Blathering Blatherskite

CD Review: "The Music of DC Comics: 75th Anniversary Collection"

2010-09-30T19:39:00.001-07:00

The top ten Batman villains? What's that? While I was pondering this question, I realized that the CD Soundtrack I'd been pining for, The Music of DC Comics: 75th Anniversary Collection was released this past Tuesday! I just jetted on down to the local Best Buy (Oh, Tower Records how I miss you) and picked it up for $13.99. Unfortunately, this collection isn't the way I imagined it to be. It is not without merit, certainly, but it ain't what we should have gotten.

And I don't mean in the sense of music omissions, which is something I'd been moaning about outside of this site. Omitting key pieces of music from DC's long history is surely dumb, but they could easily release another volume of music later on. So, let's go over this thang!

The track listing includes the mainstays you'd expect and a fair cross-section of more obscure music.

1. Superman March - Sammy Timberg (1941)

2. Theme From Superman (Album Version) - John Williams (1978)

3. The New Adventures of Superman - John Gart (1966)

4. Lois and Clark / The New Adventures of Superman - Jay Gruska (1993)

5. The Adventures of Superboy - John Gart(1966)

6. Superboy - Kevin Kiner (1988)

7. Smallville Season 8 (End Title) - Louis Febre (2008)

8. Batman: The Electrical Brain - Lee Zahler (1943)

9. The Batman Theme (Album Version) - Danny Elfman (1989)

10. The Adventures of Batman - John Gart (1967)

11. Batman TV Series Theme - Neal Hefti (1966)

12. Batman: The Brave and the Bold - Andy Sturmer (2008)

13. Batman Beyond - Kristopher Lee (1999)

14. Molossus from Batman Begins - Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard (2005)

15. Justice League of America - John Gart (1967)

16. Super Friends - Hoyt Curtin (1973)

17. The All New Super Friends Hour - Hoyt Curtin (1977)

18. Justice League Unlimited - Michael McCuistion (2004)

19. Legends of the Superheroes - Fred Wener (1979)

20. The Teen Titans - John Gart (1967)

21. Aquaman - John Gart (1967)

22. Swamp Thing - Christopher Stone (1991)

23. Shazam! - Norman Prescott & Yvette Blais (1974)

24. The Flash - John Gart (1967)

25. Green Lantern - John Gart (1967)

26. Green Lantern First Flight - Robert J Kral (2009)

27. The Atom - John Gart (1967)

28. Hawkman - John Gart (1967)

29. Plastic Man Comedy Adventure Show - Dean Elliott (1979)

30. Wonder Woman The Animated Movie End Title - Christopher Drake (2009)

31. Wonder Woman - Charles Fox & Norman Gimbel (1976)

That's a very good cross-section, but some baffling songs are omitted in favor of strange inclusions. More on that later, though.

First-off, I was kind-of shocked at the lack of effort shown to many of these songs. While they are all remastered (well, most of them), a shocking number of the TV themes are just ripped from the episodes themselves, and not original masters. Of course I realize (And I want to emphasize that I know this so nobody misunderstands me) that most of these, especially older songs, that's the only way they could get them. I highly doubt the original masters for any of the TV material pre-1990 is still around, or their whereabouts known. But in a few of the cases, the better versions where around (previously released, even), and DC/WB opted not to search, just to rip from DVDs.

In particular, the theme to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman has the sound effects present from the opening of the show.... when the Sci-Fi channel released the same piece of music without effects back in the late 1990s on a compilation album. So there's no excuse on that one! The theme to 1966's The Adventures of Superboy is a worthless inclusion given the fact that it is entirely narration and the background music is barely discernable... nor is it very long.

One of the pieces I was excited for, Sammy Timberg's excellent Superman theme for the Max Fliescher cartoons of the 40s is presented in an incorrect, slower speed, almost robbing the piece of its percussive, marching grandeur. It and the 1943 piece from Batman are presented with the narration afterwords that opened the initial episodes of each serial, which are nice, but are dead giveaways of DVD-rippage with the sound effects playing through them. Nor is the Batman piece very cleanly restored... it's obviously ripped from the first episode of the serial, which as the DVD release shows you, is in particularly bad shape, print-wise. If they'd taken the music from one of the other chapters, the music would have been in better quality.

Happily, the theme for the animated Adventures of Batman from 1967 is very nice in quality, and although it isn't SFX or narration free, it's one of the more least-offensive... um... offenses. But unforgivably, the theme to the 1966 Batman TV series theme is a re-recording! Again, no excuse, given that that exact recording has been restored and included on recent soundtrack releases of the adjoining film adaptation, which is readily available. This one may come down to some kind of licensing issue (which the show is rife with), but it's not even a re-recording that sounds close to the original. It's slow-paced and extended. Did DC even try?

I would have included the end credits music from Batman Begins, as that gives a better impression of the music of that film, being more of a montage, and it has a much clearer statement of that Batman theme. The Justice League of America theme is hardly "restored" and sounds like it was taken from a particularly harsh source. Only two of the probably ten Superfriends theme songs are included. The rest is self-explanatory, but now on to part II of the lameness... the questionable content.

First-off... if you're going to just rip the music from video/DVD sources, why not include the theme to the Kirk Alyn Superman serials, or the theme to the George Reeves Adventures of Superman series? Instead we get The Adventures of Superboy and Legends of the Superheroes? Legends particularly needs to be erased from existence as it's far worse than the Star Wars Holiday Special could ever hope to be. You include the theme to the forgotten (and for good reason) Superboy live action series from 1988, but omit Danny Elfman's theme for the 1991 Flash TV series? Are you kidding me? And you included the theme to Justice League Unlimited, but not the original version by Shirley Walker? Nothing from the Bruce Timm cartoons from the 1990s? Seriously! Shirley Walker's work on Batman: The Animated Series, Superman: The Animated Series and The Batman/Superman Adventures is excluded.

The total running time for all the tracks is 42 minutes. CDs can hold 80 minutes of music. There's no excuse for the omissions, except to sell another volume down the road. Aside from the CD, the case is very nice, lavishly illustrated by the master of DC illustration, Juan Jose-Garcia-Lopez. The front cover has credits within and folds out into a nice poster of the DC characters done in the same art style.

All-in-all, this is something fans should own... but for absolute die-hards, you'll feel a little ripped off at WB/DC's half-hearted effort. They could have included so much more, and the quality just isn't there in the end on the things were it really mattered. Again, I know getting sound effect-less versions of music from anything pre-1990 ain't happening, but that aside, this was a sloppy production. Great way to celebrate, DC. Thank God the CD's only 13 bucks. You're not getting ripped off so badly.

The Ten Best: Batman Villains (Part IV)

2010-09-20T22:44:00.001-07:00

Cover to Batgirl #13,
Art by Stan Lau

At #6, we have a villain who most people would overlook or ignore when thinking of Batman's greatest foes: Clayface! My choices for the best villains will typically be for what kind of a story you can tell with them, what kind of thnigs they bring out in Batman as a character. Personally, I think that some of the best Batman stories ever told feature Clayface, since he's not your average criminal. Batman can't simply tie him up with a Batarang and be done with him. No, Bats has gotta use his brain to take out the shape-shifter's brawn.

There have been a few Clayfaces in the comic books themselves, and for simplicity's sake, I'll only cover the two essential versions of the character. The original Clayface was an actor named Basil Karlo (an obvious take-off on Boris Karloff, the current horror icon of the time, being 1940), who was famous for horror movies but specifically a film in which he played a murderer called (get ready-!) Clayface. When he found out Hollywood would be remaking the film and thereby recasting him, he went off-the-deep-end, taking on the persona and going out to have himself a murder spree on those remaking the film. The Clayface identity was nothing more than a guy in a shady purple outfit using a knife. The villain wouldn't become that which we know until the next guy came along...

Basil Karlo--originally.

Artist unknown.

Come the 50s, and after a couple of brief appearances in the 1940s, Clayface was forgotten. Until Detective Comics #298. In it, we were introduced to fortune hunter Matt Hagen, who, when exploring for treasure in the desert fell into an underground pool of mysterious goo... and comes out as a walking puddle of mud. Finding he could thus reshape himself into anything, he did what any tragic nice guy does in a Batman comic--he decides to turn crook! Thus, Clayface II is born, and it re-defines the character for all time. All future Clayfaces were in the "mold" of Hagen, and when Basil Karlo was reintroduced into the comics following Crisis on Infinite Earths (requiring a reintroduction as the previous version of most characters were erased from continuity), he was done in the style of Hagen, thus uniting the Clayface brand under a common theme.

Goo Skidoo!

Cover to Detective Comics #298

At first, Hagen was limited by the amount of time he could use the power--after a couple days he had to go take another dunk in the goo to be the goo all over again. This ideal was jettisoned in-time. Clayface can be used in a variety of ways, dramtically. As I said before, Batman can't take him out easily and must be inventive. The idea of Clayface is keenly tragic. Obviously, original writings depicted villains as purely evil. But recent depictions of this goo-guy usually play up the tragedy of being a monster forever. Mr. Freeze is marred, but he's a criminal of his own free-will. Ra's and Strange are fully aware of their behavior. Harvey Dent is tragic, yes, but in terms of challenge for Batman, there isn't much to be had. This cements Clayface's position on the list.

In-terms of other comic readings for CF, I suggest the recent (as-in this year) issue of the mini-series Joker's Asylum II. The Clayface one-shot tells a chilling and somewhat touching tale of the new-age Basil Karlo CF, with excellent writing by Kevin Shinick and glorious art by Kelley Jones. Kelley's the kind of guy you go to when you want a horrific Batman story drawn--just read the Vampire trilogy if you don't believe me. But that's another post...

Still available at comic shops everywhere!

Of course, one of these entries wouldn't be complete if I didn't look at the depictions outside the funnybooks. And wouldn't-you-know-it, Bruce Timm does it again. Clayface, like Mr. Freeze, was a fragmented character in the comics. With the two-part episode "Feat of Clay," we see the creation of what I consider to be the definitive interpretation of the character.

Now that's just... creepy!

Bruce Timm's design for Matt Hagen's Clayface!

Timm took Matt Hagen as the mold, and filled it with the actor's background of Basil Karlo, add in a dash of tragedy and Roland Dagget, and you've got an Emmy-winning episode of Batman: The Animated Series. What? It didn't win one? Well, it should have!

Hagen is an actor who bounced-back after a car accident left him horribly scarred, by using corporate slimeball Dagget's new facelift substance called RenewU. When applied, the wearer can mold their face to their liking. But the effects are short, and Dagget sees Hagen as a chance to have a hired spy. The item is not on-the-market, so Hagen is at his mercy... commiting crimes for Dagget in order to score some more of the formula. The prinicpal crime of the episode that sets things in-motion is Hagen's impersonation of Bruce Wayne and the consequential attempt on Lucius Fox's life; something which sees the real Bruce take the fall.

Fed-up and needing the material desperately, Hagen decides to cut Dagget out of the loop and steal the stuff. He's caught by Dagget's men, who take him to a dark alley and force-feed him a whole jar of RenewU... and the stuff ain't supposed to be ingested. The chemicals turn him into the freak you see above, and thus Hagen decides to turn crook! The resulting episode gives us several great fights between Batman and Clayface, culminating with a sad, freakish sequence in-which Batman shows Hagen images of his old performances, pleading with Matt to find help so he can resume his normal life. Not a good idea. The images cause Hagen to go mad. Like muscle-spasms, his body tries to keep transforming to the new visual information and he wildly goes out of control, later electrocuting himself. The episode ends forbodingly, revealing that Hagen wasn't caught, and he's still out there... And did I mention this version of the character is voiced by Ron Pearlman? Cherry-on-top, truly.

His further appearances were good as well, but none matched the brilliance of that original two-parter. But wait! There's more! Remember The Batman? Well, that series got its own, unique Clayface, also born of tragedy. Another brilliant interation... Clayface is 2-for-2!

That'll never heal if he doesn't stop picking!

Ethan Bennett is... Clayface!

A new character introduced for the 2004 series, Ethan Bennett is an African-American childhood friend of Bruce Wayne's who grew up to be a Gotham cop. This, of course, leads to him being at-odds with Bruce;s alter-ego for much of the first season, until the end of that first season in the two-parter (always with the two-parters, CF?) "The Rubberface of Comedy/The Clayface of Tragedy."

Captured by the Joker and doused with an experimental substance the Clown Prince uses called "Joker Putty" (a substance which turns anything into a rubbery-goo), Ethan gets turned into the transforming terror we all know. This makes him go nuts and he goes on a quest for revenge against the Joker, thereby becoming a danger. Captured and locked-up in Arkham, he escapes off-and-on to torture Batman with his crimes and his tragic backstory, often grappling with his inner-demons and desire to be the hero he once was. All-in-all, another brilliant iteration... and he wasn't even from the comic books!

More to come very, very soon. I swear to God!

Jonah Hex: A DC Dud

2010-06-18T02:53:00.000-07:00

I interrupt the slow-going ranking of the top ten Batman villains for an important entry.

Wow. I just got back from the midnight screening of the new DC Comics/Warner Bros. venture: Jonah Hex.

Now, the following is very important to keep in mind: I'm easy to please at the movies. I love Spider-Man 3 (mostly). I found Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be flawless. And these are just two examples of films I enjoyed that everyone else HATED.

As long as the film isn't filled with major problems (not the kind fanboys conplain about, like Peter Parker going dance-crazy), like lack of narrative and poor editing, I generally will like the film if it's entertaining. And there is definitely good stuff in this film. But if you paid modern ticket prices ($12) to see the film...

you paid at least $11 too much.

Keeping in mind what I said about Spidey 3 and Indy 4 earlier, if I'm saying that about a "pop-culture" movie, you know we have a problem.

Ugh. Where to begin? I guess, with the positives. Don't worry, I won't spoil much.

Josh Brolin nails the character. He brings Jonah Hex to life, and although a CGI'd 'big eye' would have been nice to have, you don't miss it too much. He is reason enough to see the film, just not at full price.

The first two acts of the film are good enough. Pretty enjoyable, actually. There's clunky expository dialogue that honestly could have been written and delivered better, but it's still an enjoyable film that you would like, but not love. The characters are introduced reasonably well (and Hex's origins are detailed well, even going as far as to have a nice animated "title" sequence that really captures the art of the comic book), and although they're not fleshed-out as much as you'd like, it's, as I said, good enough to enjoy.

But the apparent problems spring up when you get to see the villain. John Malkovich is the weakest link of the film. His performance is unrefined and a bit too hammy. He's too effeminate to be much of a match with Brolin's grizzled hero. His plan makes enough sense, but the logistics of it are sadly never explained.

Megan Fox is what most people are going to call the worst part, but they're way off-base. First of all, she's not in the film enough to be much of an additional problem (She probably only gets ten minutes of screen time). And second, this is a better performance out of her than anything we've seen before. Again, keep in mind that it's not great, not even up to par with Brolin, but she's far from ghastly... and you even see a couple of scenes that would have led to some real character development if they'd tried.

And that's probably the worst part of the movie overall. The lack of cohesion. Even during the enjoyable parts, the narrative is loose (at-best). Things happen, plot threads are set up, but don't go as far as they feel they needed to. The entire element of the US Army needing Hex's help is started, and then fades out once Hex goes out on his own. None of the characters go anywhere, either. Hex has the most development of them all, and even then, he doesn't go anywhere. But you don't really expect him to; so no major harm, no major foul.

The action is passable, but far from dazzling. Again, it's more about enjoying Brolin's character being a badass more than being wowed by the action. The paranormal elements are also enjoyable, adding a dark twist. So no complaints there. I'm sorry, but I'm still thinking about the wasted potential of Fox's character. Early on they set up a good, emotional-and-polarizing relationship for her with Hex (they're both hated bottomfeeders who are in-a-sense treated as freaks), and it's never taken advantage of. The worst parts of her performance from the trailers are left aside (different, better takes are used. I was relieved), so I was hoping she'd avoid the scorn. But knowing fanboys, they'll single her out as the worst part, when it's clearly Malkovich.

Both the good AND the ugly: Brolin is great!

Promotional image from Jonah Hex.

But as I've been trying to articulate; it's an enjoyable film with some good spots, some decent atmosphere where its needed, and a likeable hero. But the third act is where it all goes to Hell and never comes back.

If you think she's the worst part... you've got another think coming.

Promotional image from Jonah Hex.

The scene in which Hex is resurrected by Native American mystics is the beginning of the end for the quality of the film, what little of it there was. That's actually probably where the third act begins, so from there, you know it'll be downhill. The film moves at lightning pace, the exposition gets clunkier and less thought-out. The whole film feels compressed of breathing space... but the third act has none at all. No more atmosphere, no more exposition, just a hackneyed, impossible-to-follow action sequence that is meaningless... because the film's given up caring and you can sense it. So you give up caring too.

Literally, you stop giving a damn; and I was really trying! You can't follow the action, the music is a droning, meaningless mesh of heavy metal and orchestral bits, so droning that it makes it harder to care about the action; you feel bland because the soundtrack is helping numb your interest. There's no resonance to anything here on out, not that there was much to begin with. You don't feel any kind of fulfilment or meaning when it's all over. it's undoubtedly one of the worst third acts I've ever seen in films. There's a nice final scene (sort of), but you're ready to walk out by then.

You get the sense that the film really fell apart in the editing room, mostly. I'll bet you could have salvaged things a little with better editing, but I think WB knew the third act was bad, and therefore rushed its editing to finish the film quicker. But in the realm of direction, director Jimmy Heyward displays little pinache and no real vision. He can direct the actors (well, really just Brolin), but he can't strengthen a weak narrative.

So, what's the final prognosis? I've definitely seen much worse. Supergirl and The Star Wars Holiday Special burn in much more infamy for me. But Jonah Hex is moreover a disappointment. And I'd still say it's worth a rental for Brolin at least. But let me again re-iterate. I like a lot of movies that people hate, or were expecting to hate. But when I actually dislike a movie people were already going to hate? That means it will be a spectacular flop. The movie is a little bit better than people will give it credit for, and they'll hate it for the wrong reasons. But rest assured, it's no hidden gem.

5 out of 10 (and that's being a little generous!)

The Ten Best: Batman Villains (Part III)

2010-06-13T21:54:00.001-07:00

Clocking in at #7 is one of my personal favorites (and I almost wish I could rank him higher, but it's so hard!), we've got the cool, cruel Mr. Freeze! -- This entry will be all-Freeze, since there's a LOT of ground to cover with ol' Frost-face. Dr. Fries first came to us in Batman #121 (1959), then called "Mr. Zero." There, he was a generic, cold-themed villain. This characterization would continue even into his re-emergence in the late 60s (due to the TV show), when his named was changed to Mr. Freeze. It wasn't until the 1990s when the character was given the attitude, appearance, power and motive to become one of Batman's greatest enemies. Surprisingly, unlike many of Batman's villains, Mr. Freeze has had his best characterizations outside of the comic books! So without further ado, let's look at the good doctor in his other incarnations!

The first three faces of Mr. Freeze (L-R): George Sanders, Otto Preminger and Eli Wallach.

From the 1960s live-action Batman television series.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not, considering his abilities), Freeze is one of the MOST adapted characters in the Batman rogues gallery. While Two-Face has been around longer, Freeze, I suppose, just translates better. Anyway, it was the live action Batman television of 1966 that invented the name change from Zero to Freeze, and it was also the first to give something of a tragic backstory. In the show, Freeze's real name is actually Dr. Schivel, and he was a villain using cyrogenics research for evil purposes, until a run-in with Batman, attempting to apprehend him, caused a cryogenic liquid to spill onto him and transformed him into the villain we know and love. Thus, his life ruined, he becomes a new sort of criminal. Batman feels pity for him, feeling that even a criminal ought to be able to survive outside of a sub-zero environment. I could not find a good picture of George Sanders in his costume, so I just got a picture of him.

Sanders was the first to play Freeze on the show (Preminger and Wallach arrived in the second season, and were forgettable), and he was one of the best, perhaps the best live action actor to portray Freeze as-of-yet. The three actors gave Freeze Austrian/German accents. That will be important later, so remember that.

Anyway, Sanders' portrayal of Freeze came in the first season, and thank God for that. The first season of the show was better than the show is generally stereotyped. The plots were (usually) borrowed from the actual comic books, the humor was more subtle (and thereby, funnier) and less outlandish, and the performances were more serious. The comedy in the first season was mostly drawn from the natural absurdity in Batman (don't act like there isn't any--you know it and I know it!), instead of the second and third seasons' desires to insert wackiness into the series, which ultimately killed it.

The plot of episodes seven and eight--"Instant Freeze" and "Rats Like Cheese"--is minimal. It involves Freeze seeking revenge on Batman for his condition, and to that end, he spends his time one-upping Batman in the press, by successfully committing his crimes again and again; culminating in his capture of Batman (and Robin, by consequence). Similar to a Bond villain, Freeze has dinner with Batman, taunting him to that end, he will draw out the suspense before he finally kills him. Sanders is wonderfully serious, and in these episodes, at least, Freeze really isn't played for laughs. He even delivers a speech of lament to Batman similar to what Paul Dini would write for him almost 30 years later...

"[Medical help?] In prison? This I do not believe. No, you must pay for what you did to me... for forcing me to live like this. Never again to know the warmth of a summer breeze... never to know the heat of burning logs in winter-time... Revenge... that is what I need! Revenge, I will have revenge!"

-- George Sanders as Mr. Freeze, "Rats Like Cheese."

...crazy, huh? The surrounding scenes involve Batman succumbing to the cold of Freeze's hideout, with which he can control the climate of areas of the room via a remote switchbox, all while Freeze taunts and describes the chilling fate it would provide.

Compare to it Mr. Freeze's speech from the episode of Batman: The Animated Series I just mentioned...

"Think of it, Batman. To never again walk on a summer's day, with a hot wind in your face and a warm hand to hold... Oh yes. I'd kill for that!"

-- Michael Ansara as Mr. Freeze, "Heart of Ice."

The unfortunate failing is that Sanders only played Freeze once, and his other two appearances (under the guide of the other two actors) are utterly silly and forgettable. I mean, too silly even for the show itself! Oh, well.

The cool, cruel Mr. Freeze! Voiced by Ted Knight

for The Batman/Superman Hour (1968)

Freeze was next spotted in the 1968 cartoon series, voiced decently by Ted Knight. Not much to note, as Freeze is a generic ice-themed thug, just as he was in the comics. He had some of the more fun episodes, though. And while we're on the subject of Freeze's Filmation-animated appearances, he re-appeared in Filmation's 1977 cartoon series The New Adventures of Batman (wich featured the return of Adam West and Burt Ward as the heroes), but this time he was voiced by Lennie Weinrib, the new show making him an extraterrestrial. Um.... yeah. Moving on...

The next three faces of Mr. Freeze! Michael Ansara keeps us cold!

Various iterations from Batman: The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures and Batman Beyond; in other words, the Timmverse.

This next iteration of Mr. Freeze, played very memorably by Michael Ansara and pioneered by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, is perhaps the best-known version of the character, also the most detailed, as we see (basically) his whole life evolve (or de-evolve, I guess). It was Paul Dini, writing Freeze for the B:TAS episode "Heart of Ice" that won the show its first Emmy, and it made Mr. Freeze the popular anti-hero he is today. It made his alias Dr. Victor Fries, kept the cryogenic accident that the 60s show invented, but also built upon it, making him a tragic person who had the accident happen as a result of negligence and sabotage by a company called GothCorp.

Dr. Fries, trying to preserve his wife's life due to a rare, incurable disease, cyrogenically freezes her, but when his bosses at GothCorp find out, they pull the plug, causing a cyrogenic lab accident that kills his wife Nora (he thinks) and causes him to require the special freezing suit that has defined the character. The episode involves Freeze seeking vengeance upon the company and Ferris Boyle particularly, as he spearheaded the attempt to shut Victor's experiment down. Similar to the 60s show, Batman pities Freeze and wishes to help him. Batman stops him, and Freeze is incarcerated in Arkahm Asylum (not because he's insane, mind you, but because they can handle his special needs, like an ice-cold cell).

Believe it or not, this iteration of Freeze only makes four more appearances, and yet they're far more impressive than anything the comics have given Freeze... and the comics have even adapted this version of Freeze to their continuity... and he's still rarely featured or even written this well!

Freeze next appears at the end of the Fox run of the series as an old man springs him from Arkham to force him to provide the same accident to make himself immortal. Freeze complies when the wealthy man provides his still-frozen wife, apparently still alive, but soon decides it was a mistake when he finds the reason the old man wants to live forever is to rule over a new utopian empire. Freeze defeats the old man and allows the buolding to crumble around him, trapping he and Nora in an iceberg headed for the north...

In the direct-to-video animated movie called Batman and Mr. Freeze: Subzero, Freeze is happily living in the northern territories, when an exploring submarine breaking up through the ice floor into his lair, smashing Nora's tube to pieces. Desperate, Fries ventures back to Gotham to force a doctor friend of his to find a compatible organ donor for Nora's survival. He finds one in Barbara Gordon (Batgirl), and he kidnaps her to use her organs, against her will. Batman and Robin give chase and in a spectacular finale, Freeze sacrifices himself for Nora's survival, with the Dynamic Duo bringing her back to Gotham to be successfully saved. Freeze finds out via television and happily moves on with his life.

Or does he? By the time of The New Batman Adventures, Freeze re-appears and begins destroying the beloved things of Gotham's prominant citizens, simply to help people match his sadness at the loss of Nora. Puzzled at why she's "lost" to him, Batman seen knows, when Freeze's head comes walking down a hallway, on a pair of spidery legs. The accident deteriorated Fries' body, apparently, and his head is all that's left. So Freeze figures that his chances with Nora are indeed gone, and he has nothing to lose. Victor could never take tragedy well, I guess.

Finally, this Freeze winds up living into the future as a mere head. In Batman Beyond, an experiment transfers Freeze's brain into a cloned body of himself, non-icy, and he couldn't be happier. Until the body begins to break down on a celluar level. With no chance to survive, and after surviving an attempted double-cross, Freeze goes back to his old ways and dons a spare cold suit he'd had in storage, going out in a blaze of revenge and glory, this is the last appearance of the Timmverse Freeze, and has presumably died.

Wow. Bravo!

But, even after the new Paul Dini version of Mr. Freeze comes to be, then-Batman director Joel Schumacher has other, more chilling plans (I'm sorry, couldn't resist!)...

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze... and that's all I have to say.

Promotional image from Batman and Robin (1997).

Seriously, you're gonna flip your lid, but I'm about to defend Arnold Schwarzenegger's version of Mr. Freeze. Here we go.

Certainly, there's a lot to be unhappy about. Though he has most of the serious/tragic details of the Dini interation, Arnold's Victor Fries is Austrian (harkening back to the 60s show), and his dialogue, outside of the dramatic moments, is literally 90% ice/cold-themed puns. I kid you not.

Probably all of Schwarzenegger's cold puns... Actually, maybe not even all of them!

Footage courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

But here's the funny thing... the effects are great, his costume is really awesome, make-up is top-notch (Batman and Robin was not a cheap movie!), and I have to admit it: Arnold's Freeze is hilarious! Look, we know that Arnold can act cold (sorry!), just watch The Terminator, but Schumacher was making a comedy, so I'm sure he told Arnold to ham it up... and Arnie did. It probably helps that I like Arnold anyway, but no, his Mr. Freeze really is hilarious. Or I'm just insane. One of the two.

Anyway, wrapping up, Freeze hit the samll screen again in 2004's The Batman. Back to a generic, cold-themed villain, this version is voiced by Clancy Brown (of Lex Luthor fame). And... that's all there is to it. Nothing deep or particularly chilling (okay, I'll stop!) about him.

Um... insert observation here!

Mr. Freeze from The Batman.

Next entry will feature more than one villain... I promise!

The Ten Best: Batman Villains (Part II)

2010-06-13T21:34:00.000-07:00

Coming in at #9 is Batman's true first arch-nemesis, Dr. Hugo Strange. -- He's not a character that most people would think to include, but remember, I told you I was offbeat. I think Strange deserves to be on this list for a variety of reasons. First, as I said above, he actually IS Batman's first true arch-nemesis. He is the second Batman villain to recur (Dr. Death beat him, having had his two initial appearances already by the time Strange hit the stands), and he's been around longer than the Joker by a year. He was revealed to the world in Detective Comics #36.

Above: Dr. Hugo Strange!

Art by Bob Kane

Secondly, he's had significant influence on Batman's life, for so short a period of fighting him. In both pre-and-post Crisis continuities, Strange succeeded in capturing and drugging Bruce Wayne and fiding out that he was The Batman. He then successfully usurped Bruce's dual lives for a period of time, until Bruce was able to recover and escape. In the modern comics, his insanity tends to keep him away from the realm of 'threat,' but should he ever recover, he can spring Bruce's secret onto an unsuspecting Gotham.

Hugo is a true mad scientist, and works best probably as a villain of the 1930s, as his brand of evil fit right in with the fears and suspicions the common man had about science and its potential in the late 1930s. He's created man-monsters and other atrocities, but generally, is good for giving Batman a psychological workout. Were he not insane, he would be Batman's equal.

Strange, as voiced by Ray Buktenica

and animated in Batman: The Animated Series

Outside of the comic books, Strange has recieved little attention, due to his relative obscurity. however, leave it to Bruce Timm and company to at least give him a quick spotlight. He appears in one episode of Batman: The Animated Series (and I think cameos, unvoiced, in Justice League), in which he manages to deduce Batman's identity and try to sell it to the highest-bidding Batman rogue (just as in his memorable moment in the 1970s issues of Detective Comics). He uses a device to break down inhibitions and extract people's greatest secrets (under the guise of being a most-effective psychiatrist at a richie-rich resort), and he uses the secrets to blackmail. Bruce Wayne goes undercover there to find answers and gets caught in it himself. For the curious, the episode is called "The Strange Secret of Bruce Wayne."

Certifiable! Frank Gorshin and

Richard Green voiced Strange in The Batman.

The [bad] doctor appears in the recent Batman animated series The Batman, voiced by the Riddler himself, Frank Gorshin (however, Gorshin was replaced midway through after passing away). In his few appearances, Strange is head psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum, and uses unorthodox methods to treat patients, letting Arnold Wesker (the Ventriloquist) go before he's fully cured, and then unleashing Scarface back onto Wesker to "test" his sanity. Batman is not pleased.

This all culminates when Strange creates a computerized program called D.A.V.E., which is programmed with all the thought patterns of the greatest gotham villains, for the purposes of using it to anticipate the criminals... only DAVE goes nuts and make himself a body, to begin becoming the ultimate criminal mastermind! After Batman defeats the machine, that's the last straw, and Strange becomes an inmate of his own Asylum!

Strange has not graced the silver screen in a Batman movie yet, but there's always hope, right? Who should play him? Well, I'll let this picture speak for itself.

Calling Dr. Hugo Strange... Ben Kingsley!

#8. Ra's Al Ghul -- One of the more recent Batman villains on this list, relatively speaking. Ra's (Pronounced "Raish," not "Ras;" a mis-pronounciation Bruce Timm and co. have poked fun at before) was created by writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams almost 40 years ago now, back in the early 70s. He got his start in Batman #232.

The Demon's Head, 39 years young (or older?)

Artist unknown.

And he is truly one of their most brilliant creations! A man centuries old, he uses mysterious, naturally-occuring pits of liquid from around the world to keep himself young... a veritable fountain of youth. The man is spurred on to re-form the world, perhaps in his image, as he is obsessed with the evils that mankind has brought upon the Earth and feels he's the man to undo it all. Perhaps the ultimate environmentalist. Only he's willing to kill every other human on Earth to achieve his goals.

Add to this the fact that he is not crazy, he's merely driven and perhaps demented. He has an entire army to do his bidding, and nearly unlimited resources. Ra's is the man with the plan, and he is perhaps Batman's most dangerous foe, as he is the only villain in Bruce's rogue's gallery to be a threat to the entire world.

Batman and Ra's duel-to-the-death in

a scene from Batman: The Animated Series.

Late into the Fox years of Batman: The Animated Series, Timm and company brought the Demon's Head to life for the first time, and he was voiced perfectly by David Warner. When I read the comics or think of the character, it's his voice I hear. And his accuracy was paramount, which cannot be said of other adaptations. Anyway, he first appeared in a close adaptation of his original comics debut. Appearing to Batman (in the Batcave, no less), telling him of some peril that Dick Grayson is in, and appealing to Bruce's better nature to help him find his daughter Talia, as she has befallen the same kidnapped fate as Robin, by the same people. Of course, Bruce is never fooled and deduces the fact that it was all an elaborate trap of Ra's, to test Wayne's mettle and offer him the chance to become an heir to Ghul's sizable throne, since the Lazarus Pits won't work on him forever.

Bruce refuses, and as Al Ghul reappears numerous times, Bruce keeps refusing. There's even an episode of the show that follows a flashback of Al Ghul's fight with DC's wild-west freak, Jonah Hex. Ra's appeared numerous times in the Timmverse, even into Batman Beyond.

Underused and unfaithful: Liam Neeson as

Henri Ducard / Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins (2005).

Ra's finally hit the big screen in 2005, as a vastly inaccurate cipher and plot device. Portrayed well by Liam Neeson, Ra's is set-up as the character of Henri Ducard (a character created by Sam Hamm, writer of Tim Burton's BATMAN... zing!), who trains a confused and foolish Bruce Wayne in the ways of the Force--er, I mean, the Ninja. I remember when I heard that Neeson had been cast as Ra's (Wayyyyy back in 2004), I was ecstatic, but then they hastilly recanted and said he was Ducard. I was just naive enough to fall for it, so when he was revealed in the film, I was pleasently surprised. However, like all of Nolan's take on Batman, Neeson's Al Ghul is nuetered greatly. No immortality, no beautiful daughter with the hots for Bruce Wayne, no green robes, and no swordfights above a volcano!

Well, maybe that's too much to ask for, but aside from the desire to purge Gotham City (because it's become a "festering wound for suffering and injustice", naturally), he's not much like the Ra's we know and love (or fear). Neeson would have been flawless as the comic book Demon's Head... but alas... that version's too "unrealistic."

Another sword fight! Voiced by Peter Woodward in

Batman: Brave and the Bold.

Ra's most recent other appearance was on an episode of Batman: Brave and the Bold (which you should be watching if you're any sort of Batman fan!). In the episode "Sidekicks Assemble," an older Robin, Speedy and aqualad bicker amongst each other while their mentors and themselves battle Al Ghul for the fate of Coast City.

I think I've reached the picture limit for this post, Blogger's starting to give me trouble, so onto the next entry!

The Ten Best: Batman Villains (Part I)

2010-06-13T19:53:00.000-07:00

New feature today: my picks for the ten best of any particular subject. Today, as you can deduce, it's Batman villains. These entires will typically count-down. And in the case of this particular subject, I think it will be done in multiple-parts, since I've got a lot to say, since I'll also be looking at the characters as they translate outside of the Batman comics.

Batman has perhaps one of the largest and (definitely) best known rogues galleries in all of comic-dom. And it's well known to all that they're the least gimmicky, more based on what they can do for to challenge Batman as a character, not in terms of powers and abilities. If Batman had a bunch of super powered villains and he himself had no powers, that'd be rediculous.

Refreshingly, I don't think my picks for the top ten would be the same for most people. But then, I am unconventional.

A Cross-section of some of Batman's most

famous foes. Art by Jim Aparo.

10. Harvey Dent/Two-Face -- For a superhero all about duality, Two-Face is perhaps the perfect polar opposite to the Dark Knight. And best of all, he was (retroactively) one of Bruce Wayne's close friends. Originally, his name was Harvey Kent, and he was simply a District Attorney, with no personal ties to Batman or Commisioner Gordon's personal lives. Frank Miller helped re-shape his origin into that which he know today, in the late 1980s.

Cover to Batman Annual #14

Art by Neal Adams.

His obsession with duality and chance is something which people find fascinating. Though at the time of his creation in 1942, he was seen as perhaps a bit too gimmicky, and he only made a few more appearances until Dennis O'Neil revived him in the 1970s as a major rogue for the Caped Crusader.

"Two"-themed crimes were the driving force of his schemes until the mid-ninties, when they started to move him over to a more tragic-style villain who's so messed up that, I find, he's not very effective as a villain any more. Usually, he's just grappling with his own dark side, and there's not much there for Batman to do.

In terms of adaptations outside the comics, Harvey has had his ups and downs...

The first portrayal of Mr. Dent outside the books was in 1989 (!) by Billy Dee Williams, of The Empire Strikes Back fame, in BATMAN. Williams took the role expressly for the purpose of playing Two-Face, but by the time Harvey was ready to hit the big screen with his other half (heh!), WB wanted someone else, so Billy's contract was bought out, and the role went elsewhere. But before we get to that other guy, let's have a brief look at Billy's performance.

Charismatic, likeable... underused.

Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in a still from BATMAN (1989)

Billy Dee has a good deal of charisma for his (what must be a) total of 10 minutes on-screen. A press conference for Dent's recent election is shown early-on in the film, with commentary from a pre-Joker Jack Naiper on how "decent people" shouldn't live in Gotham City. The novelization (and the film itself) go on to detail that Dent marks a change for the city, as he's the first politician in years that crime boss Carl Grissom can't buy off. Later, Dent is seen strugglnig with the incompetant mayor Borg, and at the end of the film, shown publically supporting Batman. Williams was always an inspired choice, and to me it's very disappointing that he didn't get to play Two-Face. But, moving on, Harvey next appeared in 1992 on the small screen, for the first time, despite how long the guy's been in comics...

Richard Moll brought intense characterization to Harvey Dent... and Two-Face!

Image from Batman: The Animated Series.

Unsurprisingly for a project involving Bruce Timm, Harvey Dent was given the five-star treatment on Batman: The Animated Series. Introduced beforehand as Dent, and then transformed many episodes later, we got a chance to see Harvey arc, without undermining the fantastic criminality of the character. He still was a gangster and a purveyor of two-themed material, whether it was "double-crossing" people or even having twins as his henchmen, Timm and co. captured all the goods of the comic character, with none of the hackneyed writing. But what do you expect? It's Bruce Timm! But there are darker times ahead for Mr. Dent...

Tommy Lee Jones... in a rare moment of lucidity.

Promotional still from Batman Forever (1995)

Look, I like Tommy Lee Jones. And he's a fantastic actor. Therefore, his casting as Two-Face should have worked... Why did fate have to intervene? I don't have a whole lot to say on the subject without ranting... but I've kind of come around to enjoying the sheer stupidity of Jones' turn as 'Face!' (as he's called by his crew). But I would like to note that Jones is actually perfect in the role... for a whopping minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbH2Pc9ap4

I'd embed, but this video disables it. Whatever... Just watch the first minute of it and you'll see the scene.

Aaron Eckhardt... Underused and unfaithful.

Image from The Dark Knight (2008).

And now, just two years ago (at the time of this writing), Dent was brought before moviegoing audiences one more time. Actor Aaron Eckhardt was burdoned with portraying Mr. Dent beginning and ending in The Dark Knight, being a B-plot to the Joker in a convoluted character arc. He's introduced, transformed into Two-Face and killed, all within two and a half hours. To Eckhardt's credit, he works his damndest, but again, with how rushed he is, it feels like like Christopher Nolan was rushing it through to put his own stamp on Two-Face in addition to the Joker, in the same film. He generally behaves nothing like the comic book character, insomuch as his motivations are totally different and he does nothing that the comic character does. The coin-tossing element included out of necessity, but not really feeling genuine. Also, the origin of Two-Face is wholly original... even Batman Forever got his origin right.

Not that he's really that bad or anything, mind you, but the performance (like the film) is very overrated.

That's it for the first part. I've got to cut it off here because I didn't include all of the necessary images for the entry up-front, and adding them in after the fact is a hassle.

Why I love the Multiverse (Part II)

2010-03-14T22:36:00.000-07:00

Of those two primary, outdated versions of The Batman, my favorite (as I said before) is the Silver Age incarnation that was in-continuity between 1952 and 1985, and is now relegated to the title of "Earth One" Batman. We followed him from Superman #76 until Crisis on Infinite Earths #12, in-which he was 'killed' by the consequence of the remaining Multiverse getting condensed into one "New Earth."

Although the Golden Age Batman of "Earth Two" has the more mythic setting, history and iconography (see my previous post for why), the "Earth One" Batman of the Silver Age had the better, more varied life and stories.

Cover to

"The Untold Legend of the Batman" #3,

Art by Jim Aparo.

Where the stories given to what-was retroactively called the "Earth Two" Batman were very old and thereby simplisticly written (excepting the early Kane/Finger stories), the Silver Age Batman came into being with the wacky stories of the 1950s and early 1960s. So yes, this is the Batman that had adventures in outer space and had garage sales, however, these events were given the soft-goodbye around the time of the mid-60s. When a new editor by the name of Julius Schwartz took over at DC, Batfans will know that he initiated a revamping of Batman's look and his stories. For a while, his stories were still somehwat campy, but the hard sci-fi element had been removed. No more Bat-Baby or alien visitations.

But this Batman also existed in the period of time with the greatest amount of experimentation and since this was before comic book shops would become the norm', so this Batman did it all. He fought many different types of villains, many are not around anymore. His era saw the return of the Riddler, the creation of Poison Ivy and Ra's Al Ghul, the return of Hugo Strange and some of the most interesting ideas and character evolutions that never seem to stick today, or even be considered, it seems.

The Golden Age stories were still loosly in-continuity, but only so much as the facts of his origin, taking on Robin, and the events, but not the surrounding era. Such as: Hugo Strange had not been used since the Golden Age, but when he was brought back in the 1970s, it was treated as a 'return,' and that Batman had not seen him since the start of his career. The Golden Age stories were sort-of retconned to be within the matching lifetime of this Batman. And alas, as we never had a definitive 'end' for this Batman, there's no data on his birth or his age. He was not retroactively given life bookends as the "Earth Two" Batman was.

This universe was rich in adventure and heroism. It was still an era of cleanly-defined good and evil, and the DC heroes hopped back-and-forth between worlds, time periods (sometimes), and got along. During this period, Batman headlined a book called The Brave and the Bold, which started as a 'team-up' book, which soon grew to be a 'Batman team-up' book, where Bats would be paired with someone different all the way until the end of the book's publication. Herein, Batman was taken everywhere imaginable.

Batman plays a twisted game with The Riddler

Cover to "The Brave and the Bold" #183, Art by Jim Aparo

Over in his own books, Dick Grayson grew up and went off to college, but did not change into Nightwing (not until the early 1980s), so Bruce and Alfred decided that Wayne Manor was too big for just the two of them, and they closed up Wayne Manor and let it go to the city for historical purposes (with the Batcave sealed up, naturally), and they reloacted to the Wayne penthouse atop Wayne Enterprises HQ in downtown Gotham. Beneath, Bruce made an exact replica of the Batcave that was beneath the original manor, and operated out of it for almost twenty years, returning to the manor in 1982 (if I'm not mistaken).

The 70s was a period that began laying the groundwork for the modern portrayal of Batman. Famed writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams established the newer conventions of the character like Dr. Leslie Thompkins in his youth, his solo personality, turning the Joker from a generic clown villain into the psychotic arch-criminal of Bruce's nightmares, inventing Arkham Asylum, and more.

Beware the night of the Batman! A Dennis O'Neil story.

Cover of "Detective Comics" #451, Art by Ernie Chua

The Details of the origin of this Batman were very clearly defined in the three-part mini-series The Untold Legend of the Batman, published in 1980 and written by Len Wein with art by Jim Aparo (and John Byrne for some panels). Within, it's easy to see just how different the silver Age Batman is from the other two.

In his youth, this Bruce witnessed the murder of his folks (as usual), and thusly was sent to live with a nice middle aged woman (Alfred shows up later in life) named Mrs. Chillton (mother of Joe Chill, the man responsible for the murder of the Waynes--Chill was estabished for the first time in this era), who didn't know of her son's crimes. Bruce studied with a famed daredevil police detective named Harvey Harris. To avoid Harris learning his identity, Bruce created and wore what would later be the costume worn by Dick Grayson as Robin, as this Bruce was inspired by Robin Hood in his earlier youth.

After working with Harris, Bruce continued training and once he graduated High School, he went off to college to study criminology, planning to be a police officer. But when he found that the law would hamstring his outlook on justice, he decided to become a vigilante.

Similar to the current (and Golden Age) origin, he sees the bat through his open window, picks that as his visage, and becomes the Batman. However, subconsciously, Bruce chose it because he remembered that his father once wore a bat-man costume at a halloween party, years ago, where his father ran into notorious gangster Lew Moxon.

When Thomas Wayne testified against Moxon at trial, Moxon hired Joe Chill to kill Wayne and his wife. And you can figure how that went. Years after that, Bruce discovered all of this and confronted Chill (now an old man) directly, revealing his identity and his motivations to become Batman. Frightened, Chill ran out to seek help from his men, who kill him once he reveals he's the reason for Batman's existence.

So you can see right there how different things are in this continuity compared to the Golden or Modern ages. There's just so much put into the origin that it really fleshes out the character. Comparatively, the modern origin is fairly hodgepodge, and what-is and what-isn't in-continuity is a bit muddled. See, the Multiverse forced the writers to try and be all-inclusive, and on Batman, it worked.

The Silver Age also had the best artists to ever work on Batman, in my opinion. Jim Aparo was definitely the most well-known, as he drew (probably) 60% of the Silver Age Batman through covers and the interiors for The Brave and the Bold. I've featured his art above, and he's my most favorite Batman artist, bar-none. He continued to draw Batman into the early 2000s! Neal Adams needs no introduction. One that's forgotten, however, is Marshall Rogers, who drew Batman off-and-on for years and recently died.

The dynamic art of Marshall Rogers

Cover of "Detective Comics" #477

Rogers collaborated on the story arc that many still call "The Definitive Batman" with writer Steve Engalhart, Strange Apparitions, in which Batman meets true love in Silver St. Cloud, fights the Joker in one of the most iconic stories ("The Laughing Fish"--Detective Comics #475), and faces the return of Hugo Strange, who usurps his identity. Batman also teams with college-era Robin against the Penguin, and deals with new Gotham mayor Rupert Thorne (really a crime boss). Not to mention the creation of awesome-but-never-used villain Dr. Phosphorus, a character that inspired futuristic villain Blight on the TV series Batman Beyond.

Cover of the recent trade paperback printing

of "Strange Apparitions" by Marshall Rogers

Frankly there's a TON of information that can be written about the Silver Age Batman of "Earth One," but it's probably best that I stop here, lest I wear you out.

Needless to say, this era of Batman is filled with far more intriguing stories than I can even begin to tell you here, but I can say that no stories of the modern age Batman have thrilled as much as the works of the Silver Age Batman, save Knightfall. But that's another post, along with analysis of the Bruce Timm "DC Animated Universe" Batman, of whom we also have seen most of his life as well. But that may-or-may-not be my next post.

If you're ever wondering what Batman comics you should be reading, I'm always brimming with suggestions!

By the way...

2010-03-14T19:49:00.000-07:00

I've attempted to set-up an RSS feed. It should work. I think all you do is put my Feed URL into an RSS reader and the reader will do the rest. If you want it in "Atom" format, however, just go to the bottom of this page and click the link to do so.

The URL is http://b-blatherskite.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Why I love the Multiverse (Part I)

2010-03-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

Anyone reading this by now should know I love comic books. One of the few native art forms of the United States, comic books for years have been a place of fertile imagination and bold heroics. Coupled together with that childlike love of fantasy that everyone in the world needs to possess, comic books are a place where you can always find something to strike your fancy.

Although I'm a fan of both the publishings of Marvel and DC comics, I must admit that DC is the camp I'm in if I was forced to choose between the two. For whatever reason, DC's books have always just struck a chord in me more than Marvel's, overall. It's hard to find all of the reasons, but I think one of them is clear to me. I love the DC Comics multiverse.

The multiverse (for the uninitiated) is a term for multiple universes co-existing at one time, which, clearly, allows for a great range of storytelling possibilities.

What has DC done with these possibilities? Quite a lot, I can tell you that. Much more than any one person could tell you, that's for sure. With a continuity spanning all 75 years of their publishing history, DC has used the idea of multiple, parallel Earths to weave tales and explain away bizarre continuity (or create it) ever since they invented it back in the early 1960s.

Enough parallel worlds to make your head spin 52 million times!
From "Crisis on Infinite Earths" #1, Art by George Perez.

But this entry isn't designed to inform you about how it all works, no. You can find that elsewhere (or stop by the comic shop I work at sometime and I'll tell you). No, I'm gonna just chat about the multiverse as it pertains to my favorite literary character: The Batman.

There's three 'primary' Batmen that DC has followed throughout the 71 years they've been publishing Batman (to-date). The Batman of "Earth Two" is the one they published during the Golden Age (the 30s to the mid-50s). Bats of "Earth One" was the Silver Age incarnation (mid-50s to the mid-80s) and the "New Earth" version (mid-80s to today). But what I find fascinating, relatable and even touching is that for the Batmen of Earths one and two, we've seen their entire lives. Prettymuch. And there's plenty of differences in their existences to differentiate 'em, too.

This Batman fought in a dark depression-era world and was a creature of the night--mostly.
Cover to "Detective Comics" #31, Art by Bob Kane.

The Golden Age Batman truly had his life bookended. The cool thing about DC's multiverse compared to Marvel's loose "It all fits" philosophy of continuity is that DC explains the difference in time periods with the multiverse. How could Batman still be around his early 30s with 71 years of published stories? Well, that's not a problem with a break in historical periods relegated to another version of Batman. This allows real-time settings to not have to be retconned or ignored. So the Batman of the Golden Age who (quite clearly in the pages of those comics) existed in the gritty, spooky and uncertain time period of the 1930s, still does. To me, it keeps that connection to time periods-passed fresh, because you can go back and read Detective Comics #27 without relegating it into indetermined continuity. And it also avoids the question of multiple Batmen in one existing universe.

Batman's origins being in the late 1930s is essential to the character's appeal, for me at least. He's a character totally born of that time period. The world at the time was populated by gangsters, limited technology, a mistrust in the government and the world was on the brink of war with the greatest force of evil in modern times (the Nazis). It was an uncertain time of brutality and ignorance in urban settings. People were less educated, and crime seemed to have a mythic quality and an equally mythic hold on the citizens of large cities like New York (which is where Batman operated originally) and Chicago. Also, being during the depression, people were looking to escape into fantasy, and what spoke to the people was a hero who was right there in all that darkness with them...

The Earth Two Bruce Wayne was born in 1915, and thus it must have been in 1923 when his parents were killed in that street mugging we all know so well. In 1923, it's entirely believeable that a crime like that could be committed and the Waynes never saved, nor the man responsible never caught. As time has moved on, law enforcement has become more efficient and crime is harder to get away with. An evening in 1923 in New York, however, would find you victim to the kind of street violence many were experiencing at the time.

So, with his emergence in 1939 as The Bat-Man, Bruce took up the mantle in a world that was dark, weird and bleak. And it showed in his adventures. Only in a more simple time would the world accept a hero who was practically a villain himself. Working outside the law and fighting madmen mis-using science (Hugo Strange, Doctor Death) and paranormal, nightmarish entities (The Monk). He was as dark as the men he fought and the world he roamed.

And that world is very much reflected in the art of Bob Kane. Stories taking place at night were punctuated with large, full moons and barren, eerie countryside (the United States of the time was much more desolate outside of downtown cities). Kane's initial designs for Batman truly made him appear grim and bizarre, and that all worked together brilliantly. The best example of the darkened, spooky world the Golden Age Batman fought in is the two part story in which Batman fights the aforementioned vampire: The Monk, depicted in the stories between "Detective Comics" #s 31 and 32.

As I said, this is essential to the character's appeal for me, because knowing that these events have not been retconned, but simply happened on another Earth lends a mythic quality to Batman (especially this iteration). I've always decided that to be one of the things I loved about DC over Marvel. Marvel's characters are more realistic, but DC's are more mythic. The life -and-death of the Golden Age Batman truly makes it feel, in the back of my mind (the sentimental part), that this guy really existed; because the time period of the 1930s and '40s is so far behind us already, and that time period itself is somewhat mythical. The basic character of Batman melds with this ideal beautifully.

But back to the narrative of the Earth Two Batman's life. Anyway, he went on to befriend Dick Grayson, turned him into Robin, and fought a host of villains. Typical stuff. But where this continuity splits is that as he got older, this Batman settled down with Selina Kyle, with Robin graduating into an 'adult' version of Robin. This Dick Grayson was not bitter about his time with Batman. You see, without the incessant need to drive a wedge of conflict between the two that modern storytellers love to have, this world's Bruce and Dick stayed on perfectly good terms, and good/evil were clearly definable, just as we like to idealize that period of Americana.

Bruce and Selina gave birth to a daughter, who grew up to be the original version of The Huntress. However, Selina was eventually killed, and Bruce (in his fifties by now, in the late '50s) hung up his cape-and-cowl. When trouble struck post-retirement, however, he got back into costume and died taking out an over-powered madman in "Adventure Comics" #462. Yes. Batman actually died. Many people wouldn't take this kind-of thing to heart, but it's not like this was a one-off version of the character. This was an interpretation of the guy that WAS the primary version for a long time. It makes him just as valid as the current "New Earth" Batman.

A lot of these ideas didn't play out in the comics of the time, though. DC published straight-through and subtly altered continuity to separate the eras, and the details about the latter end of Earth Two's Batman's life was added retroactively during the Silver Age in special "Earth Two" stories. But it all counts. We had closure in those stories. It really helps to add emotional attachment, no?

The "Earth Two" Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle--together in heaven.
From "Brave and the Bold" #197, Art by Joe Staton & George Freeman.

This kind of closure just doesn't exist in comics as a rule. It runs counter to the idea of ongoing publications, but with something like the multiverse, you can have that kind of closure. It lends realism, mythic granduer, and importantly, context.

This entry is getting long, so I'll split it here and in the next entry, I'll discuss the Batmen of the multiverse some more, with a focus on the Silver Age Batman, my personal favorite version of the character.

Book review: "Spider-Man: Blue"

2010-02-02T00:22:00.000-08:00

"It's about remembering someone who was so important to me that I was going to spend the rest of my life with her. I didn't know that meant she would only get to spend the rest of her life with me." - Peter Parker.

"Spider-Man: Blue." Wow. I cannot say enough good things about this book. And while I am not a big fan of the Jeph Loeb-Tim Sale team-ups that most people are (I really didn't care for "The Long Halloween" that much... sorry!), I have to say this is easily one of my most favorite books of all time. Not just comic books, but books, period.

Now, my way of reviewing books will not be at-all typical. I'm not going to give much of an overview of the book, as not to summarize because seriously... I don't want to spoil things for readers.

The first thing to discuss is the art, as that is a constant through the six chapters (this was originally published as a six-issue mini-series). Normally, I am not a proponant of Tim Sale's artwork. I mean, I don't have anything against it, but I didn't find his work all that engaging on the Loeb/Sale Batman stories. But for some reason, there's a sweetness to his art in the context of the story. Sort of a hyper-reality to it that fits in with the book because it's all a flashback.

The basic story of the book is it's the chronicle of the beginnings of the Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy relationship. It doesn't cover the death, because that would certainly take the story down a dark path, wouldn't it? Sad enough that she died at all... to follow the story to that end would just be a downer, and the story's enough of one given the trappings of the relationship we know already, y'know?

Jeph Loeb capsulizes succinctly what was so wonderful about Gwen Stacy in the first place. Although Peter grew to love Mary Jane, it wouldn't have happened without Gwen's death to mature her. Had she not died, Peter would have ended up with her, and I think that would have been a far happier ending for Peter.

Really... I'm not the biggest fan of Mary Jane. As a guy who grew up on the 90s Spider-Man animated series that did not feature Gwen, and not knowing of her existence until I could afford to buy trade paperbacks of my own in later years, I was indoctrined with the idea that Mary Jane was the be-all, end-all for Pete Parker. But after having discovered the joys of Gwen, I've come to find that the reason I prefer Gwen is easy: she's the kind of girl I'd fall in love with.

Mary Jane is a party animal. A performer, a model. Gwen was gorgeous but only had honest aspirations. She was a thinker, a studious soul who loved Peter Parker. And although Mary Jane clearly does, it's the 'Spidey' side that fits her better. She doesn't prefer it, like Felicia Hardy does, but truly Peter Parker is too calm for her, and the idea to put the two together was always only possible from a taming-down of her character. MJ, as originally written, was only attracted to Peter in the way that a wild girl is attracted to a nice guy instead of a Flash Thompson, but in the real world, they always gravitate back to the guy that's like themselves, not to the soft-spoken nice guy.

And this book really drives home that love triangle: it's at the heart of it. Now, there's plenty of action to be had here. The life of Spider-Man always gets in the way of his love life. Within, he fights the Green Goblin, the Rhino, the Lizard, Kraven and others. So Spidey fans, don't fear. This isn't just a love story.

People tell me most often that if I'm anyone from the world of comics, I'm Peter Parker. So I suppose it's natural and easy for me to see why Peter loved her so. The flashbacks are framed by modern-day Peter in his attic, talking 'to' Gwen though a tape recorder, perhaps getting out his final thoughts on the matter. It's hard for anybody not to identify with the guy, as Loeb gets inside the mind of Peter Parker, down to his soul, in a way not many writers have. The three-dimensionality of the characterizations for Peter, MJ, Harry, Flash Thompson and Gwen herself give this book its emotional core.

Anyway, long review short (before I start to gush), this is a touching, at-times, powerful book. Framing the long-forgotten but still-tragic love affair of Peter and Gwen. Modern readers have no idea who she is... and that's just sad, because if there's any girl that deserves to be noticed, it's Gwen Stacy.

5 stars out of 5.

Analysis and thoughts: the Spider-Man film franchise

2010-02-01T01:26:00.000-08:00

This is an installment of the entry type called "Analysis and thoughts." It's exactly what the name implies: I'm gonna take something to discuss and talk about it. Simple. See, I'm expanding your mind already!

This kind of ties into a larger topic that I'll touch-on some other time, but to put it bluntly, I ask: "why are fanboys such dicks?"

I mean, seriously. And all that I'm about to say comes from the pure fact that I'm a lifelong, die-hard fan of Spider-Man. Worse than the fact that Sony is rebooting the franchise is the reaction it's garnered from a select group of the fanbase.

We Spider-Man fans had it good. Damn good. So good, in fact, that we didn't know what we had until we'd lost it. And the sadder part is that there's a huge amount of the "fanbase" that still doesn't.

Our beloved wall crawler hadn't been treated to the "realism restructurization" that had befallen the X-Men or Batman franchises. We got a director who not only was not a bland presence (Sam Raimi: quirky, inventive and distinctive director of the Evil Dead horror films), but was just as committed a fan of the character and his material as people like me are. So we had it made.

The first film was perfectly loved, the second even moreso. The third film hit a big snag, and although your average joe had few complaints, the supposed "die-hard" fans had a field-day ripping it to pieces.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that it's far from flawless. But the film is, truthfully and realistically, hardly the disaster the fanboys want to make it out to be. Fanboys, generally, can be considered the type of fans that will nitpick and be dissatisfied over any little thing. The Green Goblin is the wrong shade of green, and it's enough to ruin the entire film, or Hell, the whole film series for them. And that's exactly what happened on the third film.

The film poster at-right was what did it. You put Spider-Man into a black costume and fans know what that means: the behemoth of a fan-favorite villain known as Venom. This image was the beginning of the end for the film's chances, because when you start into a character as blindly loved as Venom, you put into motion a series of forces in the fandom that generate the undoing of everything if you don't please the most voracious of fans.

Well, there's a fundamental problem with Venom. As he exists and is popularized in the (older) comic books, he's a bland, pathetic, one-dimensional character. Now, don't get me wrong: Venom is actually my favorite Spider-Man villain. He's far from the best, but he's my favorite. However, he's not my favorite for the same reasons that he's everyone else's favorite.

To everyone else, Venom (and in some ways, his even more one-dimensional offspring Carnage) is "cool" because he's buff, he's evil looking, he's got Spidey's powers, he's in black, he's tough, he's an anti-hero and he's got a tounge that's covered in green drool.

Now, the reasons I like Venom are generally different, as I said. What makes him appeal to me is the nature of what he is. Venom being the melding of one foolish and unstable man named Eddie Brock and an alien symbiote. That alone is creepy-cool, the fact that the "suit" Brock wears is actually a thinking life-form. Further, what I love about Venom is how the symbiote and Brock came to be one. The alien having once lived with Spidey as his costume is also creepy-cool, and its ability to mimic his powers and give them to Brock taps into something I've always loved: flip sides of a single coin.

The Flash and Professor Zoom. Superman and Bizarro. KITT and KARR. Spider-Man and Venom. See the trend? Although Spidey and Venom wear different clothes (though not during their first fight), Venom is the dark, flip-side of Spidey. Though, Brock clearly isn't. Opposite, yes. Dark flip side? No. Is is this dichotomy (Venom being a twisted Spider-Man) that makes Venom my favorite, because it is, in some ways, a character that reflects greatly on our hero because he is the exact doppelganger; the reverse-polarity, the anti-Spider-Man.

Now, you know why I love Venom, so now I'm man enough to admit what's wrong with him: His character motivation sucks.

Basically, Eddie Brock was never introduced into the comics until Amazing Spider-Man #300. The very first appearance of Venom altogether. So that right there robs us of our ability to have a vested interest in him. He's supposed to be this huge, pivotal character, and we're meeting him for the first time. Add to that, but his motivation is half-baked. He wants revenge on Spider-Man for "ruining" his life, when in reality, he ruined his own life. Now, versions of Venom since the original comic incarnation have rectified this by actually having Spider-Man be directly responsible for harming Brock's life, although the insane tragedy that was there still remains, because Spidey either didn't mean to do those things, or was under the influence of the symbiote.

And the other big problem with Venom? You can't do much with him. What's his motivation? To kill Peter Parker. Will he ever be successful? What do you think? Will he ever successfully kill off the character to which he is attached as villain? Obviously not. So what is he good for? What can he do? Well, all he can do is try to kill Parker and lose. You can't make him rob a bank, you can't make him try to take over the world. He has a one-track mind, that Mr. Brock.

Venom doesn't eat brains, he eats audience expectations.

Now, why all the talk about Venom? Because he's the key problem in what caused the film Spider-Man 3 to fall into ruin and turn from a film with great potential to a film that's only good.

Sam Raimi stopped reading the comics before Venom was introduced. He was unfamiliar with the character and did not like what he saw when studio pressure came down on him to introduce Mr. Brock to movie screens. Sam, like any mature, reasoned reader of funny books probably looked at Venom and said: "looks cool, cool powers, lame everything-else." Raimi's third villain choice for 3 was originally The Vulture, a 60s-era mainstay of a Spidey villain that Sam would have done wonders with. But with studio insistence that Venom be inserted, that was the first step in the de-stabilization of the entire production.

Now, screen time had to be taken away from the balance that existed before in the then-current script and devoted to another origin and sub-plot: that of the Symbiote. And such a complex relationship that is Eddie Brock and the symbiote together meant that the existing plot thread that focused on the Sandman now had to be squeezed with less room to breath now, and the existing subplot of Harry Osborn becoming the new Green Goblin couldn't have that happen.

The character of the Vulture would be barely demanding. He's not one of those villains with an intricate backstory. Basically, he's just an old man who has technology and wants to be a crook, so he makes himself some Vulture wings and away he goes. You could spice him up (such as the "youth-stealing" gauntlets he donned in the 90s comics), but I don't believe that's what Sam had in mind at that early stage. So Vulture would have been a B-plot villain to fill the gaps between the Harry story and the "hunt for Flint Marko as Ben's killer" story.

But Venom is an A-list villain and would have demanded an A-list plot, which the film, as constructed by that stage, could not allow. Had Sony and Avi Arad waited on Venom, he could have developed much more naturally when being in-mind from the beginning on film #4. But with Sam feeling like he needed to bring closure to the series (on the odds that he might not be there for 4, how prophetic that was), Venom was going to be crammed in.

Venom's existence also demanded many shifts in the film's tone. The symbiote and Venom are probably the darkest storyline in the non-comic Spider-Man mythos (the symbiote in the comic books did not alter Peter's mind in any way, that was an invention of the 90s animated series and it has been a staple of the storyline ever since, but it has never been that way in the books), and as such, it would require Sam to take the tone darker than he was comfortable with (and that explains the humorous "jerk" Peter that results and has a montage built around in the film that is the bane of fanboy existence). Now, you could argue that that means Sam didn't have the stomach to do the Venom storyline justice, and I'd grant you that, but all the more reason for the studio not to meddle in Sam's affairs and leave it for another film or another director.

Eric Foreman: the underrated underachiever.

But wait, Venom continues to unravel everything! So the balance and the tone of the film would now be compromised. The A-list villain was now taking a back seat to a re-envisioned B-list villain and another A-lister that had been built-up to for two prior films. Fans would not be pleased. But further, fans would not be pleased with the direction Sam wanted to take Venom in, to, you know, make him a character worthy of the silver screen.

People argue, but for my money, Sam took a character that was half-assed at his inception and did his best to make the character fit into the existing chaos that was the gestating third Spidey movie. He made his Venom work. This does not mean that he shouldn't have gotten more screen time? No, I agree with that complaint, but understand the limitations Sam had to endure. But fanboys refuse to see that for what we got, it was damn good. But like with anything, if you don't do something the exact way that they saw it in their mind's eyes (over a character like Venom), they'll abandon all maturity and sense. It doesn't help that Venom's fanbase skews younger and more immature (on highest average).

Sam's Eddie Brock is more of a mirror-match for Peter, playing up to the strength of the character as a flip-side Spider-Man. Sam's killing-off of Venom also solves the problem of "what more can you do with him?" As with him dead, you no longer have to worry about bringing him back to fight Spider-Man and then lose. Again and again.

Fanboys gave Topher Grace (himself a big fan of Venom) flack for being... well... himself. Even with the workouts he went through to go from toothpick to average guy size (no easy feat, people), fanboys only saw that he was from a sitcom and wasn't able to bench press a car. And that was that. No looking past these things to see the performance fairly (like mature adults), they had it out for him as soon as he was cast. Now, if the muscles were essential to (what little there is of) Eddie Brock's character, I'd agree with this one, but it's not. It's not like Wolverine's mask; Brock can be the same strength with the Symbiote alone. Wolverine's mask is essential, Brock's muscles ain't.

But then, Venom's fanboys aren't into great characters, only gut-stimulating ones, hence why they think Brock is God's gift to the Spidey comics.

So, it's been said that he should have had more screen time. This is true. But other than that, what's there to complain about? The essential elements were checked off. As a Venom fan and an actual reader of the books, I can vouch for this.

Going back to the Symbiote Spidey teaser-poster, what I said is true. It started a train of hype that would crush the film, and it did. With Venom, there was no way that the hype of Venom could ever live up to things. Had he been a carbon copy of the comic Brock, people would have found him too two-dimensional and wasted; and done as he was, people cried "that's not Venom!"

Had there been no Venom, there would have been no crammed character development, no additional sub-plot, no dancing scenes and cheesy humor (as Sam wouldn't have felt it necessary to lighten the proceedings), and people would have been able to understand and appreciate the plot; that although Marko had the gun in his hand that killed Uncle Ben, Peter was still responsible (this is a fact that fans STILL don't see, when it's plain in the film at the end).

Eddie Brock's attempt at motivation also precluded a love interest and in an attempt to tie more out of the comics, Sam put in Gwen Stacy. As a character that was there simply to fuel Brock's lunacy, she ended up being wasted when scenes of Brock's character development involving their "relationship" ended up on the cutting room floor; so that theaters could fit in more screenings of the film per day and make more money! The same fate befell scenes of character development for Flint Marko and an alternate ending to the battle royale.

These problems aside, the film is strong, I don't care what anyone says. These problems also do not disclude the film from being good. But that's all it is: good. After the second film's hype and the hype of Venom, the film truly didn't have a prayer. For all of the problems, Sam still managed to construct a remarkably coherent film out of the mess.

But the main thrust of this article was fanboy reaction to the reboot. Boy, did I ever digress.

"Fanboys" (remember, they're never-pleased fans) now applaud Raimi's quitting, even though Raimi walked out because Sony was trying to do to 4 what they did on 3. But it's not enough to like this; they have to shove it in everyone's faces like it's a fact of the universe that all three of Sam's films were garbage. Funny, these same people were clamoring over the first two films.

A great many of these people (and this goes for the Batman film franchise now, too) don't actually even read the Spider-Man comics, and therefore have no right to be acting as if they know what's best for the franchise. Read a few years worth of comics, starting with the 60s and 70s stuff, and then tell me about how this is "good."

Obviously, this is not a sure-sign that the series will never be good again, but the decision to reboot is cheap and unnecessary. If the new films are good, I'll be the first to admit it, because I'm an actually Spider-Man fan first and foremost. But what's worrisome is Sony's strong hints that they want to tap into the darkness and grittiness of The Dark Knight (a film that is the bane of my Batman fandom, but that's a post for another time), which is 100% not right for Spider-Man.

Our emotional investment in Spider-Man is in how he grew up, not him perpetually being in high school like Sony wishes to do. Just as we were on the cusp of new, great things for movie Peter, it was stolen from us. It's not the new talent that bothers me, that was going to have to happen anyway. But the rewinding of continuity is what stings.

But anyway, I've more to say on the subject but should end this entry here. Look for more soon, hopefully...

An Introduction...

2010-01-31T22:34:00.001-08:00

Hello! Let me tell you a little about myself. I'm twenty-three (at the time of this writing). I'm a college student, majoring in journalism. I'm a comic book fan, a film enthusiast, a music lover, and I'm someone who loves to entertain for those people he knows best. I'm a longtime performer whose main area of expertise is acting, though I choose not to pursue it as a career (because also, I am a realist).

My greatest passion is conversation, though. And in text, I capitalize on that passion by writing articles. So as opposed to a typical blog, this blog's gonna be more like a regular column, like something you'd see in Entertainment Weekly (pay attention, editors of said magazine, consider this my portfolio!), I can't promise plentiful updates, but I can promise quality.

This introduction is very dry, as I don't think I'm very good at them, however, if you start reading my other entries, I think you'll find my manner of writing very warm and relatable. I encourage discussion and if you've got something to say, as long as you're not a jerk about it, I welcome your thoughts. Most posts are going to be about pop-culture type things, but sometimes you'll see an entry about different things, whatever springs to mind, but most of them are going to be about my casual interests. My thoughts about things like politics won't be found here.

Some more about me: I love to drive, I like to sing, but would play the bass if I had the patience to learn. I love history, I love a good story, and my favorite comic book characters are Batman, Spider-Man, The Flash, Superman and Wolverine. My favorite super-team is the Ghostbusters. I love planes, but not the air. And I only like going to the beach at night.

Well, enough of that. Consider this intro finished!