#i have to stress that not all of 80s batman comics hold to the same standard.

[boyfridged]

Hello, sorry to bother you. I saw your post about 80s Batman comics compared to today's and i wanted to ask you if you know if there's a good starting point to begin reading Batman and Detective Comics from that era. My mind inmediately goes to post crisis but I felt i needed to ask, thanks and sorry if im bothering.

you're not a bother, no worries!

i don't think there's one good answer to it. post-crisis is a good starting point if you want to get background on the contemporary lore as a whole, but my commentary regarding it was not limited to it. there's at least a couple of pre-crisis stories that are very much worth checking out, for example:

detective comics #457 which is the first appearance of leslie (i'm cheating here because it's a story from 1978 but leslie becomes relevant again only in the 80s),

detective comics 501 - 502 which is an intro of julia remarque,

batman special #1 (1984): a storyline about wrath which was specifically mentioned by me in the post you're talking about.

i am also tempted to be a bit cheeky and to say to just read through the silver age, because while not my favourite, there is plenty that conway has to offer. and i definitely do recommend moench's run who has written both dc and batman since 1983 to 1986, wherein the first incarnation of jason appears. and don't listen to anyone who says that he's just a copy of dick – it's a fantastic and ironic story wherein all similarities are purposeful. moench's writing might lack the political and social depth that for instance that of barr does, but i think this is the era that really gets into the meaning of legacy and family in batman, and if you want to get an idea of what bruce realistically could be like as a father also to post-crisis jason (given we don't actually get to see that much), this is perfect background to post-crisis. and speaking of pre-crisis, batman and the outsiders (1983) is also quite good!

when reading post-crisis, keep in mind the office politics of the time, but first of all do not forget to read the absolutely riveting barr's detective comics run starting with dc #569. detective comics #574 (this story actually starts with #573) is a reference to dc #457 and batman special #1, both mentioned above. it's also probably my favourite batman story ever. and while for whatever reason a lot of people don't like it, batman year 2 is phenomenal too. since we're already covering barr, batman: son of the demon is one of the best batman books as well.

don't forget about annuals during that read-through either (starting with #11 for post-crisis). there are also some other series (and mini-series) that you might want to read, like legends or the cult. (<- although neither of these two are my top picks. but they do exist) oh, and the batgirl special from 1988.

in case you don't know, dick does not belong to the batman office at the time, so he sparsely appears in these comics. but the titans titles of the era are pretty straightforward so i don't think you need guidance in this matter (also, jason for example actually does get borrowed by them too.)

catwoman (1989) is another must-read and a scene from it was mentioned in the post of mine as well.

i'm probably forgetting about something...? i'm not big on strict reading guides (i think the fun of it is to just dive into it by yourself), but these are a couple of my recs. i'd say you can just start with post-crisis batman (#401!)/dc (#569, already mentioned) and later 'read around' with these titles as further points of reference.

[jade4813]

I really don't see the disdain for Lois, especially since you've said that nobody has shown this much hate towards Iris except on the show. These two are strong women who are ace reporters and bring the human elements to the superhero genre. Can you name both the similarities and differences between Lois and Iris?

I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond to this sooner. It’s been a crazy week.

I don’t really understand the unreasonable hatred against Lois. Someone like @valeriemperez and @therearecertainshadesoflimelight have probably done an in-depth analysis of Iris’s and Lois’s characters in the comics, respectively, somewhere on their blogs. With as much history as both Iris and Lois has, it would likely be a fairly in-depth analysis to compare and contrast the two.

But I don’t think the hatred Lois gets that Iris avoids has as much to do with differences in her characterization per se, as much as perhaps historical context, relationship to pertinent heroes in question, and who the heroes themselves are. Since this could itself be a dissertation-long post, I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible. (This will likely be long anyway, so more under the cut.)

Both Lois and Iris appeared in their heroes' respective first issues. Lois first appeared in 1938, and Iris in 1956. Granted, the 50s weren’t known for being the golden era of feminism, but the 30s were hardly so either. It is indisputable that Lois did not fit the mold of what women were “supposed” to be back then. Not only was she a tough, independent career woman (gasp!) but she dared to act as a competitor to a man! In fact, at times, she was even shows as being BETTER than him at her job. The horror!

That alone would have made her character divisive, certainly at first. And, sadly, there are plenty of people even today who bridle at the thought of Lois being Clark’s “competitor” - let alone his equal. 

Iris is her own character, but I also think it would be impossible to argue that she walked down a road Lois had paved almost twenty years before. Also, while Iris was occasionally frustrated with Barry and didn’t necessarily always fit the mold of the “feminine ideal” back then, times had changed enough that a strong, independent woman wasn’t quite as taboo, I don’t think. And in a career sense, I don’t think she was ever a “competitor” for Barry in the way that Lois was. Indeed, they’re in two different professions, so how would she be? Even comparing how they are at their jobs is like comparing apples and oranges.

Then you have the “superhero v. secret identity” dilemma. I don’t think that they played with this very much if at all with Iris (I vaguely seem to remember reading panels of Iris flirting with the Flash, but honestly, I could be remembering another comic and transposing the characters). Iris discovered Barry’s secret on her wedding night, in 196…6? (1965 or 66. I could look it up, but…I’m being lazy.) So even if they flirted with a “triangle for two” for them, they only had ten years to do so.

On the other hand, Lois and played with the “triangle for two” much longer. (In fact, if they didn’t originate the trope, I would be very surprised.) At various times throughout history, Lois has loved Superman and Clark Kent independently. Because there have been periods where Lois loved Superman and not Clark, people like to slam her for “loving the hero and not the man.” They like to conveniently forget - or willfully ignore - that the Superman/Clark Kent dynamic is vastly different than the alter-ego dynamic is for most other heroes (save, perhaps, Batman). For almost every other hero, the costume is the mask they wear, and the man under the mask is the “real” identity.

This hasn’t always been so for Superman, given his rather unique Kryptonian/human background. At times, and certainly in the era when Lois loved Superman and not Clark, writers have stressed him as Kryptonian (thus, Superman is the “real” person). At times, Clark is the “real” person and Superman the persona, but that didn’t happen until after Crisis in the 80s. It wasn’t until the 80s that it made sense for Lois to love Clark Kent and not Superman! (Even more recently, there have been times when the writers have tried to straddle the line and make both the “real” person.) 

As I said, though, in the era where Lois is most often slammed for “loving the hero first” - Superman WAS the real identity. Clark Kent was the disguise he wore, and he intentionally made that persona the antithesis of the hero he really was. Hating Lois for loving Superman and not Clark Kent in that era is about as logical as hating Anna Faris for loving Chris Pratt more than she loves Peter Quill. Lois loved the REAL person; she did not love the mask.

Still, the fact that she “loved the hero and not the man” is an easy way to slam her, diminish her, disparage her, dismiss her as being “unworthy” of his love. You might notice some fans of the Flash series have started making similar allegations against Iris to the same end. “She loves Flash and not Barry, whereas this other character who never even met Barry until he WAS the Flash loves the real him!” Ignoring that Iris has known and loved Barry since he was 11, even if she didn’t recognize it at first as romantic love. But I digress… (Is that a digression, really?)

So let’s see…where am I? This is getting long, so I’ll try to make the remainder a bit shorter.

I also think that Iris gets less hate in the comics because of her connection to other heroes. Wally West first appeared in 1959, and from what I can tell, it’s entirely possible that he’s even MORE popular as Flash than Barry was. Bart Allen is a much more recent creation, first appearing sometime in the 1990s, if I’m not mistaken. And I’m not sure whether he’s more popular than Barry or not. I have a soft spot for him, personally, but I don’t really know in fandom overall where he falls in the popularity contest. He IS popular, though. And the point is, both Wally and Bart are connected to the mythos either in part or entirely THROUGH IRIS. Wally is HER nephew. Bart is the grandson of her and Barry.

That connection makes it harder to argue to get rid of Iris in the same way people try to replace Lois, particularly if your favorite Flash is either Wally or Bart. Remove her, and you basically remove them from the story, too.

And, finally, there is - in my opinion - a fundamental difference in the position the heroes hold in the mythos. Superman is one of the first superheroes and has been one of the most popular since his creation. The heroes we have come to know and love today - like the Flash - exist because of Superman (and the other heroes that paved the way, back in the day). And Superman in particular…he is often referred to as “the superhero of superheroes.” For a reason. He is the hero that other heroes look up to.

He is also different from other heroes because they are humans who get superhuman abilities in some form or other. Superman is - and always has to be as a fundamental part of his character - something more than human. He is very much a character who could choose to be a god but chooses instead to live among men and protect them. This is in part what makes the Lois and Clark love story so important, but for those who want to dismiss her…well…he could be a god. Only a goddess makes sense, right?

(And, honestly, if you’re someone who thinks a regular human woman isn’t good enough for or truly equal to a regular human man, what chance does one have with one who could be a god?)

There are probably other reasons, but those come immediately to mind. And this is getting long enough as it is! I don’t want to bore you (more than I perhaps already have)!

[phogenson]

The Dark Knight Review: Epilogue

This review shouldn’t need to be written for another Nolan movie, but there is the recent release of The Dark Knight Rises to be considered. The new movie isn’t so surprising considering Nolan’s previous work. In fact with only a few minor things the themes and approaches I expected to be most prevalent were. The Dark Knight Rises is not a particularly good movie, in fact The Dark Knight is probably the better film in the Nolan trilogy, but rather than being quick to only deride this film I will start with some positives.

First, Catwoman is a really enjoyable addition to Nolan’s movies. In fact she is very nearly a break from Nolan’s usual characters and particularly his usual women characters. The simple fact of the matter is that Catwoman is just more fun. Anne Hathaway isn’t doing much, she’s mostly easy on the eyes, but I can appreciate the joy and vigor of her character. It’s so refreshing to have a character who is different in the pleasure she gets from what she’s doing put next to all these stone-faced weirdos. Again, watching Anne Hathaway be that character could literally be a national pass time--she has thigh-high boots with 6 inch heels and a tight suit.

The only other characters in Nolan’s previous movies that actually have a vague notion of pleasure in what they do are always the most refreshing. This was the case with Maroni in The Dark Knight. Every time Eric Roberts was on screen it was obvious how content and pleasing the experience of being a mobster was to the character and to the actor. His flippant lines like “I thought the DA just played golf with the mayor” break up what is the monotony of that movie’s character interactions. Nolan doesn’t seem to take pleasure in his characters, neither do his characters seem to take pleasure in their lives. The Prestige, Memento, Inception, The Dark Knight they’re all about all these tortured souls and his characters get to the point of be really unrelenting and perverse. I really don’t care for such a trying gauntlet of character all the time, and it really shows Nolan’s limitations as a writer/director.

The second most positive thing about The Dark Knight Rises, and probably also the most unexpected, was having Bane as a physical equal to Batman. Bane is this unknown villain, and there aren’t any expectations for him rather shoes to fill. He really delivered, though, in only one department and that was as this physical equal to Batman. Basically Batman never has a fair fight, in terms of ass-kicking units Batman is unmatched. Until Bane shows up. I fully expected Bane to break Batman’s back, but having them fight was vastly more interesting because they were some obviously well matched. Nolan does deserve credit in this area, the ball could have been dropped and the fights not have been as hard hitting. I’d like to stress at this point that Bane as Batman’s physical equal is basically the extent of my appreciation for the character.

One final positive note I have for this movie was the revivalist angle of the first hour. I was amazed by how old fashioned some of the scenes seemed until Batman made his return to crime fighting and the movie took a turn for the overwrought and altogether worse. Some of the wit and antics around Catwoman, having Wayne manor with a more reclusive billionaire-genius, and most importantly an underground lair with worthless minions banging rocks together all contributed to an enjoyable viewing experience. I was ready for a black turtleneck that proclaimed "HENCHMAN" and I shouldn't have been so optimistic.

Bane’s minions and subterranean lair were far and away the most satisfying and illustrative revivalist qualities. For a little while The Dark Knight rises felt like an unlikely throw back to some of the more kitschy approaches of earlier iterations. Gordon goes down a sewer and stumbles upon a clandestine army of mindless workers banging rocks together and living in fear of their mysterious leader. It called to mind the classics such as Dr. No. It seemed in that moment with nameless, faceless, fearful technicians running about that if Nolan had gone with the Penguin instead of Bane he wouldn’t have shortchanged his audience on a submarine and avian mind-control plot. I really wanted to see just how far Nolan would go with that approach. Unfortunately not far enough.

It’s difficult to tell in The Dark Knight Rises if Nolan was trying to be a little less serious and relish in an amount of absurdity and extravagance or if he really just overstepped the line and made this movie way to big. How much more Nolan had to do with the characters and in what degree is a bit of a mystery. The fact of the matter is that this movie is so epic, ridiculous in every way to the film’s detriment that either Nolan was being cavalier with caution and recognizes that this movie isn’t as serious as his other works try to be, or he thought that this was indeed a fitting end to what I think is a bit of a baffling phenomenon of a trilogy.

Here’s the thing, Batman is the savior of Gotham--I know that--but in this movie he actually has to save Gotham. Batman has to save 12 million people from a bomb and a madman. And he has to climb out of a bottomless pit in Asia with a broken back to do it. And the problems are so obvious I don’t think it comes down to a matter of the literal logic, the philosophical underpinnings of the characters that are making this a lesser film.

Bane proclaims that he is returning Gotham to the people by holding the entire city hostage and setting up a guerrilla police state. I think that the League of Shadows angle is more legitimate and interesting than the nihilism that was so dominant in The Dark Knight, but Bane’s plan seems pretty counter intuitive to his allegiance and ideology. His investment and maintenance of the populist anarchy is a little comical. Consider, after fifty days of looting and riots in a people’s Gotham if 6,000,001 of Gotham’s 12 million hostages filed a petition with Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) saying that they wanted to rebuild one of the bridges or even contact the US army in favor. Bane would likely have no choice but to put his bomb away.

But what is more painful to watch here is the absurdity of the scale--millions of lives at stake, a literal war on the streets, a nuclear bomb--compared to the minimalism of the response. The army is on the bridge and they don’t move in. Batman is Gotham’s only hope; thematically sound but outrageous on this scale. All of Gotham’s police are trapped underground for 80 days, and although people on the outside are dropping notes down drains to talk to them, they can’t get them out. Blake’s plan to evacuate Gotham--a handful of savvy orphans spread the word block by block. I was laughing at all the wrong things.

The rest of the movie’s plotting is altogether topical. This movie will do well because it speaks to people now. Occupation uprisings, economic terrorism, pre and post “war time” drivel--Nolan turns to topical filmmaking once again not realizing the inconsistency with the previous film. The Dark Knight I’ve said was a Post-9/11 work, I knew that The Dark Knight Rises would be very Post-Economic-Crisis. We’ve been here before and movies always reflect the time they were made. The Dark Knight Rises is far from the first of this movement, but I think that Bane’s posturing and preaching on the subject will ring less true than the timely but clear writing of Margin Call, a movie that is literally about the financial crisis as it happened.

It is so irritating that Nolan sweeps people up on an all-time bandwagon with such timely themes. I would urge him to reflect more on the ultimate rather than proximate in his movies but he has a clear obsession with what is happening around him that has little to do with uncovering something more about people or the world in a more than topical way--why we still read The Grapes of Wrath after the depression. Moreover I think I’d urge audiences to really understand Nolan’s movies and not read into them the ultimate notions that aren’t present. This iteration of “Gotham’s reckoning” will be less potent the next time something bad happens on a national scale.

I’d like to make one final point on the subject of The Dark Knight Rises. On the condition of many of the most popular movies these days in general, really. And though I’d like to distinguish my final point from the safe-Hollywood-crap-machine argument I’m often confronted with, the fact is people have seen everything about The Dark Knight Rises before, it’s been sold to the populace before, by the same people for the same price. Unlike The Godfather which was a financial, critical, and awarded success when it came out--a truly visionary work--the practice in movies right now doesn’t seem to reward real vision so much.

Warner Brothers has reaped the bounty of Harry Potter for the past ten years. A usually good and always successful franchise. Unfortunately it was ultimately limited by the number of books there were. It could really only be stretched the one extra movie and one extra dimension when all was said and done. Warner Brothers milked it for every penny, rolling out a campaign based on urgency to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 when in withDVDs and streaming there is no such thing as real urgency to see a movie. Needless to say, it worked for them. The only other money maker Warner Brothers had besides Harry Potter was the Nolan Batman movies. And they have thus bought their audience through a remarkably similar campaign. Like the plutocrats in The Dark Knight Rises, Warner Brothers is trying to make bankroll to cover their ass until the next big thing comes along.