|
I'm not sure if I would consider Flamebird really much of a Superhero. She's literally the only person to have joined the Titans and have Nightwing (her personal hero) tell her that she kind sucks and probably shouldn't be wearing the tights. She's an athlete, but she just played tennis and she's been out of the superhero game for while and when she did finally come face to face with a threat (in the issues Jock drew and haven't been collected yet) she choked and almost got herself killed. Mostly though it's just because it's a callback to the Silver Age when that was their dynamic.
|
| # ? Sep 26, 2011 23:30 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:01 |
|
|
Granted, I know about as much about Flamebird as I do about Batwoman. I guess their relationship makes more sense with that "almost got herself killed" bit, but the issue doesn't really get that across. I just didn't really care for the kind of tired "stern mentor and less competent sidekick" dynamic and was hoping for something a bit different.
|
| # ? Sep 26, 2011 23:38 |
|
|
It is more because Kate is a soldier, approaching this as war and so she is a commanding officer responsible for Bette, now who is treating it more like Dick Grayson style "Hell yeah, we wear tights and do awesome poo poo!"
|
| # ? Sep 26, 2011 23:46 |
|
|
Mr Wind Up Bird posted:issues Jock drew Tell me more. e: nevermind, 'Tec 861-3 LCQC fucked around with this message at Sep 27, 2011 around 01:13 |
| # ? Sep 27, 2011 00:12 |
|
|
I must offer a "thank you" to the goon that recommended Batwoman: Elegy. It was everything I liked Batwoman #1, only it was an entire story. Art was brilliant, characters were lovable and engaging. I have to admit the whole Religion of Crime thing was a bit over-the-top for me, but hell, it's Gotham. I loved it. I must have said "WOW" or "WOAH" out loud like I was a kid in a 90s video game commercial at every turn of the page.
|
| # ? Sep 27, 2011 17:33 |
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I have to admit the whole Religion of Crime thing was a bit over-the-top for me, but hell, it's Gotham. It's a thing that originated from DC's first run of weekly comics, this one called 52. (GET IT?!) It's the story that first introduced Batwoman.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 02:10 |
|
|
Today's Gutters has an..interesting take on the sex in Catwoman #1:
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 16:58 |
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:Today's Gutters has an..interesting take on the sex in Catwoman #1: Bloody hell Gutters sucks.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:29 |
|
|
More of that great David Finch writing! One Face? Seriously?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:54 |
|
|
E the Shaggy posted:More of that great David Finch writing! Ha ha. And this is how we miss the point of a character.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:55 |
|
|
Madkal posted:Ha ha. And this is how we miss the point of a character. "As One Face, my deal is that I flip a coin but ignore the result!!!"
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:56 |
|
|
Batman was just trying to give him a cool pog that he found 
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:57 |
|
|
So I'm never, ever going to read this story, but I'm curious: why is he so huge? Is this a tried-and-true 'someone else starts using venom' storyline?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 17:57 |
|
|
Darth Nat posted:So I'm never, ever going to read this story, but I'm curious: why is he so huge? Is this a tried-and-true 'someone else starts using venom' storyline? All we know for now is that it probably has something to do with a bunny girl.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:07 |
|
|
ElNarez posted:All we know for now is that it probably has something to do with a bunny girl. Ah, that makes perfect sense.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:12 |
|
|
E the Shaggy posted:More of that great David Finch writing! H...How is that even supposed to make sense?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
Was it ever even established why Batman suddenly asked about Two-Face? This is the worst lead-in to the next issue that I could ever conceive. It's not even close to a cliff-hanger, it's like it's trying to piss me off enough to complain about the next issue. I can only hope that this is some new fear gas that causes more realistic seeming hallucinations, or something like that. I've not gone through all of the Gotham #1s yet, but so far Catwoman and Batgirl are so much better. In fact, I loved Batgirl.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
I'll even be an apologist for Catwoman, because aggressive sexuality is a core part of her character.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:27 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:I'll even be an apologist for Catwoman, because aggressive sexuality is a core part of her character. Batman's always been grim, that's why it's ok that he cut that homeless man to pieces.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:30 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:I'll even be an apologist for Catwoman, because aggressive sexuality is a core part of her character. Batman has always had two different kinds of villains. The psychotics, like Joker and Scarecrow who are still just normal people too, but there's also the "Gang" stye characters, like Black Mask, Two-Face, Penguin. Batwoman would have been the perfect character to clash with the more gangster style enemies over the spree-murderers. I don't know why they decided to feed Two-Face full of Venom and turn him dumb, it ruins the whole concept of the character.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:32 |
|
|
How on Earth do you write "One-Face" and not want to shoot yourself in the face?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:32 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:I'll even be an apologist for Catwoman, because aggressive sexuality is a core part of her character. Sure, but being gross about it isn't. No one's saying she's bad for loving Batman, they're saying the book's depiction of it is poo poo.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:33 |
|
|
Was Taters posted:Sure, but being gross about it isn't. No one's saying she's bad for loving Batman, they're saying the book's depiction of it is poo poo. Eh. I can see where you're coming from, but what I took from it was "these are both people with issues managing for a brief moment to connect in their own messed up way" ie loving in costume (in character, if you will).
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:36 |
|
|
I'm not that into the comic book industry so I have to ask: How many people who work on a story actually have input, and how many people have to approve of something before it is released? I just can't imagine a group of people numbering greater than two approving of One-Face. Does the person who wanted this in there just send their work in the mail so late that there is no time for more reasonable people to change it?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:40 |
|
|
I seriously don't even understand what "You can call me One-Face now" even means.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:46 |
|
|
Flameingblack posted:
There was an arc in the 90's where Two-Face went after a bunch of criminals who he couldn't prosecute during his life as Harvey Dent for one reason or another. That to me was the true Two-Face. I don't like his portrayal as gang boss. I like the idea that he is a man at odds with himself. He sees himself as Harvey Dent, the fighter for justice (purity) and Two Face the ugly side of justice/vengeance. I would love to see him portrayed more as a vigilante who sees himself as Judge(his coin), jury(Harvey Dent) and executioner(Two-Face). Sadly he has become more of gang villain with a gimmick.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:47 |
|
|
Shame on DC for One-Face, I don't understand why only three or four of the eleven Batman comics seem good. Is being bitten by a radioactive bunny-woman how you turn into Hulk-Face?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:48 |
|
|
Cannibalboy posted:Is being bitten by a radioactive bunny-woman how you turn into Hulk-Face? Yes. My poor uncle...
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:49 |
|
|
Madkal posted:There was an arc in the 90's where Two-Face went after a bunch of criminals who he couldn't prosecute during his life as Harvey Dent for one reason or another. That to me was the true Two-Face. I don't like his portrayal as gang boss. I like the idea that he is a man at odds with himself. He sees himself as Harvey Dent, the fighter for justice (purity) and Two Face the ugly side of justice/vengeance. I would love to see him portrayed more as a vigilante who sees himself as Judge(his coin), jury(Harvey Dent) and executioner(Two-Face). Sadly he has become more of gang villain with a gimmick. Someone should give me more of Living Hell's Rogues though. Jane Doe and Great White were awesome, and deserve to show up much more often.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:50 |
|
|
Flameingblack posted:I found it kind of hard to explain the time of criminal I was talking about. Perhaps I meant more "High Class" and shades of grey Batman rogues. Two-Face works well as a vigilante himself.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:52 |
|
|
Madkal posted:There was an arc in the 90's where Two-Face went after a bunch of criminals who he couldn't prosecute during his life as Harvey Dent for one reason or another. That to me was the true Two-Face. I don't like his portrayal as gang boss. I like the idea that he is a man at odds with himself. He sees himself as Harvey Dent, the fighter for justice (purity) and Two Face the ugly side of justice/vengeance. I would love to see him portrayed more as a vigilante who sees himself as Judge(his coin), jury(Harvey Dent) and executioner(Two-Face). Sadly he has become more of gang villain with a gimmick. Become? The guy's orignal appearance literally had him go "I'll do crime if this coin lands on the bad side. CRIME WINS!" the more high-minded, at odds with himself, tortured aspects of the character came much, much later. At first he was just a gangster with an unusual past, a creepy face and an obsession with duality. And I don't mean a clever, philosophical kind of duality, I mean robbing a store on 222 22nd street while employing twins.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:54 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I seriously don't even understand what "You can call me One-Face now" even means. Especially considering HE STILL HAS TWO FACES. Like maybe if he had come out all hulking and poo poo AND his face was healed, that would make sense.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 18:55 |
|
|
VanSandman posted:Eh. I can see where you're coming from, but what I took from it was "these are both people with issues managing for a brief moment to connect in their own messed up way" ie loving in costume (in character, if you will). If that had been the only thing, eh. But our first view of her is her rear end, without her face anywhere near the panel and it's all bras and tits as far as the eye can see in the rest of the book. Bad book.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:09 |
|
|
Who do I blame for this, Jenkins or Finch? Also, holy hell David Finch draws the loving ugliest people in the universe.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:13 |
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:Who do I blame for this, Jenkins or Finch? Finch's art has always bugged me. In his work on Ultimate X-Men everyone looked the same and had the same kind of mouth. As for the Two-Face thing I didn't know he started off so gimmicky. I know he had a history before Long Halloween but I consider Long Halloween to by the definitive Two-Face story and everything should go from there.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:16 |
|
|
Madkal posted:As for the Two-Face thing I didn't know he started off so gimmicky. I know he had a history before Long Halloween but I consider Long Halloween to by the definitive Two-Face story and everything should go from there. Pretty much everything about Two-face that works in Long Halloween is ripped off from Batman Annual #14 from 1990. That's the real source of his modern depiction. It just wasn't a giant clusterfuck 20-issue mystery story with too much publicity and awesome art by SUPERSTAR WRITER JEPH LOEB so people don't even know it exists.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:26 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Pretty much everything about Two-face that works in Long Halloween is ripped off from Batman Annual #14 from 1990. That's the real source of his modern depiction. It just wasn't a giant clusterfuck 20-issue mystery story with too much publicity and awesome art by SUPERSTAR WRITER JEPH LOEB so people don't even know it exists. Well that and the fact that when it came out I was 7 years old and reading Archie and Caspar comics.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:34 |
|
|
I'm not blaming you, I'm just trying to discredit Jeph Loeb as having ever contributed anything to comics. Much less the modern incarnation of what's become my favorite comic book villain.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:35 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'm not blaming you, I'm just trying to discredit Jeph Loeb as having ever contributed anything to comics. Much less the modern incarnation of what's become my favorite comic book villain.
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:39 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:01 |
|
|
Now I'm curious, since I've been out of the loop for a while, but what's the modern consensus on Hush? I thought it was pretty good even beyond the art, and unless I'm mistaken, that's how most felt as it was coming out. Has there been some serious Loeb perceptual revision since then?
|
| # ? Sep 28, 2011 19:43 |
|
