back to life.
But I have a special affection for the Bat-villains, and therein lies the problem. Because they aren't the stars. Oh, in a very real way, they are; everyone knows Batman has the best rogues gallery in comics, hands-down (what's his competition? Only Spider-Man's comes to mind, with the Flash's getting an honorable mention since the Rogues are a wee bit different than your average villains). But the problem with being so beloved is that they're sort of stuck in their roles, with little wiggle room for lasting growth. At the end of the day, everything has to be reduced to this simple idea: they're the villains, therefore evil, and Batman is the hero, therefore good, and thus he has to fight them.
It's things like this which really make me sympathize with fanfic writers, y'know?
But don't get me wrong. I LOVE these characters in their archetypical depictions. Mostly. For me, I feel like writers should start with the characters as they were depicted on BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and build up from there, because those are generally as iconic and definitive as we'll ever see for these guys. I'm not saying they should adhere to those depictions, though. Hell no! I want them to just *start* with that, and go from there!
As such, even with this lame-ass setback, I still hold out hope for Eddie Nigma, just as I did little over a year ago when I wrote my "On the Riddler" essay. I still want to see that Riddler. Not some drastic reinvention like bishie!Riddler, nor some grinning one-note evil madman like Daniel's created. I want a Riddler who incorporates the Riddler of Frank Gorshin, John Glover, and Robert Englund's performances, the Riddler from Gaiman's "When is a Door?", Jones' "Run Riddler Run,"... hell, even Jeph Loeb's HUSH.** Perhaps in time, someone will actually care enough about supporting characters like Eddie to actually give him and the rest of them the treatment and development they deserve.
Until then: fuck you, Tony Daniel.***
*I confess, I don't entirely understand why some people have hated Dini's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but good grief, did you folks read his Christmas Joker issue, or the Ra's al Ghul epilogue? The former is one of the most perfect Joker stories of all time, and the latter was better than the *entirety* of the RESURRECTION OF RA'S AL GHUL storyline! Including Dini's stuff!
**God, saying that burned. I fucking hate HUSH so much, and am still sorry I subjected my poor Henchgirl to it. She keeps meaning to write an epic critical essay as to why HUSH sucks so much, but every time she starts, she grows too furious to continue.
***Unless of course, you're actually planning on going somewhere fresh and new with this reverted Eddie. But I seriously doubt it. For god's sake, Daniel pulled a "Guy Gardner" on Eddie! I'm not even joking! Remember when Guy got bashed in the head and became nice for fifteen issues, then got bashed again and returned to his jerkish self? He grinned evilly and declared "I'm BAAAAAAAACK!"
Remember that? Huh, how about that, that's exactly what Daniel did in those panels. I'm sure it works just as well here, except that it's a cliched-as-hell line that only worked in JLI BECAUSE JLI WAS A FUCKING COMEDY YOU ASS I'm okay I'm okay.
... with my luck, Mr. Daniel's probably reading this. Well, if he is, I'll use this opportunity to tell him why he's wrong for preferring Jim Lee's costume design for the Huntress.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 07:35 am (UTC)I argued for twenty minutes against Huntress's Jim Lee duds on the practicality issue of running around Gotham with a bare stomach and was simply told that if I had an issue with sexy girl costumes, maybe I could fuck off and let the people who were actual heterosexuals have their girly comics and I threw up my hands in frustration.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 07:41 am (UTC)Sometimes, the fandom really, really makes me reconsider being a fan at all. I keep telling myself it's getting better, that in twenty years, it'll all be improved. At least a little bit. I'm hoping that superheroes' recent acceptance into mainstream pop culture might let some of the stuffy nerd niche element... "air out" a bit, if you catch the clumsy metaphor toward which I'm fumbling.
Probably won't happen. But I have to hope.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 08:55 am (UTC)I mean, if they're going to use that argument, then I want some goddamned eye candy too! I know there are a hell ton of hetero girls that would agree with me, so this isn't even about my ghey getting all over everything.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 02:27 pm (UTC)I still think it would be nice to have more eye candy with pretty boys. I mean, half the rogues are fops and dandies. The artists have to be REALLY REALLY DETERMINED not to make that eye candy.
(sigh)
Yet, they are that determined. Everyone is all into making everything all dirty and icky. Boo. :c
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 08:52 am (UTC)I really have nothing to say, I'm just grinning like Joker right now. I'm going to just draw your attention to my icon, and continue grinning like a loon.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 04:39 am (UTC)http://www.fanfiction.net/~bitemetechie
no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 06:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:16 am (UTC)Of course, you know what Daniel's gonna do right? He's gonna have Eddie try and prove to the world that Bruce is Batman, but it won't work, because it's actually Tommy Elliot disguised as Bruce! OH HAHAHA HOW FUCKING CLEVER.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 06:40 pm (UTC)I refrained from the argument on s_d because I really, really liked the idea of a reformed Eddie. Or a sort-of reformed Eddie. I happen to think there is some room in comics for a character who is neither 'good' not 'evil', who mostly obeys the law (on the big things, anyway), but who is essentially only looking out for themselves.
Throwing out character development to return to an earlier paradigm is not 'returning to the status quo'. That character development was never intended to be temporary. It is the new status quo.
I can't stress this enough, but if a reformed Eddie isn't being written well, it's not because he's reformed, it's because incompetent writers are writing him. The same holds true for any and all character development that is summarily chucked out to return to an earlier status quo. If the writers can't write a good story with the material, they have two options: bow out of the assignment gracefully or write an 'untold story' from the era they want to work with.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 10:10 pm (UTC)I'm kind of curious to read "Hush" now to see if it really is that bad. The next time henchgirl visits you, the two of you should do a vlog where you just bitch about the story. I think it could be rather epic. She could channel her rage into a lengthy rant and it would spare her the hassle of writing it all out.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-12 10:25 pm (UTC)I have fond memories of BTAS Riddler; I think his eps were the first few bits of B:TAS I saw back when I was tiny (it's a show I enjoyed as a kid but have been able to appreciate far more recently, like Beast Wars and Animaniacs).
no subject
Date: 2009-11-13 01:09 am (UTC)