Batman's Realism
Pariah
As part of the Nightwing debates, it has been brought up about the
hypocrisy of Batman fans saying they don't want Starfire in Batman
titles (including Nightwing) because she is "not realistic".
Personally, I think they just choose poor wording. I was a Batfan first
and felt this way immediately, and I still do even though I collect more
nonBat titles than Bat-titles. However, 'realistic' isn't the right word
cause any Batman fan KNOWS that Batman is not a realistic comic... and
that things happen in Batman that would never happen in real life (even
if you CAN accept a man flying around the rooftops).
The problem with having.. say... Wally West in Batman is that he
doesn't fit with the genre.. or the mood of Batman titles. It's like
having a wacky character in a straight film... like having Jim Carrey in
a Batma... oh, wait... bad example. Seriously, though... I'm willing to
make allowances for some things and not for others depending on whether
or not the fit the bat-mood.
I would accept:
An alien secretly going to Gotham city, disguised as a normal person,
and helping Batman capture a villain.
I would not accept:
An alien dressed in a skimpy warrior outfit with green eyes and
strange-looking hair storming into Gotham to help Nightwing capture a
villain.
I would accept:
A man who gets dropped into a chemical solution and must exist in
sub-zero temperatures to live.
I would not accept:
A man storming into Gotham in a bright red-and-yellow costume who can
run the speed of light because of a chemical accident... or because of a
mystical power called the "Speed Force"
I would accept:
A man who was greatly injured in an accident getting his limbs replaced
with mechanical parts fighting with or against Batman (I would accept
Cyborg in this regards, now that I think about it)
A woman with supernatural healing abilities coming to Bruce's aid in a
time of need (I might not like it, but I'd accept it).
A woman who is immune to plant toxins, but can effect others with
physical contact.
An mysterious being with powers given to him from the heavens coming to
Gotham and helping guide Bruce to solve a case.
I would not accept:
A man born on a planet far away that comes to Earth in search of a
criminal, who just happens to speak Enlish (or learns it very quickly)
and happens to look exactly like humans do.
A boy who had some strange desease who was turned green during the cure
and was able to change into different animals.
A woman who comes from an island of only women that was founded by the
woman who was first brutalized by man long, long ago with super-powers.
A man who got a ring from a Corps of aliens that can make his will
become reality.
Exceptions and reasons:
Superman appearing from time to time: because he has such a long history
with Batman.
Anything non-Batman can happen in the Bat-annuals (And they do from time
to time).
My point is this: Batman is not realistic, but I want only things that
fit in the mood and tone of the Batman books to be in the book... that
includes things like John Jones (but not Martian Manhunter), Mr. Freeze,
Gearhead, Shondra Kinsolving, Poison Ivy, and Phantom Stranger.... that
doesn't include things like Starfire, Flash, Changeling, Wonder Woman
and Green Lantern.
Pariah
Marilee Stephens
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
: As part of the Nightwing debates, it has been brought up about the
: hypocrisy of Batman fans saying they don't want Starfire in Batman
: titles (including Nightwing) because she is "not realistic".
: Personally, I think they just choose poor wording. I was a Batfan first
: and felt this way immediately, and I still do even though I collect more
: nonBat titles than Bat-titles. However, 'realistic' isn't the right word
: cause any Batman fan KNOWS that Batman is not a realistic comic... and
: that things happen in Batman that would never happen in real life (even
: if you CAN accept a man flying around the rooftops).
: The problem with having.. say... Wally West in Batman is that he
: doesn't fit with the genre.. or the mood of Batman titles. It's like
: having a wacky character in a straight film... like having Jim Carrey in
: a Batma... oh, wait... bad example. Seriously, though... I'm willing to
: make allowances for some things and not for others depending on whether
: or not the fit the bat-mood.
See, I think this is where you and I differ, Mr. Pariah. Because
I grew up with a Batman who could and did regularly interact with the type
of people you say don't suit "his" world. I grew up with a Batman that
was a founding member and regular participant in the JLA (the classic
one). I grew up with a Batman who regularly teamed up with the type of
individuals you say aren't a part of his milieu in the Brave and the Bold
series. I had no problem ever with the concept of the Batman being a part
of the "super-hero" genre. I liked seeing how he acted with the rest of
the superheroes, how he could, without powers, be as important to
solving problems as the ones with. It was an interesting aspect of his
character that hasn't been done justice in the last several years. In
fact, I much preferred him back then, as if anything, he was more
"realistically" portrayed as a human being could be
than the cariacture that we're getting in the present bat-books (...
because frankly, he is a cariacture in the current books, as he's being
portrayed as an extreme exaggeration as opposed to anything else).
And in my mind, Nightwing fits in with the super-hero world much
better because that's where he's been the longest. Pre-late-80's and
early 90's, Batman was very much an intergral part of the DCU, and not
"segregated" off by himself. Such that Dick, as Robin and Nightwing, was
also very much an integral part of the DCU. And he continued that way
even past the time that the bat-books were being segmented off, as a
member and leader of the NTT/NT. So to now have him have to "conform" to
the editorial policies of the current bat-books really sits wrong with me
*because* he's never had to be like this before.
Heck, according to everything, Wally is suppose to be his best
friend (though I still haven't figured out when this happened). Are you
saying Wally shouldn't show up in Dick's book, especially considering that
they're supposed to be best friends. This is another problem I have with
the whole "isolation" of the Bat-books... While it might work for Bats
(and to my mind, that's debatable), there's absolutely no basis for it
having to pertain to Dick... His history and world is too tied into the
more "super-heroic" aspects of the DCU.
: I would accept:
: An alien secretly going to Gotham city, disguised as a normal person,
: and helping Batman capture a villain.
: I would not accept:
: An alien dressed in a skimpy warrior outfit with green eyes and
: strange-looking hair storming into Gotham to help Nightwing capture a
: villain.
Wheras I really can't see the distinction... If anything, Jonn
showing up "disguised as a normal person" means that he's using one of his
super-powers *constantly* through the whole story...
: I would accept:
: Exceptions and reasons:
Wheras I'm much more the opposite. Batman exists in the DCU.
They can't ignore that fact. So to me, it would be more "realistic" if
such things were shown. Poison Ivy is as non-realistic to me than
someone like Starfire or such, and I don't see the difference in tone...
She's a meta based on scientific (or as scientific as the DCU gets)
reasons... Much like Flash or Changeling. If she's allowed to exist in
the Bat-verse, than the others should be.
You might think I'm being dense about this... I'm not really. At
some level, I do understand what you're saying... But I don't agree with
it. There's too many fantastical elements and such in the bat-books, as
many as in the rest of the DCU, for this to be an acceptable rationale for
me.
Mari
Pariah
Well, as I said.. it has less to do with realism (and being realistic)
as it does with mood. By the time I was collecting, O'Neil had taken
over (which was good, because it was Batman that really got me into
comics)... You're right, he's not realistic right now (he's an extreme
personality)... most people are more well-rounded than he is. However,
his mood fits with the tone of the book.
>
> And in my mind, Nightwing fits in with the super-hero world much
> better because that's where he's been the longest. Pre-late-80's and
> early 90's, Batman was very much an intergral part of the DCU, and not
> "segregated" off by himself. Such that Dick, as Robin and Nightwing, was
> also very much an integral part of the DCU. And he continued that way
> even past the time that the bat-books were being segmented off, as a
> member and leader of the NTT/NT. So to now have him have to "conform" to
> the editorial policies of the current bat-books really sits wrong with me
> *because* he's never had to be like this before.
Nightwing IS more of a part of the DCU than Batman... and therefore I
wouldn't mind the aforementioned characters appearing in the Nightwing
book so much. However, they are making it a Batmanesque book and giving
it the Batman rules... which, in my opinion, worked for Batman. Since
they took that angle, I will defend it (same goes for the JLA)... even
though I might have wished they went with a different angle.
>
> Heck, according to everything, Wally is suppose to be his best
> friend (though I still haven't figured out when this happened). Are you
> saying Wally shouldn't show up in Dick's book, especially considering that
> they're supposed to be best friends. This is another problem I have with
> the whole "isolation" of the Bat-books... While it might work for Bats
> (and to my mind, that's debatable), there's absolutely no basis for it
> having to pertain to Dick... His history and world is too tied into the
> more "super-heroic" aspects of the DCU.
I'm saying that, according to the angle and mood they are going for,
Wally will not appear in the book... and really shouldn't. There isn't
much basis to do it for Dick... but they are (and that's really not what
the post was about in the first place).
>
> : I would accept:
> : An alien secretly going to Gotham city, disguised as a normal person,
> : and helping Batman capture a villain.
>
> : I would not accept:
> : An alien dressed in a skimpy warrior outfit with green eyes and
> : strange-looking hair storming into Gotham to help Nightwing capture a
> : villain.
>
> Wheras I really can't see the distinction... If anything, Jonn
> showing up "disguised as a normal person" means that he's using one of his
> super-powers *constantly* through the whole story...
I can... easily. I wouldn't mind J'Onn showing his powers (if he shape
changed between human forms and such)... I don't think other readers
would either. It's just having this big green guy right there that makes
the book feel less "real" (even though I acknowledge that it is no more
or less realistic either way... it just fits a lot better when he looks
like a human).
> : My point is this: Batman is not realistic, but I want only things that
> : fit in the mood and tone of the Batman books to be in the book... that
> : includes things like John Jones (but not Martian Manhunter), Mr. Freeze,
> : Gearhead, Shondra Kinsolving, Poison Ivy, and Phantom Stranger.... that
> : doesn't include things like Starfire, Flash, Changeling, Wonder Woman
> : and Green Lantern.
>
> Wheras I'm much more the opposite. Batman exists in the DCU.
> They can't ignore that fact. So to me, it would be more "realistic" if
> such things were shown. Poison Ivy is as non-realistic to me than
> someone like Starfire or such, and I don't see the difference in tone...
> She's a meta based on scientific (or as scientific as the DCU gets)
> reasons... Much like Flash or Changeling. If she's allowed to exist in
> the Bat-verse, than the others should be.
Again: I said it had less to do with being less realistic than with
tone.
Well, Batman exists in his corner of the universe.. it's like a school..
he's got his 'crowd' that hangs around him.. and others don't. But not
all characters in the same universe do (and should) interact. Would you
like to see Flash guest-star in PREACHER (unless he has?)? They both (to
my knowledge) take place in the DCU... Personally, I think of Batman's
corner of the universe like the Vertigo corner of the universe... and
therefore would like Flash to steer clear in both cases.
>
> You might think I'm being dense about this... I'm not really. At
> some level, I do understand what you're saying... But I don't agree with
> it. There's too many fantastical elements and such in the bat-books, as
> many as in the rest of the DCU, for this to be an acceptable rationale for
> me.
<shrug> I accept this as a difference in opinion. I am merely defending
my point-of-view... trying to point out that I see things differently,
but I'm not a hypocrit (as many non-Batman fans think) for setting my
own standards to what I think is appropriate and not appropriate to the
book.
Pariah
AaronMojo1
Pariah writes:
>My point is this: Batman is not realistic, but I want only things that
>fit in the mood and tone of the Batman books to be in the book... that
>includes things like John Jones (but not Martian Manhunter), Mr. Freeze,
>Gearhead, Shondra Kinsolving, Poison Ivy, and Phantom Stranger.... that
>doesn't include things like Starfire, Flash, Changeling, Wonder Woman
>and Green Lantern.
Yes! I agree completely... Don't even need to add anything. The whole post
was excellent.
-Aaron!
AaronMojo1
>She's a meta based on scientific (or as scientific as the DCU gets)
>reasons...
I just thought I'd bring this up -- I REALLY hate the term "meta" that
always gets used. All the ridiculous "meta" business. It's as bad as the Marvel
"mutant" excuse. I mean, Superman is Superman cause he's an alien who gets
weird abilities from a yellow sun. The Flash is the Flash cause he was doused
by chemicals and hit by lightning (I choose to completely ignore the absolutely
stupid "Speed Force"). Captain Marvel is Captain Marvel cause a wizard gave him
powers. And Poison Ivy (who the above quote refers to) is Poison Ivy because of
some freak chemical imbalance. Just don't attach "meta" to it.
-Aaron!
(Yes, I do get annoyed by the odder things.)
Pariah
Please go back and read what I was trying to say. You completely missed
the point of my post. The point of my post was that it was NOT about
being realistic or not, it was about fitting a certain moodor tone....
fitting the mood of the book. The whole point of the post was that
'realism' was a poor choice for people to use in defense of their
'contradictions'.
I said "Batman is not realistic"... meaning that I accept that Batman
will not be a realistic comic book. HOWEVER, there are certain types of
unrealisticness that I will accept because it fits with the tone of the
book (Demon, Spectre) and others that will not (Starfire, Superman).
Dwight Williams
I assume you're being sarcastic?
Sorry, but I see room for all of the above, whether you want to see them
show up in the Bat-books(especially _Nightwing_) or not.
Too pooped to argue this early in the morning...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Pariah
They could appear... but a lot of Batman fans wouldn't like those things
to start happening regularly.
Pariah
umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca
AaronMojo1 writes:
>Pariah writes:
>>My point is this: Batman is not realistic, but I want only things that
>>fit in the mood and tone of the Batman books to be in the book... that
>>includes things like John Jones (but not Martian Manhunter), Mr. Freeze,
>>Gearhead, Shondra Kinsolving, Poison Ivy, and Phantom Stranger.... that
>>doesn't include things like Starfire, Flash, Changeling, Wonder Woman
>>and Green Lantern.
> Yes! I agree completely... Don't even need to add anything. The whole post
>was excellent.
In which case, this post is unnecessary, and you're spamming.
*BONK* Bad Aaron :-)
And to avoid spamming myself, the list above is entirely random. Mr.
Freeze and Poison Ivy, in particular, have nothing inherent in their
characters that make them "right" for the Bat-books. They are residents
in them because of history, when nobody had a problem with Bats fighting
the out-there characters. The fact is, it wouldn't be that hard to write
a story that would put any of Kory, Wally, or the others into the
Bat-Universe without violating its 'feel', and probably without
detracting from their own personalities. They do it every time Freeze
returns.
Iain
--
MacNair Family Farm Graysville, Manitoba, Canada
"Guns and God, just remember/ You're never going to know this world without
them." - Lawrence Gowan
Pariah
umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
> AaronMojo1 writes:
>
> >Pariah writes:
> >>My point is this: Batman is not realistic, but I want only things that
> >>fit in the mood and tone of the Batman books to be in the book... that
> >>includes things like John Jones (but not Martian Manhunter), Mr. Freeze,
> >>Gearhead, Shondra Kinsolving, Poison Ivy, and Phantom Stranger.... that
> >>doesn't include things like Starfire, Flash, Changeling, Wonder Woman
> >>and Green Lantern.
>
> > Yes! I agree completely... Don't even need to add anything. The whole post
> >was excellent.
>
> In which case, this post is unnecessary, and you're spamming.
>
> *BONK* Bad Aaron :-)
>
> And to avoid spamming myself, the list above is entirely random. Mr.
> Freeze and Poison Ivy, in particular, have nothing inherent in their
> characters that make them "right" for the Bat-books.
Mr. Freeze is the cold villain... cold is haunting.. haunting is
accepted in Batman.
Poison Ivy is the 'dangerous liaison'... the beautiful woman it is
dangerous to get to know.
It's a stretch, but it's been consteud to fit into the Batreality
> They are residents
> in them because of history, when nobody had a problem with Bats fighting
> the out-there characters. The fact is, it wouldn't be that hard to write
> a story that would put any of Kory, Wally, or the others into the
> Bat-Universe without violating its 'feel', and probably without
> detracting from their own personalities.
It would have to be craftily done.
> They do it every time Freeze
> returns.
He doesn't return too often... and when he does, it's usually well-done.
Pariah
JAK
In the 1950s you had aliens galore in the Batman books. And if DC thought
having more aliens in the Batman books in 1998 would sell more issues, then
by all means you'd see more aliens.
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote in article
<34746A...@bayou.uh.edu>...
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> Mr. Freeze is the cold villain... cold is haunting.. haunting is
> accepted in Batman.
Honestly......that is a genuine stretch. I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt and ask for more details here, but as is, that comes
across VERY poorly.
> > Poison Ivy is the 'dangerous liaison'... the beautiful woman it is
> dangerous to get to know.
>
> It's a stretch, but it's been consteud to fit into the Batreality
I won't do it, but there would be others who could easily cite
similar character in more 'superhero' oriented books.
> He doesn't return too often... and when he does, it's usually well-done.
That doesn't make him any more or less suited for the 'tone' of
the book than a well-written Superman or Spectre. I honestly do believe
you are stretching a point well beyond credibility on this one.
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
the batfans will put up with it.
Most batfans don't want Superman there... I am of the exception on that
one.. and Spectre, with his latest angle (given from his series) is a
perfect match for the Batman book.
Pariah
Pariah
JAK wrote:
>
> In the 1950s you had aliens galore in the Batman books. And if DC thought
> having more aliens in the Batman books in 1998 would sell more issues, then
> by all means you'd see more aliens.
Oh, I have no doubt of that. I would, however, stop collecting. It's a
matter of personal taste, really.
Pariah
Dwight Williams
Well, considering that organized crime from off-planet has been making
slow inroads on Earth in Keystone-Central and Dallas-Fort Worth(in _Flash_ and
_The Darkstars_)...interstellar slave trade, ET-produced designer drugs and
the like...if I were Bruce, I'd start worrying about Gotham in *that*
regard, too...
Nathan Sanders
>Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
>to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
>the batfans will put up with it.
??? Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Superman have history with Batman, so
they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
Nice double standard.
Nathan
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Sanders Department of Linguistics
san...@ling.ucsc.edu University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders Santa Cruz, California 95064
Pariah
Woah.. are you telling me that Darkstars have had stories in Texas??
Neato... what issues?
Pariah
Pariah
Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> In article <3477E3...@bayou.uh.edu>, Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
> >to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
> >the batfans will put up with it.
>
> ??? Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Superman have history with Batman, so
> they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
> Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
Mr. Freeze's history with Batman is much longer than Dick's with the New
Titans... Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy are BATMAN characters... so most
Batman fans don't mind.
I wouldn't mind Superman showing up in Batman... but he's not a
Batman/Gotham character, so others do mind. If Superman were a Gotham
character, he'd be accepted.
>
> Nice double standard.
Less of a double standard, more of a 'where do we draw the line'...
Accepted:
1. Characters who are directly Batman related (Batman, Robin, Oracle)
2. Non-powered heroes or heroes that come from the Batman books
(Huntress, Geist, Joe Public, Black Canary)
3. Villains whose history resides primarily with Batman and Gotham
4. Super-powered characters who fit with Batman's 'tone'
Not accepted:
1. Colorful heroes that are not part of the Batman Mythos
2. Super-heroes or powered characters that do not fit the 'tone'
Are there any rules I have forgotten?
Pariah
Marilee Stephens
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
: Nathan Sanders wrote:
: >
: > In article <3477E3...@bayou.uh.edu>, Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
: >
: > >Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
: > >to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
: > >the batfans will put up with it.
: >
: > ??? Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Superman have history with Batman, so
: > they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
: > Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
: Mr. Freeze's history with Batman is much longer than Dick's with the New
: Titans... Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy are BATMAN characters... so most
: Batman fans don't mind.
While his published history may be longer, it is not as intensive
a history as Dick's with the Titans (Teen or New Teen). Looking at the
characters themselves, there is nothing to differentiate between these
super-powered human beings (or in Ivy's case, former human beings) and the
likes of Flash or Changeling.
: I wouldn't mind Superman showing up in Batman... but he's not a
: Batman/Gotham character, so others do mind. If Superman were a Gotham
: character, he'd be accepted.
: >
: > Nice double standard.
: Less of a double standard, more of a 'where do we draw the line'...
But the line you seem to be drawing is again based purely on
external factors and not the internal factors (characterization and
history) of the characters.
: Accepted:
: 1. Characters who are directly Batman related (Batman, Robin, Oracle)
: 2. Non-powered heroes or heroes that come from the Batman books
: (Huntress, Geist, Joe Public, Black Canary)
Black Canary was not a bat-character and did not come from the
bat-books. And she used to be super-powered. She's (or her mother,
depending on what history you follow) was a later member of the JSA and
then the JLA. Only in the last few years has she been co-opted as a
bat-character.
: 3. Villains whose history resides primarily with Batman and Gotham
: 4. Super-powered characters who fit with Batman's 'tone'
That use of "tone" again... I find this to be an extremely
"artificial" line that you are drawing, Mr. Pariah... Based more on
subjective likes and dislikes than anything intrinsic to the characters...
: Not accepted:
: 1. Colorful heroes that are not part of the Batman Mythos
: 2. Super-heroes or powered characters that do not fit the 'tone'
: Are there any rules I have forgotten?
Are any of the rules you made up actual good story building rules
or more just the preferential likes of you and others (ie. the bat
editorial staff). They're definitely not dealing with any of the
characters in general.
Mari
Matches Malone
Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
> Poison Ivy is the 'dangerous liaison'... the beautiful woman it is
> dangerous to get to know.
> It's a stretch, but it's been consteud to fit into the Batreality
Ivy's kind of an odd case. She started off as pretty much a
second-rate Catwoman. Her acquisition of metahuman abilities has really
only taken place in the past few years, presumably to make her a more
formidable opponent. And even now, her powers are written very
erratically. Gaiman's Ivy was sprouting leaves and such, while
Ostrander's didn't seem to have any powers at all.
--
********************************************************
** "Why can't we have one meeting that doesn't end **
** with us digging up a corpse?" - Diamond Joe Quimby **
*************************** schm...@email.unc.edu *****
Dwight Williams
Nathan Sanders (syn...@cats.ucsc.edu) writes:
> In article <3477E3...@bayou.uh.edu>, Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>
>>Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
>>to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
>>the batfans will put up with it.
>
> ??? Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Superman have history with Batman, so
> they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
> Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
>
> Nice double standard.
Indeed. One we could all do without, IMHO. Preferably forever.
Dwight Williams
Uhm...from about the first issue of _The Darkstars_ onwards, as I recall.
They did start doing a bit more travelling after # 12 or so, but don't
quote me on that...
Pariah
> : >
> : > >Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
> : > >to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
> : > >the batfans will put up with it.
> : >
> : > ??? Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Superman have history with Batman, so
> : > they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
> : > Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
>
> : Titans... Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy are BATMAN characters... so most
> : Batman fans don't mind.
>
> While his published history may be longer, it is not as intensive
> a history as Dick's with the Titans (Teen or New Teen). Looking at the
> characters themselves, there is nothing to differentiate between these
> super-powered human beings (or in Ivy's case, former human beings) and the
> likes of Flash or Changeling.
>
> : I wouldn't mind Superman showing up in Batman... but he's not a
> : Batman/Gotham character, so others do mind. If Superman were a Gotham
> : character, he'd be accepted.
>
> : >
> : > Nice double standard.
>
> : Less of a double standard, more of a 'where do we draw the line'...
>
> But the line you seem to be drawing is again based purely on
> external factors and not the internal factors (characterization and
> history) of the characters.
Yeah.. I'm making exceptions based on external factors...
>
> : Accepted:
> : 1. Characters who are directly Batman related (Batman, Robin, Oracle)
> : 2. Non-powered heroes or heroes that come from the Batman books
> : (Huntress, Geist, Joe Public, Black Canary)
>
> Black Canary was not a bat-character and did not come from the
> bat-books. And she used to be super-powered. She's (or her mother,
> depending on what history you follow) was a later member of the JSA and
> then the JLA. Only in the last few years has she been co-opted as a
> bat-character.
I REALLY didn't mean to put her on that list... because I really do know
better (as a GA fan, I'm ashamed of myself). Now, however, she is
powerless and lives in Gotham.... most importantly, she's powerless.
>
> : 3. Villains whose history resides primarily with Batman and Gotham
> : 4. Super-powered characters who fit with Batman's 'tone'
>
> That use of "tone" again... I find this to be an extremely
> "artificial" line that you are drawing, Mr. Pariah... Based more on
> subjective likes and dislikes than anything intrinsic to the characters...
Oh, it's VERY subjective... however, most of the batfans think the same
way... Any line drawn can be artificial by those who disagree with it.
>
> : Not accepted:
> : 1. Colorful heroes that are not part of the Batman Mythos
> : 2. Super-heroes or powered characters that do not fit the 'tone'
>
> : Are there any rules I have forgotten?
>
> Are any of the rules you made up actual good story building rules
> or more just the preferential likes of you and others (ie. the bat
> editorial staff). They're definitely not dealing with any of the
> characters in general.
They are preferential for stories that I will enjoy... and so do many
Batfans.
Mr. Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> Well, you bring up a couple exceptions to the rule with too much history
> to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
> the batfans will put up with it.
You realise the same arguments can be made for characters that
the Titans fans would want to see.......
>
> Most batfans don't want Superman there... I am of the exception on that
> one.. and Spectre, with his latest angle (given from his series) is a
> perfect match for the Batman book.
Again, I'd debate that. Spectre is virtually omnipotent. If your
angle is 'human-level' stories, then Spectre is WAY out of being a match.
Even in tone, Spectre is highly metaphysical (I believe his last story
arc is a search for God, no less?) and isn't really in your definition of
tone.
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
Dwight Williams wrote:
>
> Nathan Sanders (syn...@cats.ucsc.edu) writes:
> > In article <3477E3...@bayou.uh.edu>, Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
> >>the batfans will put up with it.
> >
> > they can violate the "tone/mood/realism/whatever" of the Batbooks, but
> > Dick's Titans *history* doesn't count?
> >
>
> Indeed. One we could all do without, IMHO. Preferably forever.
Well.. these are completely preferencial and subjective... I'm just
saying where the batfans (who are isolationalists) are coming from.
Pariah
Marilee Stephens
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
: Dwight Williams wrote:
: >
: > Indeed. One we could all do without, IMHO. Preferably forever.
: Well.. these are completely preferencial and subjective... I'm just
: saying where the batfans (who are isolationalists) are coming from.
No... you're just saying what *some* bat-fans (I don't think you
can speak for all bat-fans, since, as I explained, I'm also a bat-fan and
I don't feel that way at all) are coming from. I don't know what the
percentages are of those who do want this and those who don't and those
who don't care. I do object to the generalization that all bat-fans feel
this way.
Mari
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
>
> Pariah,
>
> > to be denied access to the Bat-legends.. and because of their history,
> > the batfans will put up with it.
>
> the Titans fans would want to see.......
Naturally. It's a completely subjective argument.
> >
> > Most batfans don't want Superman there... I am of the exception on that
> > one.. and Spectre, with his latest angle (given from his series) is a
> > perfect match for the Batman book.
>
> Again, I'd debate that. Spectre is virtually omnipotent. If your
> angle is 'human-level' stories, then Spectre is WAY out of being a match.
> Even in tone, Spectre is highly metaphysical (I believe his last story
> arc is a search for God, no less?) and isn't really in your definition of
> tone.
Not human-level stories... 'gothic toned' stories... things like
gargoyles, angels, wraths of god... fit perfectly, in my opinion.
Pariah
>
> Ian Tavener.
Pariah
Correct... some batfans. I was referring to the batfans that I am
speaking for... I do not mean to say that all Batfans feel the way I do.
Though I see taht it really did come out that way. Sorry.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> Naturally. It's a completely subjective argument.
So is it possible that you can see any of the arguments that
myself and others have put forward about the Titans and Nightwing might
have merit?
> Not human-level stories... 'gothic toned' stories... things like
> gargoyles, angels, wraths of god... fit perfectly, in my opinion.
But that's a recent creation for the Bat-books.....I'd argue
Gothic in terms of the city, but the rest sounds like something out of
the X-Files......if people don't accept gargoyles, angels, and wrath of
god, they go with a scientific, although equally 'matter of faith'
alternative. Aliens. It's an incredibly fine line of acceptability.
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
>
> Pariah,
>
> > Naturally. It's a completely subjective argument.
> So is it possible that you can see any of the arguments that
> myself and others have put forward about the Titans and Nightwing might
> have merit?
There is a difference.
You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
subjective than the other two.
To say you prefer something is completely subjective... To say something
is 'good' and 'bad' are objective measures (to subjective criteria...
this is where we differed). We measure our definitions of 'good' and
'bad' writing differently, which is why we can't agree.
>
> > Not human-level stories... 'gothic toned' stories... things like
> > gargoyles, angels, wraths of god... fit perfectly, in my opinion.
>
> But that's a recent creation for the Bat-books.....I'd argue
> Gothic in terms of the city, but the rest sounds like something out of
> the X-Files......if people don't accept gargoyles, angels, and wrath of
> god, they go with a scientific, although equally 'matter of faith'
> alternative. Aliens. It's an incredibly fine line of acceptability.
I understand that the line is fine and subjective... but it's there in
the hearts and minds of many batman fans.
I'm not saying "Batman was meant to be this way"... I am saying "Batman
should be this way" (because this is the way that I will enjoy it the
most).
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> There is a difference.
>
> You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
> didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
> book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
> subjective than the other two.
>
> To say you prefer something is completely subjective... To say something
> is 'good' and 'bad' are objective measures (to subjective criteria...
> this is where we differed). We measure our definitions of 'good' and
> 'bad' writing differently, which is why we can't agree.
Okay.......but that doesn't really answer my question. Given that
we are dealing with highly subjective issues, although there are always
objective criteria for such, can you see where the Titans people are
coming from?
> I understand that the line is fine and subjective... but it's there in
> the hearts and minds of many batman fans.
>
> I'm not saying "Batman was meant to be this way"... I am saying "Batman
> should be this way" (because this is the way that I will enjoy it the
> most).
Okay.....then this begs to be asked: Should the Bat-titles change
their direction (which is entirely possible, given the upsurge in a) DC's
desire to recapture the older market by using more Silver Age homage in
their stories, and b) As a reaction to the grim and gritty style, which
is far less popular than it was even two or three years ago), would you
continue to buy the comics, keeping in mind this is a character you've
liked before?
One of the reasons that Mari, myself and others continue to read
Nightwing is a liking for the character despite and in spite of changes
we feel aren't being true to the character. Would you and the other
Batfans be willing to do the same?
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
>
> Pariah,
>
> > There is a difference.
> >
> > You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
> > didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
> > book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
> > subjective than the other two.
> >
> > To say you prefer something is completely subjective... To say something
> > is 'good' and 'bad' are objective measures (to subjective criteria...
> > this is where we differed). We measure our definitions of 'good' and
> > 'bad' writing differently, which is why we can't agree.
>
> Okay.......but that doesn't really answer my question. Given that
> we are dealing with highly subjective issues, although there are always
> objective criteria for such, can you see where the Titans people are
> coming from?
I've ALWAYS seen where they were coming from. I just vigorously
disagreed on what constitutes 'bad writing'
>
> > I understand that the line is fine and subjective... but it's there in
> > the hearts and minds of many batman fans.
> >
> > I'm not saying "Batman was meant to be this way"... I am saying "Batman
> > should be this way" (because this is the way that I will enjoy it the
> > most).
>
> Okay.....then this begs to be asked: Should the Bat-titles change
> their direction (which is entirely possible, given the upsurge in a) DC's
> desire to recapture the older market by using more Silver Age homage in
> their stories, and b) As a reaction to the grim and gritty style, which
> is far less popular than it was even two or three years ago), would you
> continue to buy the comics, keeping in mind this is a character you've
> liked before?
It really depends. I never really cared for Bruce Wayne, the character
(as he is portrayed currently, anyway)... I really care for his stories.
Therefore with no real emotional attachment to the character, I would
probably drop the books if I didn't like the stories anymore... though
occasionally buy an issue every now and then just to know what's going
on. I would probably continue to collect Robin and Nightwing, though,
because I like the characters. I don't see Batman's tone changing for a
while though... I don't think they're going to oust O'Neil. I think when
O'Neil leaves, someone like Dixon (who has a major hand in the handling
of many of the Batverse characters) will take over. Dixon will probably
center it a little more (dump 'urband legend' thing, add Batgirl) but
won't go as far to the center as pre-O'Neil works...
If he does, I will accept it and not whine about it (but I probably
won't collect it).
>
> One of the reasons that Mari, myself and others continue to read
> Nightwing is a liking for the character despite and in spite of changes
> we feel aren't being true to the character. Would you and the other
> Batfans be willing to do the same?
Since I don't like the character of Bruce Wayne... no.
If Tim Drake started a new Teen Titans and became a central character in
the DCU, I would collect his title, even though I don't like the
direction.
Pariah
Marilee Stephens
: > There is a difference.
: >
: > You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
: > didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
: > book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
: > subjective than the other two.
: >
Again, I believe "bad", as you mention below, is in response to
subjective criterion... Therefore, while you might not think something is
bad, I can. And I'm not sure "good" and "bad" are truly objective
measures, as they are usually applied to completely subjective criterion.
I might hate the taste of something and thing of it as "bad", while
someone else might like it and think of it as "good"...
: > To say you prefer something is completely subjective... To say something
: > is 'good' and 'bad' are objective measures (to subjective criteria...
: > this is where we differed). We measure our definitions of 'good' and
: > 'bad' writing differently, which is why we can't agree.
: Okay.......but that doesn't really answer my question. Given that
: we are dealing with highly subjective issues, although there are always
: objective criteria for such, can you see where the Titans people are
: coming from?
Especially when you consider that the character of Nightwing is,
in a way, a Titans character. Because, let's be honest, it's the Titans
fans that gave Nightwing the popularity that he has. It was those fans
that made Nightwing one of DC's most popular characters back in the
mid-80's, as per the CBG's polls of the time. The reason Nightwing earned
his own title was the fan base built up by his years in the Titans.
Frankly, if you read the Bat-issues that he appeared in prior to the
creation of the New Teen Titans, they weren't all that great studies of
character growth, though they were fun. If anything, while Robin is an
iconic character (that of the side-kick), it also makes him a secondary
character (as he is a side-kick)... Why didn't the DG Robin get his own
series all those years ago?
So now, the fans (or at least some of the fans :) :) ;)) of the
character that gave him the popularity that he achieved are being told
that, to be blunt, the reasons they followed him and the events that
shaped him into being the character that they liked are being ignored.
Don't you think that would be just a little disturbing to them. You
mentioned how you would drop the book if some of the more fantastical
elements of Dick's past showed up. Well, guess what... I know several
fans of the character (even self-proclaimed Wing-nuts) that did drop his
current series because all the growth and development he went through,
all the events that surrounded him in the Titans, are being ignored
(well, that and they can't stand the art :) :) ;)).
: > I understand that the line is fine and subjective... but it's there in
: > the hearts and minds of many batman fans.
: >
: > I'm not saying "Batman was meant to be this way"... I am saying "Batman
: > should be this way" (because this is the way that I will enjoy it the
: > most).
So it's a purely subjective opinion... Which is exactly my
problem with the Nightwing book, it goes against *my* subjective opinion.
Something you seem to have no problem discounting.
:
: One of the reasons that Mari, myself and others continue to read
: Nightwing is a liking for the character despite and in spite of changes
: we feel aren't being true to the character. Would you and the other
: Batfans be willing to do the same?
And (speaking for myself of course), I'm truly pathetic when it
comes to Nightwing. I may hate what's being done with him now, but since
I'm an eternal optimist, I keep picking it up in case someone does come in
and starts being true to the character (from my POV). Besides, I follow
characters and not creators... Because, frankly, characters tend to last
where creators don't.
Mari
Pariah
Marilee Stephens wrote:
>
> IAN F. TAVENER <s86...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au> wrote:
> : Pariah,
>
> : > There is a difference.
> : >
> : > You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
> : > didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
> : > book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
> : > subjective than the other two.
> : >
> Again, I believe "bad", as you mention below, is in response to
> subjective criterion... Therefore, while you might not think something is
> bad, I can. And I'm not sure "good" and "bad" are truly objective
> measures, as they are usually applied to completely subjective criterion.
> I might hate the taste of something and thing of it as "bad", while
> someone else might like it and think of it as "good"...
You're right, they're not completely objective measures.... but they are
the objective measurement of subjective criteria... making them
somewhere between objective and subjective. Two people who have the same
criteria for what constitutes good and bad comics should both have the
same opinion on whether or not a story is good or bad.
I find your criteria to be unfair... which is why I voice such a strong
opposition to it.... it's really all a matter of perspective.
>
> : > To say you prefer something is completely subjective... To say something
> : > is 'good' and 'bad' are objective measures (to subjective criteria...
> : > this is where we differed). We measure our definitions of 'good' and
> : > 'bad' writing differently, which is why we can't agree.
>
> : Okay.......but that doesn't really answer my question. Given that
> : we are dealing with highly subjective issues, although there are always
> : objective criteria for such, can you see where the Titans people are
> : coming from?
>
> Especially when you consider that the character of Nightwing is,
> in a way, a Titans character. Because, let's be honest, it's the Titans
> fans that gave Nightwing the popularity that he has. It was those fans
> that made Nightwing one of DC's most popular characters back in the
> mid-80's, as per the CBG's polls of the time. The reason Nightwing earned
> his own title was the fan base built up by his years in the Titans.
> Frankly, if you read the Bat-issues that he appeared in prior to the
> creation of the New Teen Titans, they weren't all that great studies of
> character growth, though they were fun. If anything, while Robin is an
> iconic character (that of the side-kick), it also makes him a secondary
> character (as he is a side-kick)... Why didn't the DG Robin get his own
> series all those years ago?
As I said before, I have alwasy seen where you were coming from... but I
vigorously disagree that ignoring that constitutes bad writing. I think
they should show more Titan history as well... however, I recognize that
my desire comes from personal tastes, and therefore it doesn't mean that
it is bad writing. The same reasoning can be applied to the Batman
Forever and Batman and Robin movie. It completely ignored things that I
liked about the first two movies, and so I hated it. Whether or not it
is good writing is a different matter... because for what Schumacher was
trying to do, he didn't do a poor job. I just hated what he was ignoring
and what he was trying to do.
>
> So now, the fans (or at least some of the fans :) :) ;)) of the
> character that gave him the popularity that he achieved are being told
> that, to be blunt, the reasons they followed him and the events that
> shaped him into being the character that they liked are being ignored.
> Don't you think that would be just a little disturbing to them.
I accept the fact that you don't like it. I have never said that you
shouldn't dislike the new Nightwing series or that you should collect
it. I have just said that you shouldn't say it is 'bad writing' because
it isn't the Nightwing that you want to see.
> You
> mentioned how you would drop the book if some of the more fantastical
> elements of Dick's past showed up. Well, guess what... I know several
> fans of the character (even self-proclaimed Wing-nuts) that did drop his
> current series because all the growth and development he went through,
> all the events that surrounded him in the Titans, are being ignored
> (well, that and they can't stand the art :) :) ;)).
Good for them. If they don't like it, they shouldn't collect it. I'm not
saying that my view of Batman is 'right' or 'wrong'... I am saying that
THIS is the Batman I want to see. If they start showing a Batman I don't
want to see, then I will no longer collect it... but I WILL NOT say it
is bad writing.
and that's where we differ.
>
> : > I understand that the line is fine and subjective... but it's there in
> : > the hearts and minds of many batman fans.
> : >
> : > I'm not saying "Batman was meant to be this way"... I am saying "Batman
> : > should be this way" (because this is the way that I will enjoy it the
> : > most).
>
> So it's a purely subjective opinion... Which is exactly my
> problem with the Nightwing book, it goes against *my* subjective opinion.
> Something you seem to have no problem discounting.
I understand your problem with the book. I am making a distinction here
that you're not catching. Just because the character of Nightwing that
is being displayed isn't the Nightwing you want to see, I find it unfair
for you to say that the writing is bad. I don't have a problem with you
saying that you don't like the book, and that this isn't the Nightwing
you want to see... but I don't think you should call his writing bad
when it's his direction, that you disagree with.
To say that you think that writing is bad, it insults the writer...
which I don't think is fair when you are not the audience that the
writer is trying to reach... he's appealing to current Batman fans and
people who like the tone of Batman (these days).
It's like when a critic says that a slapstick comedy movie was done
poorly because it's characters weren't realistic.... The characters
weren't suppose to be realistic. A more specific example, Ebert said the
1989 BATMAN movie was poor because it didn't portray Batman as being
'fun'... and I think that is unfair because 'fun' is the furthest thing
that Burton had on his mind. Nightwing is not supposed to be the
Nightwing you want (the ex-titan).. he's supposed to be a different,
more Batman-oriented Nightwing.
I'm not going to explain it again (nothing person... I'm just really
tired of typing it out)... I really hope you're understanding what I am
saying.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> I've ALWAYS seen where they were coming from. I just vigorously
> disagreed on what constitutes 'bad writing'
Okay. That settles that. *smiles*
> It really depends. I never really cared for Bruce Wayne, the character
> (as he is portrayed currently, anyway)... I really care for his stories.
> Therefore with no real emotional attachment to the character, I would
> probably drop the books if I didn't like the stories anymore... though
> occasionally buy an issue every now and then just to know what's going
> on. I would probably continue to collect Robin and Nightwing, though,
> because I like the characters. I don't see Batman's tone changing for a
> while though... I don't think they're going to oust O'Neil. I think when
> O'Neil leaves, someone like Dixon (who has a major hand in the handling
> of many of the Batverse characters) will take over. Dixon will probably
> center it a little more (dump 'urband legend' thing, add Batgirl) but
> won't go as far to the center as pre-O'Neil works...
Those are fair enough comments, and I think it's laudable that
you at least state why you're reading what you do. With the (and I don't
like to use the term, but it seems to be borne out in posts) older
readers, we tend to follow a given character. This isn't always true,
though; I read nearly every issue of Simonson's Thor back in the 80's,
but as of the next issue (which was pure trash) I dropped the title. I
disagree on tone, though.
In order for DC to stand apart from the rest of the crowd at the
moment, they have to be able to sell what they have. No offence to Bats,
but Spawn and co. probably have it all over him in terms of the
supernatural and so on. At least as of my look at the Spawn movie, it has
immensely more atmosphere Bat-wise than the last two Bat movies. And
again, the trend is to get long-term collectors back in. Silver Age is
the cry at the moment, and with that, it'll be harder and harder for
O'Neill to ignore the changes in the market. He's already been
thouroughly lambasted in this newsgroup for not knowing his market and
being able to just objectively argue; if that follows suit in his
editorial policies, he'll go sooner than you think.
Batman's current tone has been directed and shaped for the market
of which you are a part of; and as soon as that changes, the whole tone
of the books will too. It's not a creative thing right now. It's a money
thing.
> If he does, I will accept it and not whine about it (but I probably
> won't collect it).
I dunno.......I said the same sort of things way back at the
beginning of the Titans......*grins*
> Since I don't like the character of Bruce Wayne... no.
>
> If Tim Drake started a new Teen Titans and became a central character in
> the DCU, I would collect his title, even though I don't like the
> direction.
Am I reading you right, then? YOu have more of a liking for the
Tim Drake character generally?
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
>
> Pariah,
>
> > I've ALWAYS seen where they were coming from. I just vigorously
> > disagreed on what constitutes 'bad writing'
>
> Okay. That settles that. *smiles*
>
> > It really depends. I never really cared for Bruce Wayne, the character
> > (as he is portrayed currently, anyway)... I really care for his stories.
> > Therefore with no real emotional attachment to the character, I would
> > probably drop the books if I didn't like the stories anymore... though
> > occasionally buy an issue every now and then just to know what's going
> > on. I would probably continue to collect Robin and Nightwing, though,
> > because I like the characters. I don't see Batman's tone changing for a
> > while though... I don't think they're going to oust O'Neil. I think when
> > O'Neil leaves, someone like Dixon (who has a major hand in the handling
> > of many of the Batverse characters) will take over. Dixon will probably
> > center it a little more (dump 'urband legend' thing, add Batgirl) but
> > won't go as far to the center as pre-O'Neil works...
>
> Those are fair enough comments, and I think it's laudable that
> you at least state why you're reading what you do. With the (and I don't
> like to use the term, but it seems to be borne out in posts) older
> readers, we tend to follow a given character. This isn't always true,
> though; I read nearly every issue of Simonson's Thor back in the 80's,
> but as of the next issue (which was pure trash) I dropped the title. I
> disagree on tone, though.
You can say "I don't like the book because" reason reason reason. ...
and I wuldn't have said a thing. You can even say "I don't like the
writing because" reason reason reason. What I object to, in the
beginning of the argument and now, is that "The writing is terrible" and
give completely subjective reasons like "Its not the character I want to
read" etc.
>
> In order for DC to stand apart from the rest of the crowd at the
> moment, they have to be able to sell what they have. No offence to Bats,
> but Spawn and co. probably have it all over him in terms of the
> supernatural and so on. At least as of my look at the Spawn movie, it has
> immensely more atmosphere Bat-wise than the last two Bat movies. And
> again, the trend is to get long-term collectors back in. Silver Age is
> the cry at the moment, and with that, it'll be harder and harder for
> O'Neill to ignore the changes in the market. He's already been
> thouroughly lambasted in this newsgroup for not knowing his market and
> being able to just objectively argue; if that follows suit in his
> editorial policies, he'll go sooner than you think.
The last two batmovies sucked (subjective, obviously)... they weren't
going for supernatural in those two movies... they were going for "camp"
and Superhero in B&R, in BF they were just aching to move to camptness.
Batman comics aren't selling that poorly. I think Dixon (if he's
O'Neil's successor) would likely lift the rules that i have previously
mentioned.. but would try to keep it to a minimum... if Batman's got
Superman in it every couple of months, it will turn people off... not
just my camp.
> Batman's current tone has been directed and shaped for the market
> of which you are a part of; and as soon as that changes, the whole tone
> of the books will too. It's not a creative thing right now. It's a money
> thing.
I'm not going to say that it's not possible that it's going to change..
because obviously there is a good chance at it. I don't, however, see
them bringing in a non-Batman writer to take over... I DO, however, see
them bringing in a more central person than O'Neil (that's not hard)...
I'd say they'd bring in a Dixon -type over a Grant-type or
Moensch-type.... I don't see then radically changing the Batman comics
until they really have a problem in the Bat-titles (which, to my
knowledge, they don't). If it ain't broke, they aren't gonna jeopardize
alienating a current audience (enough to keep four books plus several
satellite and quarterly boooks) for a potential one in a down market.
>
> > If he does, I will accept it and not whine about it (but I probably
> > won't collect it).
> I dunno.......I said the same sort of things way back at the
> beginning of the Titans......*grins*
It would really depend on how the writing is... I can't say for certain
whether I would collect it or not.
>
> > Since I don't like the character of Bruce Wayne... no.
> >
> > If Tim Drake started a new Teen Titans and became a central character in
> > the DCU, I would collect his title, even though I don't like the
> > direction.
>
> Am I reading you right, then? YOu have more of a liking for the
> Tim Drake character generally?
Indeed. Bruce, as he is written now, is an egotistical, hypocritical
prick with a massive god-complex. However, he has good intentions so I
don't have a problem reading about him. Tim is a much better character.
Pariah
Marilee Stephens
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
: Marilee Stephens wrote:
: >
: > IAN F. TAVENER <s86...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au> wrote:
: > : Pariah,
: >
: > : > There is a difference.
: > : >
: > : > You didn't say "I would prefer it if they used Titan history" and you
: > : > didn't say say "They should use Titan history"... you said "It's a bad
: > : > book because it doesn't use Titan history"... The third comment is less
: > : > subjective than the other two.
: > : >
: > Again, I believe "bad", as you mention below, is in response to
: > subjective criterion... Therefore, while you might not think something is
: > bad, I can. And I'm not sure "good" and "bad" are truly objective
: > measures, as they are usually applied to completely subjective criterion.
: > I might hate the taste of something and thing of it as "bad", while
: > someone else might like it and think of it as "good"...
: You're right, they're not completely objective measures.... but they are
: the objective measurement of subjective criteria... making them
: somewhere between objective and subjective. Two people who have the same
: criteria for what constitutes good and bad comics should both have the
: same opinion on whether or not a story is good or bad.
: I find your criteria to be unfair... which is why I voice such a strong
: opposition to it.... it's really all a matter of perspective.
Well, I find the fact that the writer of the Nightwing book feels
that it's okay to ignore all the past characterization and history to be
unfair to the long-time readers of the character. I can state that this
book is "bad" due to my subjective reading of it. If Mr. Dixon were
writing these stories about a totally new character, such that there was
no back-story to deal with, I probably wouldn't be calling it "bad", but I
also probably wouldn't be picking it up. But because the character
they're supposedly using is called "Nightwing" and I have an emotional
investment in said character due to reading him for several years, I
expect to see his characterization and such to be consistent and his
history to be considered when making decisions about how to write him.
This, I feel, is one of the tenets of serialized fiction, and if the
writer is supposely dealing with a character that has a long past, and
isn't dealing with it, than I consider that "bad" writing (which, as we
said above, is based on subjective criterion). I don't feel I'm being
unfair to the writer in this regard *because* we are dealing with a
character with a lot of back-story. If we were dealing with a totally new
character (say, like "Xero" or "Resurrection Man"), than yes, you just
have to look at the current series and keep it consistent, as that's, for
the most part, the only place they've appeared. But we are not dealing
with that situation here. Dick has a long history in other books besides
his current on-going, and that history should not be ignored. If it is,
then to my admitted subjective criterion, it's bad writing. You might not
agree with my criterion, that's your right. But you can't tell me I'm
being "unfair" to the writer because of it. To me, there are certain
responsibilities a writer has to have when dealing with a shared universe
character. If he doesn't live up to those responsibilities, than yes...
it's "bad" writing...
Mari
David
I hope no one adds back Batgirl to the Batman mix. I always thought
that Batgirl was a REALLY dumb character. For me, Barbara Gordon as
Batgirl doesn't work. Barbara Gordon as Oracle does. Oracle is a
unique character in the DC universe; Batgirl is just another Batman
wanna-be. Besides, the Bat-books already have the Huntress, a much
better character than Batgirl ever could be.
Pariah
I agree... but I also think that they are poising Stephanie Brown
(Spolier) for the new Batgirl... once O'Neil leaves. I like Spoiler as
is and hope I am wrong.
Pariah
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
>
> Pariah,
>
> > and I wuldn't have said a thing. You can even say "I don't like the
> > writing because" reason reason reason. What I object to, in the
> > beginning of the argument and now, is that "The writing is terrible" and
> > give completely subjective reasons like "Its not the character I want to
> > read" etc.
>
> the writing is bad, and I've given my reasons, subjective or otherwise,
> why. If you were referring to someone else, fine. But I have NOT said
> that.
I am referring to someone else I guess. I get mixed up on who has said
what, so I apoligize for accusing you of saying anything that you
didn't. However, I view 'bad' and 'terrible' in the same light... and
unfair to an artist who is not trying to do what you are discrediting
him for not doing... am I making sense?
>
> > The last two batmovies sucked (subjective, obviously)... they weren't
> > going for supernatural in those two movies... they were going for "camp"
> > and Superhero in B&R, in BF they were just aching to move to camptness.
> > Batman comics aren't selling that poorly. I think Dixon (if he's
> > O'Neil's successor) would likely lift the rules that i have previously
> > mentioned.. but would try to keep it to a minimum... if Batman's got
> > Superman in it every couple of months, it will turn people off... not
> > just my camp.
>
> Well, I can't say about sales in terms of Batbooks, but I do know
> that bad movie tickets can flow on to comic sales, which are already
> depressed currently. I agree, overbalancing would be bad, but that's the
> trick. Tone and setting will always vary; I do believe we're about to see
> a shift again in what's considered sellable in comics, after an extended
> dark and serious phase. I don't know what's coming next, but I do believe
> it will be different.
I think Dixon (if he were to be O'Neil's successor) would definitely
shift things out from the 'everything has to be dark'... but I don't see
him shifting things to 'we don't want to depress people'.
>
> > I'm not going to say that it's not possible that it's going to change..
> > because obviously there is a good chance at it. I don't, however, see
> > them bringing in a non-Batman writer to take over... I DO, however, see
> > them bringing in a more central person than O'Neil (that's not hard)...
> > I'd say they'd bring in a Dixon -type over a Grant-type or
> > Moensch-type.... I don't see then radically changing the Batman comics
> > until they really have a problem in the Bat-titles (which, to my
> > knowledge, they don't). If it ain't broke, they aren't gonna jeopardize
> > alienating a current audience (enough to keep four books plus several
> > satellite and quarterly boooks) for a potential one in a down market.
>
> Again, I agree with you here. There's been a definite attempt to
> solidify the Batbooks, and changing things would only hurt their sales. I
> would agree that a more centralised, less isolationist approach would
> probably do the books a world of good, actually. Again, this is related
> to cross media problems, which I've studied. The Batbooks have been
> massively helped by the franchise generally, and anything that hurts it
> will flow on to some degree to the books. As a comparison, look at the
> Superbooks. Considering the radical changes made there, you can see what
> COULD happen if sales sagged, even though Supes has several titles of his
> own.
If they ever THINK about doing to Batman waht they have done to
Superman, I will drop Batman faster than you would believe. I enjoyed
the Knight-Trilogy... (just as I enjoyed the Death and Return of
Superman)... but when they can't leave the character alone, I will not
indulge them.
> I think a shift will occur towards more four-colour heroes with the
> release of the new Superman movie. If it's successful, I think you'll see
> a shift in Batbook policy. To be blunt, the Bat franchise is in serious
> danger of not getting another sequel, and Warner Bros./DC will be looking
> to see what happens with Supes.
I am curious why you believe that... since they appear to not be going
with a 'four-color' Superman movie. All reports I have seen say that
they are going at it with a more noiric angle (to the dismay of Superman
fans everywhere).
>
> > It would really depend on how the writing is... I can't say for certain
> > whether I would collect it or not.
> Same with anything, really.
Naturally, but I would be FAR less inclined to read a change in tone in
Batman. The writing would have to be really damn good.
> >
> > Indeed. Bruce, as he is written now, is an egotistical, hypocritical
> > prick with a massive god-complex. However, he has good intentions so I
> > don't have a problem reading about him. Tim is a much better character.
>
> *smiles* Gee, what a charmer. What is it you like about Bruce,
> then? I mean, he doesn't sound like someone who I'd consider a hero type;
> describing him that way makes him sound like Marvel's Doctor Doom.....I
> *like* Doom, because we know what his motivations are. But Batman....?
> As for Tim, I've been told by others that he seems to be the
> favoured of Dixon's characters. Do you think so? And if so, why?
I don't like Bruce... I like stories *ABOUT* Bruce... I don't like
Bruce personally, but I find him to be an interiguing character. I've
always liked the 'unlikeable' hero... the same goes for Vic Sage, The
Question.
I think he probably is Dixon's favorite character... he's very well
written, he's Robin, and he hasn't got that much pre-Dixon history to be
ignored.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> You can say "I don't like the book because" reason reason reason. ...
> and I wuldn't have said a thing. You can even say "I don't like the
> writing because" reason reason reason. What I object to, in the
> beginning of the argument and now, is that "The writing is terrible" and
> give completely subjective reasons like "Its not the character I want to
> read" etc.
I don't believe I've actually said that, to be honest. I've said
the writing is bad, and I've given my reasons, subjective or otherwise,
why. If you were referring to someone else, fine. But I have NOT said
that.
> The last two batmovies sucked (subjective, obviously)... they weren't
> going for supernatural in those two movies... they were going for "camp"
> and Superhero in B&R, in BF they were just aching to move to camptness.
> Batman comics aren't selling that poorly. I think Dixon (if he's
> O'Neil's successor) would likely lift the rules that i have previously
> mentioned.. but would try to keep it to a minimum... if Batman's got
> Superman in it every couple of months, it will turn people off... not
> just my camp.
Well, I can't say about sales in terms of Batbooks, but I do know
that bad movie tickets can flow on to comic sales, which are already
depressed currently. I agree, overbalancing would be bad, but that's the
trick. Tone and setting will always vary; I do believe we're about to see
a shift again in what's considered sellable in comics, after an extended
dark and serious phase. I don't know what's coming next, but I do believe
it will be different.
> I'm not going to say that it's not possible that it's going to change..
> because obviously there is a good chance at it. I don't, however, see
> them bringing in a non-Batman writer to take over... I DO, however, see
> them bringing in a more central person than O'Neil (that's not hard)...
> I'd say they'd bring in a Dixon -type over a Grant-type or
> Moensch-type.... I don't see then radically changing the Batman comics
> until they really have a problem in the Bat-titles (which, to my
> knowledge, they don't). If it ain't broke, they aren't gonna jeopardize
> alienating a current audience (enough to keep four books plus several
> satellite and quarterly boooks) for a potential one in a down market.
Again, I agree with you here. There's been a definite attempt to
solidify the Batbooks, and changing things would only hurt their sales. I
would agree that a more centralised, less isolationist approach would
probably do the books a world of good, actually. Again, this is related
to cross media problems, which I've studied. The Batbooks have been
massively helped by the franchise generally, and anything that hurts it
will flow on to some degree to the books. As a comparison, look at the
Superbooks. Considering the radical changes made there, you can see what
COULD happen if sales sagged, even though Supes has several titles of his
own. I think a shift will occur towards more four-colour heroes with the
release of the new Superman movie. If it's successful, I think you'll see
a shift in Batbook policy. To be blunt, the Bat franchise is in serious
danger of not getting another sequel, and Warner Bros./DC will be looking
to see what happens with Supes.
> It would really depend on how the writing is... I can't say for certain
> whether I would collect it or not.
Same with anything, really.
>
> Indeed. Bruce, as he is written now, is an egotistical, hypocritical
> prick with a massive god-complex. However, he has good intentions so I
> don't have a problem reading about him. Tim is a much better character.
*smiles* Gee, what a charmer. What is it you like about Bruce,
then? I mean, he doesn't sound like someone who I'd consider a hero type;
describing him that way makes him sound like Marvel's Doctor Doom.....I
*like* Doom, because we know what his motivations are. But Batman....?
As for Tim, I've been told by others that he seems to be the
favoured of Dixon's characters. Do you think so? And if so, why?
Ian Tavener.
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> I am referring to someone else I guess. I get mixed up on who has said
> what, so I apoligize for accusing you of saying anything that you
> didn't. However, I view 'bad' and 'terrible' in the same light... and
> unfair to an artist who is not trying to do what you are discrediting
> him for not doing... am I making sense?
That's okay.......*smiles* Well, you can't actually come out and
say he's *trying* to do anything, actually. We can go off what we've seen
of his writing thus far, and it is after 15 issues, a deliberate
avoidance of certain areas of character and history. There's very little
room for doubt thus far. I find it 'bad' because it violates most
accepted forms of writing characters, even in comics, and has nothing to
do with what anyone wants to see. It's not a slander against Dixon
personally; it's against his writing style in particular. That's my
issue, which you may have construed otherwise.
> I think Dixon (if he were to be O'Neil's successor) would definitely
> shift things out from the 'everything has to be dark'... but I don't see
> him shifting things to 'we don't want to depress people'.
*chuckles* There are definitely degrees. I'm thinking more a
shift towards the middle 80's, where there was a genuine sense of
excitement in DC's stuff....and it shows.
> If they ever THINK about doing to Batman waht they have done to
> Superman, I will drop Batman faster than you would believe. I enjoyed
> the Knight-Trilogy... (just as I enjoyed the Death and Return of
> Superman)... but when they can't leave the character alone, I will not
> indulge them.
It's hard to say what will happen.....the Knightfall/KnightQuest
got lucky by being tightly scripted......but if something like that
happens again (and the Earthquake thing they have planned sounds not too
encouragaing), I will be curious to see your reaction.
> I am curious why you believe that... since they appear to not be going
> with a 'four-color' Superman movie. All reports I have seen say that
> they are going at it with a more noiric angle (to the dismay of Superman
> fans everywhere).
They'll nearly have to go with regular Superman. He's got 60
years of being a certain style of character behind him. Like you said, if
it ain't broke, don't fix it. As for four-colour heroes, it's just simply
a reaction to over a decade of grim and gritty stuff and ultraviolence.
> Naturally, but I would be FAR less inclined to read a change in tone in
> Batman. The writing would have to be really damn good.
It can be done....keep in mind that Mr. O'Neill's 1970's Batman
(along with Neal Adams) got people to look twice at Bats. And he was a
detective, not that obsessive, and it was brilliant stuff.
> I don't like Bruce... I like stories *ABOUT* Bruce... I don't like
> Bruce personally, but I find him to be an interiguing character. I've
> always liked the 'unlikeable' hero... the same goes for Vic Sage, The
> Question.
Ah. I sort of follow you there.
> I think he probably is Dixon's favorite character... he's very well
> written, he's Robin, and he hasn't got that much pre-Dixon history to be
> ignored.
Well, Dixon is probably able to go where he wants with him and
not worry about past histories. That's the flip side of working with
established characters........
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
> Pariah,
>
> > I am referring to someone else I guess. I get mixed up on who has said
> > what, so I apoligize for accusing you of saying anything that you
> > didn't. However, I view 'bad' and 'terrible' in the same light... and
> > unfair to an artist who is not trying to do what you are discrediting
> > him for not doing... am I making sense?
>
> That's okay.......*smiles* Well, you can't actually come out and
> say he's *trying* to do anything, actually. We can go off what we've seen
> of his writing thus far, and it is after 15 issues, a deliberate
> avoidance of certain areas of character and history. There's very little
> room for doubt thus far.
Since it's obvious that he's trying to avoid Titan history and stick with
Batman history... we can assume, with fair certainty, that he is not writing
the current NIGHTWING series to please the Titan fans.
> I find it 'bad' because it violates most
> accepted forms of writing characters, even in comics, and has nothing to
> do with what anyone wants to see. It's not a slander against Dixon
> personally; it's against his writing style in particular. That's my
> issue, which you may have construed otherwise.
Since comics are in a shared universe, I don't feel that every writer should be
forced to revisit every previous writers work and history. Every series is
independant (except cross-overs, but that's a different matter)... and every
writer should be responsable for his own work and the consistency of that
work... He should not be responsible for what someone else did on another title
in a move that he disagreed with in the first place (though it would be nice if
he would take that responsibility, that is not his obligation). His obligation,
that makes him a good or bad writer, is to writer a story that is internally
consistent with itself that entertains the group of people he is trying to
entertain (batfans, not Titanfans)
>
>
> > I think Dixon (if he were to be O'Neil's successor) would definitely
> > shift things out from the 'everything has to be dark'... but I don't see
> > him shifting things to 'we don't want to depress people'.
>
> *chuckles* There are definitely degrees. I'm thinking more a
> shift towards the middle 80's, where there was a genuine sense of
> excitement in DC's stuff....and it shows.
>
I'm not that impressed with mid-80s Batman... even those by some writers that I
like their work now... Not that that has anything to do with the post... just
thought I'd let you know.
Anyway, there's really no telling what Dixon would do.
> > If they ever THINK about doing to Batman waht they have done to
> > Superman, I will drop Batman faster than you would believe. I enjoyed
> > the Knight-Trilogy... (just as I enjoyed the Death and Return of
> > Superman)... but when they can't leave the character alone, I will not
> > indulge them.
>
> It's hard to say what will happen.....the Knightfall/KnightQuest
> got lucky by being tightly scripted......but if something like that
> happens again (and the Earthquake thing they have planned sounds not too
> encouragaing), I will be curious to see your reaction.
I am already considering making plans to avoid the earthquake saga.
> > I am curious why you believe that... since they appear to not be going
> > with a 'four-color' Superman movie. All reports I have seen say that
> > they are going at it with a more noiric angle (to the dismay of Superman
> > fans everywhere).
> They'll nearly have to go with regular Superman. He's got 60
> years of being a certain style of character behind him. Like you said, if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it. As for four-colour heroes, it's just simply
> a reaction to over a decade of grim and gritty stuff and ultraviolence.
Well, as I said... everything I have seen thus far (and I regularly do
net-searching for information) has given me the impression that Superman will
move into the gray... especially if Tim Burton has a hand in it.
I don't know that I would give the movie industry the credit to know that they
should leave Superman alone. A lot of the sites that I see (some more reliable
than others) are saying that the people involved don't know what Superman
costume they want to use. If they were going for the traditional Superman
costume of 60 years... there would be no question.
I hope I'm wrong and they don't screw it up, though.
> > Naturally, but I would be FAR less inclined to read a change in tone in
> > Batman. The writing would have to be really damn good
> .
> It can be done....keep in mind that Mr. O'Neill's 1970's Batman
> (along with Neal Adams) got people to look twice at Bats. And he was a
> detective, not that obsessive, and it was brilliant stuff.
I know it CAN be done.. I just have my reservations on whether or not they will
do it.
> > I think he probably is Dixon's favorite character... he's very well
> > written, he's Robin, and he hasn't got that much pre-Dixon history to be
> > ignored.
>
> Well, Dixon is probably able to go where he wants with him and
> not worry about past histories. That's the flip side of working with
> established characters........
Nodnod, that's why he's liked by readers of ROBIN and GREEN ARROW... but
utterly despised by many readers of NIGHTWING.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> Since it's obvious that he's trying to avoid Titan history and stick with
> Batman history... we can assume, with fair certainty, that he is not writing
> the current NIGHTWING series to please the Titan fans.
Granted......which I've said before is something I think is a
mistake and also inconsistent writing, but that's me.
>
> Since comics are in a shared universe, I don't feel that every writer should be
> forced to revisit every previous writers work and history. Every series is
> independant (except cross-overs, but that's a different matter)... and every
> writer should be responsable for his own work and the consistency of that
> work... He should not be responsible for what someone else did on another title
> in a move that he disagreed with in the first place (though it would be nice if
> he would take that responsibility, that is not his obligation). His obligation,
> that makes him a good or bad writer, is to writer a story that is internally
> consistent with itself that entertains the group of people he is trying to
> entertain (batfans, not Titanfans)
Considering both New Teen Titans and New Titans were written by
the sum total of one person (Marv Wolfman) it's not a hard thing to do.
And considering you're speaking of a 50+ year old character, that's a
VERY difficult assertion to back up. Okay, fine. He needs to be
consistent within his work. No argument. But consistency appeals to
everything, not just the work itself. It means the characters,
everything. This is NOT an issue about pleasing me as a Titans fan (and
I'm a little surprised that I have to mention this again) but an issue of
consistent characterisation. A few references to Dick's Titan days do NOT
constitute consistent characterisation. As I've said before, Dick's
previous series could've been JLA, for all I care, so long as it got
decent mention NOW. It's like saying 'Oh, he was Robin for 57 years, but
we won't deal with that because it'll put off fans.' His previous series
contained elements in it that helped to make the character we see now. To
not acknowledge that series is also a bit of a slight to the previous
author. In fact, this same argument has been made about Byrne and Wonder
Woman........
> I'm not that impressed with mid-80s Batman... even those by some writers that I
> like their work now... Not that that has anything to do with the post... just
> thought I'd let you know.
>
> Anyway, there's really no telling what Dixon would do.
Well, there was a LOT going on back then......and coming from a
perspective of reading back then, I can tell you nowadays isn't that
great a comics decade, IMO.
> I am already considering making plans to avoid the earthquake saga.
Which indicates that that usage and abuse of the Bat-titles has
already begun, along with Mr. O'Neill's decree that no story arc is to go
over three issues.
> Well, as I said... everything I have seen thus far (and I regularly do
> net-searching for information) has given me the impression that Superman will
> move into the gray... especially if Tim Burton has a hand in it.
>
> I don't know that I would give the movie industry the credit to know that they
> should leave Superman alone. A lot of the sites that I see (some more reliable
> than others) are saying that the people involved don't know what Superman
> costume they want to use. If they were going for the traditional Superman
> costume of 60 years... there would be no question.
>
> I hope I'm wrong and they don't screw it up, though.
That's a tricky one.....I can see a need to update Superman to an
extent, but there was a thread here that identified the 'S' sheild as one
of the most recognisable symbols on the planet. And the qualities and
physical attributes given to him are almost immeadiately the same. So on
that score, I'm hoping the same as you.
> I know it CAN be done.. I just have my reservations on whether or not they will
> do it.
Times change....what more can I say? The trend is already being
established with the move towards Silver Age characters and writing, so
that says something in itself.......
> Nodnod, that's why he's liked by readers of ROBIN and GREEN ARROW... but
> utterly despised by many readers of NIGHTWING.
It's often a great thing to redo or make a new character....but
that's another pet peeve of mine, killing off some of the great names in
the DCU, like Hal Jordan and Ollie. I like Connor and Tim, but I just
don't feel that the previous holders of the names had to die to have them
passed on. As for Dixon's writing, perhaps that's the bottom line. That
he likes characters with a shorter history that he's created. I can
understand that. Which is why I'd suggest another writer to come on board
Nightwing who liked dealing with the history and so on.
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
IAN F. TAVENER wrote:
> Pariah,
>
> > Since it's obvious that he's trying to avoid Titan history and stick with
> > Batman history... we can assume, with fair certainty, that he is not writing
> > the current NIGHTWING series to please the Titan fans.
> Granted......which I've said before is something I think is a
> mistake and also inconsistent writing, but that's me.
snipped the rest
I KNOW I responded to this... but I sure can't find it... did I somehow screw it up?
Pariah
Matches Malone
Distribution:
IAN F. TAVENER (s86...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au) wrote:
> In order for DC to stand apart from the rest of the crowd at the
> moment, they have to be able to sell what they have. No offence to Bats,
> but Spawn and co. probably have it all over him in terms of the
> supernatural and so on. At least as of my look at the Spawn movie, it has
> immensely more atmosphere Bat-wise than the last two Bat movies.
I still look at Spawn etc. as a flavor-of-the-month (a really long
month, maybe, but still..). I do agree that the Spawn movie came a lot
closer to Bat-atmosphere than the last two flicks, especially B&R. IMO
this is because Schumacher has dropped the "tone" that gets mocked so much
around here - adding more superpowered villains, comic-booky schemes
(freezing the city, sucking brain-waves). In other words, he's done
Batman as a straight superhero, in the process ignoring much of what makes
him unique.
And
> again, the trend is to get long-term collectors back in. Silver Age is
> the cry at the moment, and with that, it'll be harder and harder for
> O'Neill to ignore the changes in the market.
I dunno. The silver age revival has been going on for a couple of
years now, but the Bat-books seem to be pretty steady sales-wise.
--
********************************************************
** "Why can't we have one meeting that doesn't end **
** with us digging up a corpse?" - Diamond Joe Quimby **
*************************** schm...@email.unc.edu *****
Matches Malone
Distribution:
Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
> The last two batmovies sucked (subjective, obviously)... they weren't
> going for supernatural in those two movies... they were going for "camp"
> and Superhero in B&R, in BF they were just aching to move to camptness.
> Batman comics aren't selling that poorly. I think Dixon (if he's
> O'Neil's successor) would likely lift the rules that i have previously
> mentioned.. but would try to keep it to a minimum... if Batman's got
> Superman in it every couple of months, it will turn people off... not
> just my camp.
I suspect that if and when O'Neil decides to step aside, one of his
assistants will be promoted. Jordan Gorfinkel would be a candidate. So
would Scott Peterson, who already edits NIGHTWING.
Matches Malone
Distribution:
IAN F. TAVENER (s86...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au) wrote:
> As for Tim, I've been told by others that he seems to be the
> favoured of Dixon's characters. Do you think so? And if so, why?
Oh, he's definitely Dixon's favorite. I think it's a combination of
reasons. One, he's a teenager, and Dixon (at least IMO) has a very good
handle on teenage characters. Two, most of Dixon's best work is on
characters who are dark, but not quite as dark as Batman. He can write in
that tone in ROBIN. Three, the first ROBIN mini was his first work for
DC. Makes sense that he'd be attached to the character who got him his
big break.
Tom Galloway
In article <65g2li$6qe$7...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu> schm...@email.unc.edu (Matches Malone) writes:
>Three, the first ROBIN mini was his first work for DC. Makes sense that
>he'd be attached to the character who got him his big break.
I'd say that Dixon's big break was Airboy for Eclipse. At the time,
Eclipse was in the "Little Three" behind the Big Two of DC and Marvel
and doing 50 plus issues including spinoffs of a series from them
was certainly a good career move.
tyg t...@netcom.com
IAN F. TAVENER
Pariah,
> I KNOW I responded to this... but I sure can't find it... did I somehow screw it up?
Not as far as I know......*smiles*
Ian Tavener.
IAN F. TAVENER
Matches,
> I still look at Spawn etc. as a flavor-of-the-month (a really long
> month, maybe, but still..). I do agree that the Spawn movie came a lot
> closer to Bat-atmosphere than the last two flicks, especially B&R. IMO
> this is because Schumacher has dropped the "tone" that gets mocked so much
> around here - adding more superpowered villains, comic-booky schemes
> (freezing the city, sucking brain-waves). In other words, he's done
> Batman as a straight superhero, in the process ignoring much of what makes
> him unique.
Okay....I agree with you here. Schumacher went too far to one
extreme in making B&R. But Batman is *still* a superhero, and you can add
all the damn 'tone' you want to it. :) :) :) A darker one, yes. But
still a superhero.
> I dunno. The silver age revival has been going on for a couple of
> years now, but the Bat-books seem to be pretty steady sales-wise.
I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying they won't be
affected, or what?
Ian Tavener.
Pariah
Matches Malone wrote:
> Distribution:
>
> Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
>
> > The last two batmovies sucked (subjective, obviously)... they weren't
> > going for supernatural in those two movies... they were going for "camp"
> > and Superhero in B&R, in BF they were just aching to move to camptness.
> > Batman comics aren't selling that poorly. I think Dixon (if he's
> > O'Neil's successor) would likely lift the rules that i have previously
> > mentioned.. but would try to keep it to a minimum... if Batman's got
> > Superman in it every couple of months, it will turn people off... not
> > just my camp.
>
> I suspect that if and when O'Neil decides to step aside, one of his
> assistants will be promoted. Jordan Gorfinkel would be a candidate. So
> would Scott Peterson, who already edits NIGHTWING.
Definitely could be right. I use Dixon as an example because I have only seen
one thing written by Peterson (can't remember what it was) and therefore have
no idea waht his views on Batman are.
Pariah
MLeon99
>I hope no one adds back Batgirl to the Batman mix. I always thought
>that Batgirl was a REALLY dumb character. For me, Barbara Gordon as
>Batgirl doesn't work. Barbara Gordon as Oracle does. Oracle is a
>unique character in the DC universe; Batgirl is just another Batman
>wanna-be. Besides, the Bat-books already have the Huntress, a much
>better character than Batgirl ever could be.
I think a new Batgirl could be interesting IF they found a character who had a
distinct motivation. I think having Batgirl as the Huntress' sidekick would
probably be the best option -- Helena seems to have a problem with the 'boys'
club' that the vigilante circle in Gotham is, and taking on a sidekick named
Batgirl would be a real good dig at Batman on her part, since they seem to have
a love / hate relationship.
It would also be an interesting topic in that what exactly could Bruce do if
someone started calling themselves Batgirl? Not exactly like he can sue for
trademark infringement. He could find out her secret identity and maybe put
pressure on her civilian I.D. to get her to knock it off, he could try to turn
the police against her, but the bottom line is, there's really nothing he could
do to stop her that wouldn't endanger her life in the process, he'd just have
to accept it.
I'm not against a new Batgirl, if they could find the *right* motivation for
her that wasn't a cheap copy of the other Bat-family characters. But I
wouldn't want to see a new Barbara Gordon-type Batgirl, either, not a female
wearing a Batman costume because she's got a crush on the Dark Knight.
My suggestion -- remember that arc in Legends of the Dark Knight waaay back, I
think it was called 'Faith', when you had a bunch of people carrying baseball
bats with Bat-symbols? That would be a good start for the new Batgirl, a
character who was more from the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who
didn't have a bunch of gadgets and deep pockets, who lived and operated out of
Gotham slums instead of Wayne Manor. Maybe an ex-female gang member who uses a
baseball bat as a weapon, hence the 'Bat'girl ...
-- Mike
MLeon99
>Since it's obvious that he's trying to avoid Titan history and stick with
>Batman history... we can assume, with fair certainty, that he is not writing
>the current NIGHTWING series to please the Titan fans.
I think there's some happy medium here. I don't see the problem with doing a
little background fill-in for people not familiar with the Titans, hell, even
if it was just a text page feature. I don't think every issue should feature
tying up old subplots from Titans or having old villains and allies show up,
but they should make an effort to at least explain what happened all those
years when Dick was out of Gotham. I never had interest in the Titans, but I
feel that reading Nightwing I'm not getting the 'whole' story, either.
>I am already considering making plans to avoid the earthquake saga.
The only possible cool thing that could come out of this is if the Batcave was
destroyed and Bruce had to find a new home base. Hopefully it doesn't end up
being like Legacy, where thousands of people died and a couple issues later it
was totally forgotten. I would think it should have been constantly in the
background for quite some time, with all the dead bodies that would have been
around the clean-up would have been quite extensive.
.>I don't know that I would give the movie industry the credit to know that
>they
>should leave Superman alone. A lot of the sites that I see (some more
>reliable
>than others) are saying that the people involved don't know what Superman
>costume they want to use. If they were going for the traditional Superman
>costume of 60 years... there would be no question.
Has anyone read the original Superman Lives screenplay by Kevin Smith? That
would explain the whole costume debate -- for a large chunk of the story Supes
is wearing a different costume for a couple reasons, one being he lost some of
his powers and needs a little help, and the other being a need to act with
stealth so no one knows he's alive. I think someone heard about this and blew
it out of proportion, in the scenes before Supes faces Doomsday he's in the
original suit.
Of course I've heard Burton isn't filming that original script, which is a
shame, it wasn't bad at all. There's quite a few Batman-related references in
the dialogue, and a cameo by Batman during the funeral scene.
-- Mike
MLeon99
> Oh, he's definitely Dixon's favorite. I think it's a combination of
>reasons. One, he's a teenager, and Dixon (at least IMO) has a very good
>handle on teenage characters. Two, most of Dixon's best work is on
>characters who are dark, but not quite as dark as Batman. He can write in
>DC. Makes sense that he'd be attached to the character who got him his
>big break.
I agree. I was very skeptical that anyone could make a solo Robin comic work,
but there's times since Dixon pulled that feat off that I actually find ROBIN
the best out of the Bat-books. The only thing holding them back is the seeming
inability to keep a consistent art team for more than a few issues at a time.
-- Mike
MLeon99
> I suspect that if and when O'Neil decides to step aside, one of his
>assistants will be promoted. Jordan Gorfinkel would be a candidate. So
>would Scott Peterson, who already edits NIGHTWING.
I don't think it'll be Dixon, either. Being an editor, and especially a group
editor, would cut into his writing schedule, he'd have to drop projects to do
that. Chuck would also have to relocate to New York and work in the office,
and I think he's still living somewhere in Pennsylvanaia, and he's got a
family, which would mean pulling up his roots to take the job.
If O'Neil goes it'll be either Gorf or Peterson that gets promoted. Or maybe
Archie Goodwin will step in.
But you never know, either, I certainly wouldn't totally cut out the
possibility of Dixon becoming an editor ...
-- Mike
Pariah
MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971128123...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >I hope no one adds back Batgirl to the Batman mix. I always thought
> >that Batgirl was a REALLY dumb character. For me, Barbara Gordon as
> >Batgirl doesn't work. Barbara Gordon as Oracle does. Oracle is a
> >unique character in the DC universe; Batgirl is just another Batman
> >wanna-be. Besides, the Bat-books already have the Huntress, a much
> >better character than Batgirl ever could be.
>
> I think a new Batgirl could be interesting IF they found a character who
had a
> distinct motivation. I think having Batgirl as the Huntress' sidekick
would
> probably be the best option -- Helena seems to have a problem with the
'boys'
> club' that the vigilante circle in Gotham is, and taking on a sidekick
named
> Batgirl would be a real good dig at Batman on her part, since they seem
to have
> a love / hate relationship.
Ack... I really wouldn't like Helena having a 'Batgirl' sidekick.. she's
become too much like Batman as it is.
>
> It would also be an interesting topic in that what exactly could Bruce do
if
> someone started calling themselves Batgirl? Not exactly like he can sue
for
> trademark infringement. He could find out her secret identity and maybe
put
> pressure on her civilian I.D. to get her to knock it off, he could try to
turn
> the police against her, but the bottom line is, there's really nothing he
could
> do to stop her that wouldn't endanger her life in the process, he'd just
have
> to accept it.
He would have to allow it... not necessarily accept it. He doesn't accept
Huntress... but he allows her to continue.
>
> I'm not against a new Batgirl, if they could find the *right* motivation
for
> her that wasn't a cheap copy of the other Bat-family characters. But I
> wouldn't want to see a new Barbara Gordon-type Batgirl, either, not a
female
> wearing a Batman costume because she's got a crush on the Dark Knight.
I would be interested to find such a character. My guess is that when
O'Neil's power weakens, Spoiler will become the new Batgirl (as much as it
pains me to say it)
>
> My suggestion -- remember that arc in Legends of the Dark Knight waaay
back, I
> think it was called 'Faith', when you had a bunch of people carrying
baseball
> bats with Bat-symbols? That would be a good start for the new Batgirl, a
> character who was more from the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who
> didn't have a bunch of gadgets and deep pockets, who lived and operated
out of
> Gotham slums instead of Wayne Manor. Maybe an ex-female gang member who
uses a
> baseball bat as a weapon, hence the 'Bat'girl ...
That's where Jason Todd kinda came from.
Pariah
Pariah
MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971128125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Since it's obvious that he's trying to avoid Titan history and stick
with
> >Batman history... we can assume, with fair certainty, that he is not
writing
> >the current NIGHTWING series to please the Titan fans.
>
> I think there's some happy medium here. I don't see the problem with
doing a
> little background fill-in for people not familiar with the Titans, hell,
even
> if it was just a text page feature. I don't think every issue should
feature
> tying up old subplots from Titans or having old villains and allies show
up,
> but they should make an effort to at least explain what happened all
those
> years when Dick was out of Gotham. I never had interest in the Titans,
but I
> feel that reading Nightwing I'm not getting the 'whole' story, either.
I think there's a happy medium too. However, the direction he chooses to
take with the book is independant from the skill he shows writing it. I do
NOT think that Dixon should be responsable for closing up Dick's
relationship with Kory... but I DO think that he should make reference to
it. However, this is personal taste and is not a real factor in whether or
not Dixon is a 'bad writer' (which was the point of the post)
> Has anyone read the original Superman Lives screenplay by Kevin Smith?
That
> would explain the whole costume debate -- for a large chunk of the story
Supes
> is wearing a different costume for a couple reasons, one being he lost
some of
> his powers and needs a little help, and the other being a need to act
with
> stealth so no one knows he's alive. I think someone heard about this and
blew
> it out of proportion, in the scenes before Supes faces Doomsday he's in
the
> original suit.
I read the script. He had a different costume BEFORE he got 'killed'...
cause Smith said "Superman... uhh... 90s style (or something like that).
>
> Of course I've heard Burton isn't filming that original script, which is
a
> shame, it wasn't bad at all. There's quite a few Batman-related
references in
> the dialogue, and a cameo by Batman during the funeral scene.
I didn't like the script that much, personally. It had a strong beginning,
then towards the end it started getting weak.
Pariah
Pariah
MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971128130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
It would depend on when it happens. If it happens soon (which it likely
will) then it'll be an editor. Otherwise I could see it being Dixon (if
he's still around). You gotta remember that O'Neil was a writer too... he
simply decided to become an editor instead.
However, I chose Dixon as an example because I know his views on Batman.. I
really don't know what Gorf or Scott think Batman should be.
Pariah
Fort Worth, TX
Tim The Tool Man Taylor
"Pariah" <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>I read the script. He had a different costume BEFORE he got 'killed'...
>cause Smith said "Superman... uhh... 90s style (or something like that).
>I didn't like the script that much, personally. It had a strong beginning,
>then towards the end it started getting weak.
Where does one find said script? Is it available on the Net??
Pariah
Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor <tta...@none.of.your.business.com> wrote in
article <347fa...@myth.vianet.on.ca>...
It is.. can't remember to tell you where. E-mail me on my
rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu address and remind me to and I'll take care of you.
Pariah
MLeon99
>It would depend on when it happens. If it happens soon (which it likely
>will) then it'll be an editor. Otherwise I could see it being Dixon (if
>he's still around). You gotta remember that O'Neil was a writer too... he
>simply decided to become an editor instead.
>
>
True about O'Neil making the jump, but I think he was living in New York to
start with, so it wasn't that big of a deal. And Chuck would have to give up
all those freelance writing credits, which probably pay more than an editor's
salary would.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't complain too much to see Chuck
in the captain's chair.
-- Mike
MLeon99
>I read the script. He had a different costume BEFORE he got 'killed'...
>cause Smith said "Superman... uhh... 90s style (or something like that).
I took that to mean the Super-suit will be 'rubberized' like Batman's, maybe
not as bright, color-wise.
>I didn't like the script that much, personally. It had a strong beginning,
>then towards the end it started getting weak.
You may have a point there, but I'm pretty sure the original screenplay will be
better than the finished version, knowing Burton Bizarro will show up to save
the day ...
-- Mike
Pariah
MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971129182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >It would depend on when it happens. If it happens soon (which it likely
> >will) then it'll be an editor. Otherwise I could see it being Dixon (if
> >he's still around). You gotta remember that O'Neil was a writer too...
he
> >simply decided to become an editor instead.
> >
> >
>
> True about O'Neil making the jump, but I think he was living in New York
to
> start with, so it wasn't that big of a deal. And Chuck would have to
give up
> all those freelance writing credits, which probably pay more than an
editor's
> salary would.
Where does Dixon live?
Anyway, I think that sometime in the future he may start having a shortage
of ideas... in which case he could easily become an editor and write
occasional pieces. Maybe, maybe not... but it's possible.
Pariah
Matches Malone
Tom Galloway (t...@netcom.com) wrote:
> In article <65g2li$6qe$7...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu> schm...@email.unc.edu (Matches Malone) writes:
> I'd say that Dixon's big break was Airboy for Eclipse. At the time,
> Eclipse was in the "Little Three" behind the Big Two of DC and Marvel
> and doing 50 plus issues including spinoffs of a series from them
> was certainly a good career move.
Indeed. The AIRBOY stuff was what got him the ROBIN assignment.
O'Neil liked it and thought it captured the mood he was looking for.
Matches Malone
Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
> Definitely could be right. I use Dixon as an example because I have only seen
> one thing written by Peterson (can't remember what it was) and therefore have
> no idea waht his views on Batman are.
You're prolly thinking of SHOWCASE '94 #12, an (IMO) excellent Oracle
story. Very dark in tone. Other than that, I don't know what his views
are, either, but I doubt he'd have worked on the Bat-titles under O'Neil
for six years if he was *diametrically* opposed to O'Neil's slant.
Matches Malone
IAN F. TAVENER (s86...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au) wrote:
> Okay....I agree with you here. Schumacher went too far to one
> extreme in making B&R. But Batman is *still* a superhero, and you can add
> all the damn 'tone' you want to it. :) :) :) A darker one, yes. But
> still a superhero.
Sure. Which is why some superhero conventions still work in the books.
> > I dunno. The silver age revival has been going on for a couple of
> > years now, but the Bat-books seem to be pretty steady sales-wise.
> I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying they won't be
> affected, or what?
Pretty much, yes. I don't think the books will have to be made "fun"
in order to survive in the market. Maybe it's just because people
remember what silver-age Bat-books were like (Bat-Mite..brrrr..). If
anything, there may be a reaction in the other direction in response to
Schumacher's approach.
Matches Malone
Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
> Where does Dixon live?
Dixon lives in Philadelphia unless I'm mistaken.
> Anyway, I think that sometime in the future he may start having a shortage
> of ideas... in which case he could easily become an editor and write
> occasional pieces. Maybe, maybe not... but it's possible.
Certainly. I have a hard time picturing it, but I'd have never figured
O'Neil for an editorial type either.
RUSSELL T. LUCK
First an explanation to how post-Crisis kryptonite works for anyone who
doesn't know. In the post-Crisis Superman#1 it was explained that
kryptonite works by it's radiation shoving the solar energy that gives
Supes his life and his power out of his cells. A piece of Kryponite the
size of a gem on a ring will make Superman dizzy and weak and will knock
him out in a few minutes. Prolonged exposure will kill him. A piece of
kryptonite the size of a football (like the one that used to power
Mettallo) will bring Supes to his knees screaming in pain and kill him
pretty quick. And that's when Supes is at full power.
In Reign of the Supermen Supes powers had been greatly drained and
Supes estimated he was running at about 10% of his normal power. However,
when Cyborg breaks open the glass exposing Supes to a chunk of kryptonite
the size of a house, that is a couple stories high, Supes is running
around, bathing in the green radiation (Kryptonite suntan anyone?), and
doesn't seem to feel any pain. He's more worried about his human
companions getting cancer than he is about the effects of the green K on
him, for goodness sake! Then Cyborg blasts the Kryponite through
Eradicator blasting all the energy Eradicator had leached form Supes back
into him. Now Supes is at full power but the room is filled with
Kryptonite gas which means (and I always get a laugh out of this) that
Supes is inhaling Kryptonite with no ill effects!!
Even funnier, the month after that there's an issue where
Supes nearly has a panic attack over finding a piece of Kryptonite the
size of a bullet!
I dropped the comic shortly after that so I don't know if
the house sized piece of Kryptonite having no effect on Supes was ever
explained. My best explaination is that since Cyborg didn't seem like the
brightest or sanest villian in the story (the story made it look like he
had brought only several dozen troops with him to try to conquer the
entire planet!) that Cyborg only thought it was a gaint chunk of
Kryptonite and was too out there in looney land to realize it was just a
normal green space rock. If anyone has a better explaination I'ld
love to hear it.
Jim Smith
RUSSELL T. LUCK wrote:
> In Reign of the Supermen Supes powers had been greatly drained and
> Supes estimated he was running at about 10% of his normal power. However,
> when Cyborg breaks open the glass exposing Supes to a chunk of kryptonite
> the size of a house, that is a couple stories high, Supes is running
> around, bathing in the green radiation (Kryptonite suntan anyone?), and
> doesn't seem to feel any pain. He's more worried about his human
> companions getting cancer than he is about the effects of the green K on
> him, for goodness sake!
Worrying about others is just par for the course with Superman. As for
the gigantic amount of kryptonite--well, it's just a screwup. Someone
wasn't thinking about the established size/potency ratio as it relates
to Superman, and figured he could handle it for a few moments. Which is
all he needed until...
Then Cyborg blasts the Kryponite through
> Eradicator blasting all the energy Eradicator had leached form Supes back
> into him.
See, you've misunderstood. Eradicator isn't sending *his* energy into
Superman. He's sending the *kryptonite's* energy into him. The
Eradicator used his own weird physiology to filter the kryptonite's
energy into a form that would re-energize Clark instead of kill him. I
can't recall if this was explained in SUPERMAN #82, but it *was* covered
in ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #511, I think. Professor Hamilton dubs the
altered radiation "Kryptonite-X."
So let's review. Cyborg shoots a bunch of kryptonite gas and stuff at
Superman. The Eradicator jumps in the way, absorbing *the full force*
of this assualt. Before any of this can hit Superman, Eradicator
changes it into this "kryptonite-X" stuff. What's left is a
re-energized Superman and some rapidly diffusing kryptonite gas. And
not *much* gas, because most of it was absorbed by the Eradicator.
Now Supes is at full power but the room is filled with
> Kryptonite gas which means (and I always get a laugh out of this) that
> Supes is inhaling Kryptonite with no ill effects!!
Another point: Eradicator's treatment left Superman stronger than he'd
ever been up to that point. Following SUPERMAN #82, Clark had more
energy than he knew what to do with, could fly in space unaided, and
even *grew*. He was quite simply bubbling with power until he found a
way to discharge it in ADVENTURES #512. You want an example? He
*punched a hole* in the Cyborg, who was just as invulnerable as he was
at that point.
At this stage in Superman's career, inhaling a little kryptonite gas
wasn't *too* bad. It probably hurt, but he couldn't worry about that
until the Cyborg was stopped. (Because he's Superman.)
> Even funnier, the month after that there's an issue where
> Supes nearly has a panic attack over finding a piece of Kryptonite the
> size of a bullet!
Superman didn't *know* just how powerful he was. What he *did* know was
that he hates being exposed to kryptonite. About as much as I hate
having my blood tested, though I usually survive that. Stern wrote this
scene rather well, I thought.
> I dropped the comic shortly after that
I'd hate to think you dropped the books just because of the use of
Kryptonite for a few months.
My best explaination is that since Cyborg didn't seem like the
> brightest or sanest villian in the story (the story made it look like he
> had brought only several dozen troops with him to try to conquer the
> entire planet!)
Re-read ACTION #691. Superman and Steel are fighting robots and troops
on virtually every panel. I could find several dozen in that comic
alone.
that Cyborg only thought it was a gaint chunk of
> Kryptonite and was too out there in looney land to realize it was just a
> normal green space rock.
Since the Cyborg is equally vulnerable to Kryptonite, I doubt he'd have
much trouble identifying it. Also, the only way I can think of for him
to *find* a rock that big would be to head for the remnants of Krypton.
Odds are you'll get the genuine arictle there.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
: MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
: <19971128130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
: > > I suspect that if and when O'Neil decides to step aside, one of his
: > >assistants will be promoted. Jordan Gorfinkel would be a candidate. So
: > >would Scott Peterson, who already edits NIGHTWING.
: >
: > I don't think it'll be Dixon, either. Being an editor, and especially a
: group
: > editor, would cut into his writing schedule, he'd have to drop projects
: to do
: > that. Chuck would also have to relocate to New York and work in the
: office,
: > and I think he's still living somewhere in Pennsylvanaia, and he's got a
: > family, which would mean pulling up his roots to take the job.
: >
: > If O'Neil goes it'll be either Gorf or Peterson that gets promoted. Or
: maybe
: > Archie Goodwin will step in.
: >
: > But you never know, either, I certainly wouldn't totally cut out the
: It would depend on when it happens. If it happens soon (which it likely
: will) then it'll be an editor.
I'm curious as to what inside information you're privy to that nobody else
knows to indicate that an editorial change "likely will... happen soon."
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> Pariah (rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu) wrote:
> : MLeon99 <mle...@aol.com> wrote in article
> : <19971128130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> : > > I suspect that if and when O'Neil decides to step aside, one of his
> : > >assistants will be promoted. Jordan Gorfinkel would be a candidate. So
> : > >would Scott Peterson, who already edits NIGHTWING.
> : >
> : > I don't think it'll be Dixon, either. Being an editor, and especially a
> : group
> : > editor, would cut into his writing schedule, he'd have to drop projects
> : to do
> : > that. Chuck would also have to relocate to New York and work in the
> : office,
> : > and I think he's still living somewhere in Pennsylvanaia, and he's got a
> : > family, which would mean pulling up his roots to take the job.
> : >
> : > If O'Neil goes it'll be either Gorf or Peterson that gets promoted. Or
> : maybe
> : > Archie Goodwin will step in.
> : >
> : > But you never know, either, I certainly wouldn't totally cut out the
> : > possibility of Dixon becoming an editor ...
>
> : It would depend on when it happens. If it happens soon (which it likely
> : will) then it'll be an editor.
>
> I'm curious as to what inside information you're privy to that nobody else
> knows to indicate that an editorial change "likely will... happen soon."
Good point. I should have put 'more likely' will... and it would be a belief on
my part... not fact.
Why do I feel this way? I like O'Neil's Batman and I'm enjoying it. These things
have a tendancy to be taken away from me.
Pariah
MLeon99
>> Where does Dixon live?
>
> Dixon lives in Philadelphia unless I'm mistaken.
Last I heard it was somewhere in Pennsyvania, not sure where.
-- Mike