Board Logo
« Batman & the Monster Men »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 24th, 2017, 04:32am



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
 hotthread  Author  Topic: Batman & the Monster Men  (Read 11745 times)
Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Batman & the Monster Men
« Thread started on: Dec 6th, 2005, 08:11am »

Matt Wagner's retelling of the seminal vision of 1939/40 -- revisionism -- conflated with bits of different eras (Miller's utility belt, for one) and/or pieces that became inherent, by way of even existing, only later on (chief example would be Alfred).

Hugo Strange back in the role of mad scientist instead of psycho therapist (living up to the cliche of the biggest nut being the one person trying to guide the so-called nuts), yet still with the same underlying inferiority complex driving him forward in his lust for domination.

Julie Madison as Bruce's girlfriend if not fiancee. Interesting thing about that: Bruce actually has sex. God knows how long it's been from reader perspective. The contrast and blurring of the two sides -- Wayne/Batman -- is done well with the build up of sexual implication leading directly to a panel of bats (stand-in for and statement on sex) ...and then Julie alone in bed, while Wayne goes into Batman mode below the house. Isolating himself and leaving her lonely, begging the question in all of this of how much weight sexuality carries in his life and to what degree it's swallowed up only to become part of his more true nightly interest.

The first issue is about such counterpoints and similarities -- possibly rolled into one even with the antagonism of clashing sides being the overall makeup (part of the point). Summed up well on the other side with Strange's sick lab experiments and his means of getting this through a connection that connects back to the same people he despises: the elites of Gotham. A typical Batman story.

A chronology of attraction versus monstrous creations/darker interests that come into conflict with each other...or, as the case may be, of the latter enveloping the former. Nullifying one area because it's already a part of the overwhelming urge it otherwise would be battling with?

The material that this (new story? Remix?) is basing itself on was overrunning with horror imagery, so the classical/prototypical quintessence of what Wagner's presenting is no surprise to this early point -- I have interest in what he'll do with it as he's to this early point shown some textual/visual deftness and wit. It's so far working quite well between the lines and at moments altogether without them.

Still, it doesn't feel as baroquely rich as Faces. Funny thing is that it feels more reserved than those earliest Detective issues starring Batman.
« Last Edit: Dec 6th, 2005, 09:53am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #1 on: Dec 6th, 2005, 10:35am »

on Dec 6th, 2005, 08:11am, Will wrote:
Julie Madison as Bruce's girlfriend if not fiancee. Interesting thing about that: Bruce actually has sex. God knows how long it's been from reader perspective.


The recent Englehart "Dark Detective" mini had Silver St. Cloud showing up and sleeping with Bruce. It, too, is set in the past (somewhere before Zero Hour best I can tell).
Question - why are you classifying this storyline as elseworlds? From the Wagner interviews on this, it isn't necessarily out of continuity, just set in the past...
User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #2 on: Dec 6th, 2005, 4:57pm »

on Dec 6th, 2005, 10:35am, snipe wrote:
The recent Englehart "Dark Detective" mini had Silver St. Cloud showing up and sleeping with Bruce. It, too, is set in the past (somewhere before Zero Hour best I can tell).


I'm a big fan of the Englehart Batman run, but I've only got the last two issues of the new series. Obviously I haven't read it.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 10:35am, snipe wrote:
Question - why are you classifying this storyline as elseworlds? From the Wagner interviews on this, it isn't necessarily out of continuity, just set in the past...


What jumped out at me was Hugo Strange. Both mad scientist and psych-analyst? How would this fit into continuity?
« Last Edit: Dec 6th, 2005, 4:58pm by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #3 on: Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm »

on Dec 6th, 2005, 4:57pm, Will wrote:


I'm a big fan of the Englehart Batman run, but I've only got the last two issues of the new series. Obviously I haven't read it.


It's not of the caliber the first series was, but it's very decent.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 4:57pm, Will wrote:

What jumped out at me was Hugo Strange. Both mad scientist and psych-analyst? How would this fit into continuity?


Strange has showed up in the "real" batbooks since - the first Gotham Knights arc where Bruce adopted Dick, and more recently, the current Catwoman arc.
In both he's mentioned his previous (faked) deaths. The first Englehart run (collected in Strange Aparitions) shows his "monster men," so I don't see why it would necessarily be out of continuity. Definitely pre-Crisis, but I don't see why it *couldn't* fit.
But, then again, you have to remember that I'd rather reason something into continuity than out of cool
User IP Logged

datura

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar



AIM
Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 167
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #4 on: Dec 6th, 2005, 7:17pm »

I have not read Strange Aparitions yet (I know, shame on me) so I can't say anything regarding that, but Monster Men seems to be very much written to fit between Year One and Long Halloween, so if you think Loeb's books should be in continuity, Monster Men pretty much can go along with it.

On a very base level, I liked the first issue. The sex scene and the following "I even have a girlfriend" was effective in showing Bruce's level of commitment/obsession to the Batman cause. At this point he still thinks it is possible to have a "normal" life but he still abandons his lover to spend time in the cave. A great constrast to the Batman we have in current continuity while still acknowledging the future of the character.
User IP Logged

-datura

robertmonroe.org/blog
Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #5 on: Dec 19th, 2005, 06:13am »

on Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm, snipe wrote:
Strange has showed up in the "real" batbooks since - the first Gotham Knights arc where Bruce adopted Dick, and more recently, the current Catwoman arc.


Showing up is not the problem, what he is here is what I find troublesome for continuity.

If he's a scientist at heart rather than psychiatarist it doesn't seem that this fits with today's take on the character. That Gotham Knights' tale from a few years back (haven't read it, but just now read up on it) fit with Prey's updating of him as a nut running the asylum which is counter to the vision given us in pre-Crisis.

And it's that original vision that we're again seeing in Monster Men. Doesn't appear to work.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm, snipe wrote:
In both he's mentioned his previous (faked) deaths.


Englehart's story can't fit with current continuity because he flat out murdered Strange so far as I remember (and keep in mind I haven't read those stories in over a decade so there could be a hint to the contrary that I'm unaware of) -- he was a spirit (hence the title of the TPB) -- and I wouldn't take it as such anyway as I believe fully that pre and post-Crisis stand separately from one another.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm, snipe wrote:
The first Englehart run (collected in Strange Aparitions) shows his "monster men," so I don't see why it would necessarily be out of continuity.


It depends which continuity we're speaking of. The above story doesn't fit with what has been done with Strange in the post-Crisis setup.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm, snipe wrote:
Definitely pre-Crisis, but I don't see why it *couldn't* fit.


Seemingly it can't fit with Prey -- a work so seamless with the Year One restart that I've never questioned its standing in continuity -- which was a new beginning for Strange so far as issues that make up his template (a makeover that arguably creates a new template psychologically for him as a character overall if not altogether).

Not unless he has a separate but equal vocations (why would his ability with genetics be ignored in the post-Crisis world up until now if it was meant to be a part of him?), and also doesn't come into contact with Batman at all in this revision. Hard to believe that. And with the latter issue we'll plain know soon enough.

on Dec 6th, 2005, 6:56pm, snipe wrote:
But, then again, you have to remember that I'd rather reason something into continuity than out of cool


If you take that far enough, doesn't it then make the Crisis irrelevant?

What part of pre-Crisis would you not include? The stuff that was "ludicrous" or unpalatable to you for whatever reason? Wouldn't you then have to ignore the continuity redefining storyline that was Crisis on Infinite Earths to get to that point?

By following this path we're, after all, dealing with it so subjectively that there might as well have never been a Crisis at all to clean up the issue in an objective manner. It was meant as statement, coda and genesis all in one -- which means to me that pre-Crisis and all its stories died with Barry Allen to preserve and create what now exists. Hell, the Superman of pre-Crisis was given a very-well remembered sendoff (and end) by Alan Moore -- I assume that this was really a dirge for *that* (lots of words emphasized in this post) Superman and thus, really, his continuity. The Superman of MOS was not related to that Superman (from setup to so much else minutiae, how could he be?) and the same goes for Miller's Year One with Batman as opposed to what came prior.

The title of this area is suggestive of my point, isn't it? Elseworlds AND pre-Crisis lumped together somewhere separate from the connective issues of regular continuity.
« Last Edit: Dec 20th, 2005, 09:23am by Will » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #6 on: Dec 19th, 2005, 06:34am »

on Dec 6th, 2005, 7:17pm, datura wrote:
I have not read Strange Aparitions yet (I know, shame on me) so I can't say anything regarding that, but Monster Men seems to be very much written to fit between Year One and Long Halloween, so if you think Loeb's books should be in continuity, Monster Men pretty much can go along with it.


Sub-continuity is one thing (ala Miller's Batman universe), but as far as the current overall continuity I think it's either very difficult or impossible to make it fit. You can make it "work" if you bump off other established bits of continuity, sure, but that rather defeats the point of continuity, doesn't it?

New stories, if they're generally to be a part of an established backstory and universe have to dovetail with what's come before -- not disregard and plow over those earlier works.
« Last Edit: Dec 19th, 2005, 07:26am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #7 on: Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am »

on Dec 19th, 2005, 06:13am, Will wrote:


Englehart's story can't fit with current continuity because he flat out murdered Strange so far as I remember (and keep in mind I haven't read those stories in over a decade so there could be a hint to the contrary that I'm unaware of) -- he was a spirit (hence the title of the TPB) -- and I wouldn't take it as such anyway as I believe fully that pre and post-Crisis stand separately from one another.


Rupert Thorne's men killed Strange (tortured him to death). He haunted Thorne a bit afterwards. I may be confused as to what you're speaking about. Are you thinking Batman killed him and most of his actions were in spirit form? Not the case.
If you're saying people can't come back from the dead, see Superman, Green Arrow, and Jason Todd...

on Dec 19th, 2005, 06:13am, Will wrote:


If you take that far enough, doesn't it then make the Crisis irrelevant?

What part of pre-Crisis would you not include? The stuff that was "ludicrous" or unpalatable to you for whatever reason? Wouldn't you then have to ignore the continuity redefining storyline that was Crisis on Infinite Earths to get to that point?


No - the Crisis is very relevant, but that doesn't mean the things that "happened" before it now don't exist - they simply happened on another earth.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 06:13am, Will wrote:


[...] -- which means to me that pre-Crisis and all its stories died with Barry Allen to preserve and create what now exists. [...]


Incorrect. DC has stated numerous times that "pre-Crisis" is still in continuity unless something "post-Crisis" directly conflicts with it. Are you trying to say that in the Post-Crisis world, Barry Allen never existed? The Batman Year One story was set in the past as it came out, then the stories went straight to the introduction of post-Crisis Jason Todd. Are you saying Dick never existed as Robin in the Post-Crisis world?

on Dec 19th, 2005, 06:13am, Will wrote:

The title of this area is suggestive of my point, isn't it? Elseworlds AND pre-Crisis lumped together somewhere separate from the connective issues of regular continuity.


Perhaps a better heading title would be "out of continuity"...
« Last Edit: Dec 19th, 2005, 10:35am by snipe » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #8 on: Dec 20th, 2005, 08:49am »

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
Rupert Thorne's men killed Strange (tortured him to death). He haunted Thorne a bit afterwards. I may be confused as to what you're speaking about.


I knew Thorne murdered him.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
Are you thinking Batman killed him and most of his actions were in spirit form? Not the case.


Where'd you get that idea? The amount of time he spent dead or as a spirit doesn't matter too much to me -- what matters is that he was done away with.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
If you're saying people can't come back from the dead,


No (just look at my avatar), in fact the only reason I left it as a partial open issue was because of the sometimes embarrassing habit of digging up the dead in comics.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
see Superman, Green Arrow, and [NOOOOOOOO!] Jason Todd...


Yes, but these characters came packaged with complicated explanations as to their survival. Strange? Not so much.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
No - the Crisis is very relevant, but that doesn't mean the things that "happened" before it now don't exist - they simply happened on another earth.


But there's only supposed to be one earth now, that was the idea of the event.

Your stance doesn't seem to work in relation to the root issue -- i.e. what was the point of the Crisis? To clean up continuity, to simplify it greatly (how can it be streamlined when it has almost all the previous baggage?). To have ONE universe/earth and get rid of all the others. As far as I know, those other earths were wiped -- destruction leading to creation. And, if those earths are dead, then so is their continuity -- I don't believe you can have it both ways.

If you go the other way you're undermining the entire point of that storyline, aren't you? If pre-Crisis is still very much present then it's questionable as to what the point of Crisis on Infinite Earths was at all.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
Incorrect.


I'll stick with correct.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
DC has stated numerous times that "pre-Crisis" is still in continuity unless something "post-Crisis" directly conflicts with it.


I'd need exact quotes to know how to take that. Don't take that as an insult -- it's not about trust, it's about understanding.

I wouldn't be surprised if DC changed policy after the fact. The industry is desperate to hold its old readers as it can't seem to create new ones -- thus stories made non-existent in relation to the current continuity suddenly become vaguely a part of it ("if you want") when listening to the company line. Since guys in their forties and fifties have fond memories of Krypto, hey, there he is again.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
Are you trying to say that in the Post-Crisis world, Barry Allen never existed? The Batman Year One story was set in the past as it came out, then the stories went straight to the introduction of post-Crisis Jason Todd. Are you saying Dick never existed as Robin in the Post-Crisis world?


Obviously they exist as they are referenced as characters and given full backstories -- the difference is that the minutiae of many adventures featuring them is wiped from my perspective. We know that Dick was Bruce's partner, and we know what Dick's basic personality in that role was, we just don't have many stories with them as a team in the new continuity.

What about issues that I assume we'd all call too ridiculous to be in continuity at this point? Is that really an objective standard (one man's crap is another's treasure and all that)? Can anybody say that an issue with Bat-Mite setting Robin up with Batgirl is out of continuity?

And weren't stories just like that the reason the Crisis existed on at least one level? Yet the only way they can be out of the canon is if there's a standard that makes that so in that same canon -- that's the Crisis. Why there's even the wording of pre and post-Crisis -- denoting separation.

Here's an editorial answer to a letter on the subject that even deals with your specific questions in the above paragraph (from issue 505):

As I explained in the Catwoman #6 letercol, only Batman stories related or directly referred to in post-Batman Year One stories are part of the official Batman canon.

Mirrors my position -- post-Crisis fully dictates and creates all continuity now. Which goes against any idea of being able to assume that stories "uncontradicted" can be considered continuity in this era. We're not to wait for storylines that controvert that old timeline -- we're to assume it's gone.

The Crisis is the crossover point. Do I believe that the old universes existed in relation to the new? Yes, but only in endings that led to the new beginning of this current universe. Creation and destruction as a circle, meeting points of extremes.

on Dec 19th, 2005, 10:34am, snipe wrote:
Perhaps a better heading title would be "out of continuity"...


To me it's all the same. I firmly believe that that was the case with DC as a publishing group in the past. I can't speak for the present.

But if they have gone back on it, then they're only reinstating the mess that the Crisis was supposed to leave behind. If you forget why the continuity was discarded I guess you really are doomed to repeat it.

In relation to that, a storyline like Monster Men is not an example of bad storytelling but it does seem to be an example of a continuity that is deeply confused and self-contradictoory. So now what is the post-Crisis origin for Dr. Hugo Strange? Prey or Monster Men?
« Last Edit: Dec 22nd, 2005, 09:23am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #9 on: Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am »

There are tons of continuity flubs and mishaps. When you have hundreds (literally) of writers writing the same character(s) in the same universe, there is obviously going to be some cases of one not reading another's writing, one not caring what another wrote, etc.
One example would be the 1995 Batman "Year One" annual featuring the Scarecrow origin. Recently, we got a two-part origin for him where Robin was involved. The annual IIRC clearly showed his first appearance as pre-Robin.
Both 1995 and 2005 are "post-Crisis," so what do we believe? Personally, I hate continuity errors. That's what editors should be watching out for. They get the script, they check for problems. If WB / DC says "we have a new movie out with Scarecrow - we need a new Scarecrow origin," then they should give the writers the source material to go from (in this case, the said annual), and let them either expand on that, or do something with it and fear gas where no one remembered his previous appearance(s). Or they could go the route Marvel did with the X-Men movie "prequel" comics. Make it in the universe of the film, not of the comics.
For things like Strange Apparitions and Tales of the Demon, I don't see why DC would put out a tpb that wasn't in contiuity (without either a note or the elseworlds logo).
When the Neal Adams v3 comes out next month, I'm going to put it on the continuity pages. It's obviously pre-crisis, but as we've both mentioned, there is a huge lack of "Batman and Robin" stories post-Year One. I'd much rather "fit" something in than omit good stories due to simple continuity flaws or publish date.
As you mentioned, the Crisis was meant as both an ending and a beginning. It ended the multiverse, but the multiverse still existed in the "post-crisis" world - it just is not widely remembered by the characters. The continuity section of this site will continue to hold "pre-crisis" stories whether they have huge flaws or not.

This is a bit like a Christian believing in Evolution. Nothing in the Bible said it didn't happen smiley
« Last Edit: Dec 20th, 2005, 10:41am by snipe » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #10 on: Dec 22nd, 2005, 10:55am »

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
There are tons of continuity flubs and mishaps. When you have hundreds (literally) of writers writing the same character(s) in the same universe, there is obviously going to be some cases of one not reading another's writing, one not caring what another wrote, etc.


Which is what editors, fact-checkers and the like are for. Hugo Strange having two entirely different origins is not what I'd call a minor error.

At the same time I'm not suggesting that it's isolated (as your Scarecrow comparison underlines). I don't see how that excuses it.

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
Both 1995 and 2005 are "post-Crisis," so what do we believe? Personally, I hate continuity errors. That's what editors should be watching out for.


I don't know what the editors at DC are monitoring at the moment. I think the continuity will become too messed up before it will become "too big", in the sense of there simply being too much in the rearview mirror, and thusly the former will likely call for some form of reboot before the latter does; though you could argue they run in tandem, you can go on from that and see that creative egotism and editorial cowardice/laziness are the true culprits.

Including pre-Crisis storylines is a continuity flub itself. Obviously you disagree. But from my perspective all those stories -- those worlds -- were destroyed in the Crisis, which means that the universe that now exists cannot be assumed to have experienced the same events; they're separate. If that's not the case, I fail to comprehend any over-arcing meaningfulness in relation to that event.

I see it as a Pandora's Box.

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
For things like Strange Apparitions and Tales of the Demon, I don't see why DC would put out a tpb that wasn't in contiuity (without either a note or the elseworlds logo).


I haven't been paying too much attention, but I've failed to note an Elseworlds logo on any old continuity that no longer pertains to the present record.

I don't know that DC's ever said that any old -- deceased -- continuity is necessarily known as an Elseworlds work.

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
As you mentioned, the Crisis was meant as both an ending and a beginning. It ended the multiverse, but the multiverse still existed in the "post-crisis" world - it just is not widely remembered by the characters.


Actually the multiverse was destroyed, leaving us with a singular universe for the characters. It all existed in making the post-Crisis universe but that same universe was only created through the destruction of all the others. The Superman of post-Crisis, for example, hasn't just forgotten his pre-Crisis exploits, they truthfully never happened in relation to who he is and the world he exists in.

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
The continuity section of this site will continue to hold "pre-crisis" stories whether they have huge flaws or not.


In that case, doesn't that promote an arbitrariness on the subject that almost defeats the actual point of continuity pages? I'm not understanding what the dividing line is between something in continuiity and out of it beyond personal favoritism if we follow this path.

Who could then say that stories featuring giant bugs, Bat-Mite, Zebra!!!Batman or various and sundry other ridiculous elements don't count towards post-Crisis backstory if pre-Crisis is still fully in play? These are extreme examples but that's the point -- how can you or I say what is too ridiculous for current continuity and what isn't in any type of objective manner with the standard of post versus pre-Crisis done away with?

At some point the issue of continuity becomes worthless as any idea at all if we continue down this path.

on Dec 20th, 2005, 10:38am, snipe wrote:
This is a bit like a Christian believing in Evolution. Nothing in the Bible said it didn't happen smiley


I don't believe such a comparison works, as in this case we have rules laid out in an event arc that seem clear in intent and that are also backed up by editorial statement -- that only stories created in or referenced within post-Crisis can be considered a part of that canon. That's what I go by. Otherwise I fail to see the point to any attempt at an objective continuity.

The complaints lodged -- and disagreements present -- in this thread are more unified than the continuity being put on trial, which means that no matter DC's original intention or my own argument as to its importance, that the would-be post-Crisis reboot or levee is beginning to fail miserably thanks to a similar level (if not specifically detailed) amount of editorial mismanagement.

As one question that connects to all the rest, just what is the origin, once and for all, for Hugo Strange right now? This is merely a rhetorical query it seems, as I don't think any of us have a definitive answer thanks to the fact that nobody working at DC gives a shit about any type of fidelity to the historical record.

DC continuity especially contradicts and eventually cannibalizes itself in a circular manner reminiscent of the Oroborus; destructive acts always leading to resurrection and freshness, all stemming from varying creative visions. I believe firmly in that as the hallmark for what the Batman character has been and is, but that doesn't mean that I think we should have a continuity that's so messed up -- for whatever era (yes, eventually we all know that it will start anew) -- that it's to be interpreted be the writer or fan in an almost entirely subjective manner.

Post-Crisis is only one idea of what Batman is or should be, and that's the decisive factor -- it should remain one thing/one interpretation of him. Willy nilly contradictions mean that we have a continuity without boundaries, which is why we have stories within it that have no fidelity to what one would assume would be the parameters of known background and the relationship that any present or future stories owe that when attempting to affix themselves to its registry.

Batman was made into the diverse, and at times divisive, character he is by a continuity that for various portions of pre-Crisis had as much weight or thought behind it as a Bugs Bunny cartoon -- so many different things standing in opposition to each other all rolled into one figure when looking at the breadth of his history.

Without some form of meticulous management of this present continuity, its worth -- simply as a traceable timeline, and who we know the Batman of it to be -- is barely perceptible if followed to a logical conclusion. We're getting closer to that, actually, with creators given such freedom that they're allowed to ignore what's come before in the previously insular chronology of events.

The character's overall history goes against strictly defining him, but if post-Crisis was supposed to give us anything it was a stricter definition of who he was within its insolated -- though never definitive or overwhelming -- continuity. Now I'm wondering if that's true, in which case a good deal of the point is now gone for this specific universe or canon since, after all, serialization is dependent upon the puzzle pieces adding up to form an understandable picture.
« Last Edit: Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:50am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #11 on: Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am »

Point: Moster Men does not carry the Elseworlds logo.
Point: The multiverse existed in current continuity. The Crisis did not negate history, it destroyed all Earths except for one. Period.
Point: Batman - Year One, though published after CoIE, is a pre-Crisis story. It is still in continuity. It is the known and recognized origin of the current DCU Batman.
Point: The events of the Monster Men story, being that they continue from the Year One story, happen pre-Crisis.
Speculation (mine): DC - especially right now with the multiverse possibly returning - would not publish a title which was out of continuity without clearly representing it as such.

End note: "pre-crisis" does not necessarily deem an item out of continuity. Within the current DCU timeline, the Crisis occurred. The multiverse existed. Something had to have happened "pre-Crisis." The Crisis did not negate the histories of the characters involved. The current DCU Batman existed before, during, and after the CoIE.
There's no arguing this point. I understand that I am not able to win an arguement with you, so I'm going to stop trying. If you don't like the way things are done in the DCU or on my site, I'm sorry.
User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #12 on: Dec 23rd, 2005, 03:19am »

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Point: Moster Men does not carry the Elseworlds logo.


And it also contradicts Prey.

Point: this is the pre-Crisis board. Why you have such a board when you consider there to be little to no difference between pre and post-Crisis I can't understand.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Point: The multiverse existed in current continuity. The Crisis did not negate history, it destroyed all Earths except for one. Period.


So the multiverse -- the bane of DC's continuity -- remained, just all of its earths were destroyed? Huh?

And if those earths were destroyed, how could their backstory be assumed to be a part of the one earth that survived considering their separate nature? If you insist on this path, you've got a hell of a lot to explain with gaps in logic that may be too big sew together.

I seem to remember the Superman of Earth-2 attempting to go back to that universe only to be met with anti-matter -- not simply a missing planet, but a missing universe.

But if this Earth already existed then that means you're undermining your entire stance -- i.e. that pre-Crisis stories from a separate earth somehow play into what happened on the one we now follow.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Point: Batman - Year One, though published after CoIE, is a pre-Crisis story. It is still in continuity. It is the known and recognized origin of the current DCU Batman.


Year One is a pre-Crisis story?

That's a new one. But, since it's a "fact", I'd assume you actually have some evidence?

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Point: The events of the Monster Men story, being that they continue from the Year One story, happen pre-Crisis.


Year One is not pre-Crisis. It was published after and in reaction to The Crisis on Infinite Earths. If that storyline isn't post-Crisis, what makes any event fall under that moniker?

Is there a meaningful difference between the two from your perspective?

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Speculation (mine): DC - especially right now with the multiverse possibly returning - would not publish a title which was out of continuity without clearly representing it as such.


So we have a timeline that is a mess. I've been saying that all along.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
End note: "pre-crisis" does not necessarily deem an item out of continuity.


Here's an editorial answer to a letter on the subject that even deals with your specific questions in the above paragraph (from issue 505):

As I explained in the Catwoman #6 letercol, only Batman stories related or directly referred to in post-Batman Year One stories are part of the official Batman canon.


Fact: assuming that pre-Crisis stories are canon is folly.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Within the current DCU timeline, the Crisis occurred. The multiverse existed.


And then it ceased to exist in the creation of a singular, unified continuity that is the current DC universe. I dealt with this multiple times before, in great detail, and if you want to argue it you can do so by responding to what I wrote -- not posting in a vacuum as a means to circumvent what I've said.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
Something had to have happened "pre-Crisis." The Crisis did not negate the histories of the characters involved.


You've said this before. I've answered it -- and so has the editorial page, in stark contrast to what you're still saying. Why not reply to that instead of repeating the same empty propoganda?

But, if that's the case then I guess Clark Kent's parents are dead? No? Well, how the hell is that possible?

Oh, that's right, that story...um, what was it's name? The Crisis! The story that rebooted DC's continuity.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
The current DCU Batman existed before, during, and after the CoIE.


Actually, the Crisis created the new Earth. That was its point.

Why did the Crisis exist at all from your viewpoint? If the point was to simplify the DCU -- as it's been stated over and over again it was -- how do your ideas fit with that? You've yet to answer that, like so much else.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
There's no arguing this point.


Sure there is. Simply put, the Crisis happened to create this timeline at the expense of the old. Without the destruction of the multiverse, this universe would not exist. It was meant as partial confluence (but only in the reference realm; meaning a post-Crisis story has to make note of whatever past event for it to be a part of the character's current serialized record) with the old in its makeup, but it was a new start.

As shown by it happening multiple times, you appear to believe that what you say is "fact" so long as you simply claim it is. Pretty laughable.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
I understand that I am not able to win an arguement with you, so I'm going to stop trying.


Did you ever engage my points? No.

I didn't expect you to agree with me -- or to try and "win" an argument -- but I did make the mistake of expecting you to explain your stance by way of answering my questions about it. Exactly the inverse has transpired.

on Dec 22nd, 2005, 11:55am, snipe wrote:
If you don't like the way things are done in the DCU or on my site, I'm sorry.


You're not the voice of the DCU. Is that a news flash?

I gave you an editorial quote which goes against your current stance; so it's not me you have the problem with so much as this continuity itself (seems you need to look in the mirror so far as your quote on problems with what continuity is), which means the above statement you've provided is invalid. So it appears that the DCU disagrees -- or disagreed at an earlier interval -- with your "facts" almost completely. I'm still awaiting your answer on that.

And I'm very sorry if that offends you. But, as you've made clear enough before, you have an avid dislike for me in general and feel some need to "show" me something rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue (I don't need to be talked at). I've never held any ill-will towards you, which is why I continue to wonder why you seem to have such a problem with me; it's as if you become miffed whenever I strongly disagree with an opinion you hold (whether it's the quality of recent issues or the nature of continuity).

Ironically, by avoiding my points you're only conceding them -- which I truthfully didn't expect, and I only posed and continue to pose them because your views aren't holding together for me when I consider those same percieved gaps that make up the questions I've directed at you. Which, in a circular manner, is why I asked -- not to "beat" you, but to see if there were any answers that would fill up those holes. Instead it looks more and more as if there aren't any to be had.

Disregarding stories with Batman fighting ants (ludicrous? Yes. Automatically out of continuity if pre-Crisis is still in play? No.) while laying claim that stuff like the Neal Adams run is a piece of today's continuity even though they both stem from pre-Crisis on a base factual level means that your standard for continuity (what is and what isn't) lends itself to total subjectivity -- meaning even if I acccept it, its still been defined in such a way that nobody else needs to or would come to the same conclusions (thus, no objective standard; my point). And by the way, none of these stories when reprinted ever recieve the Elseworlds label, which means by your own argument that the current continuity's Batman once hung out in the Batcave with Batwoman and Bat-Mite.

If you were just being factual, you would have addressed these issues by now. The gaps in logic are best swept under the rug from your end it appears. Ignore what you can't make work with your mindset. Kinda sad.
« Last Edit: Dec 23rd, 2005, 10:26am by Will » User IP Logged

Will

ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 706
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #13 on: Dec 23rd, 2005, 05:26am »

Visual point of fact:

User Image

User Image

User Image

Seemingly no Elseworlds symbol on any of them. Which, by your standard for Strange Apparitions and the Neal Adams collection, means they're all arguably a piece of the post-Crisis timeline. Huh.

It's clear that this is going to become a game of repetition because of your disinterest in any type of discussion that takes into account my points on a substantive basis of give and take -- and I'm no more interested in following your way than you are in mine (i.e. actually exploring these issues). So, unless you decide that we can converse in a manner that doesn't involve you telling me that you're the FINAL SAY ON ALL THINGS DCU ("Period.") post after post (especially when you're disregarding facts and logic when doing so) I have little interest in going in circles any longer with you over this.

I am still interested in this story, however, and will continue to give my thoughts on it in this thread (assuming I still have an account here).

And just so we're all clear on Year One, here's an excerpt from Batman: The Complete History by Les Daniels:

The year 1986 signaled a new start for Batman, as well as every other character published by DC Comics. These heroes had accumulated so much complicated history over the past decades that their backgrounds were becoming burdensome, which inspired the editorial decision to put them all through a comic book time warp called Crisis on Infinite Earths. The result of this twelve-issue series was that Batman (along with his colleagues) was given a makeover, one that retained key elements of his original creation but reinterpreted them for modern readers. "I guess I was hired to revamp Batman," said newly arrived editor Dennis O'Neil. "At least, I assumed that was my mission."
To Reintroduce the character's origin story, DC called on Frank Miller, who felt he was creating "bookends" since he had just finished depicting a possible future for Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.


The Crisis, Year One and all that follows: there's a chronological connectivity. And, as asseverated by DC, a disconnect from any stories not mentioned in that newly threaded line.
« Last Edit: Dec 23rd, 2005, 07:34am by Will » User IP Logged

snipe
Administrator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Master Dick


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1952
xx Re: Batman & the Monster Men
« Reply #14 on: Dec 24th, 2005, 10:30am »

I never stated I was the spokesman for DC - only that I'm the spokesman for this site. I'll let the creators be DC's voice:

WHO: Marv Wolfman
WHERE: http://www.marvwolfman.com/WHAT%20TH%207.html
WHAT: I designed Crisis to get rid of all the old continuity so there would be no stranglehold on ideas. I would have liked to have seen a deliberate desire to avoid shoving that continuity right back in again, but that didnít happen.

WHO: Marv Wolfman
WHERE: http://www.marvwolfman.com/Q&A.html
WHAT: As people may or may not know, I never wanted the DC heroes to remember the Crisis ever happened or to ever have it referred to after the series was done. But against my wishes I was overruled by the other DC editors. That is why the heroes went back to the dawn of time so they, and only they could remember. I always thought that was a terrible mistake, and it certainly proved to be so. But, when you're working in a collaborative medium, and the Crisis was just that, they had the right to overrule me. I wasn't happy, but I did the best I could and don't think it hurt the Crisis story although it made the DCU very difficult to navigate through. If my original idea had been accepted the problems you mention would never have happened.

WHO: Julian Darius
WHERE: http://www.sequart.com/batmanYEARONE.htm
WHAT: In the wake of Crisis on Infinite Earths, DC elected not to reboot Batman as it had Superman, who in 1986 received a mini-series (entitled Man of Steel) revising his origin and telling episodes from his early years, a new continuity that took over his title. Not powered like Superman, Batman seemed to need less revision. DC thus gave writer Frank Miller, whose revolutionary mini-series The Dark Knight Returns had recently been completed, to write a four-issue storyline that would revise Batman's origin and would appear not in its own mini-series but in the Batman title. Miller, paired with David Mazzucchelli -- with whom he had earlier collaborated on the trailblazing "Born Again" storyline in Daredevil -- came up with Batman: Year One, boldly outlining Batman's first year as a vigilante.

WHO: Denny O'Neil
WHERE: Batman: Year One (introduction)
WHAT: In 1986 the editorial board of DC Comics decided that their heroes, some of whom were nearly a half-century old, had become dated. A massive revamping was clearly in order, and the place to begin was with the company's three most popular and enduring characters - Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman. The writers and artists assigned to the task had quick and clear ideas about how to update Superman and Wonder Woman, but Batman was a problem. He was fine just as he was. The origin that Bob Kane and Bill Finger had created in 1939 was a perfect explanation of how and why Batman came to be, why he continued his obsessive crusade, and, perhaps, more important, it mirrored the fears, frustrations and hopes of a readership coping with the realities of 20th-century urban life.
So, DC's editors decided, Batman's origin should not be changed.
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| Conforums Support |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls