[J m HofMarN]

So, everyone list your favorites, and then we can hate eachother for our tastes in comic books too!

Watchmen and Preacher are always going to be the gold standard for me. Still, Killing Joke is probably the best single issue comic I've ever read. V for Vendetta, I thought, wasnt all that grand really. I was in to Venom as a kid, and I still am in a lot of ways. They get the job done. I remember thinking how cool the Maximum Carnage story line was, but now that I reread it as an adult, its some of the most self righteous nonsense I've ever seen. Maybe my affection for Venom has tainted my morals, but it seems like every fight scene goes like this:

Venom/everyone else: Lets go punch Carnage til he stops killing people.
Spiderman: Blargh how have I been driven to such brutality. There has to be another way. I'm going to go be an emo.
Carnage: Time for murderin!

Repeat ad infinitum until, finally, Spidey and pals build a RIDICULOUS metal.... box........... that shoots love.....and strap it to one of their chests... I wish I were making this up, but yeah, Carnage is felled by a love box. Then hes ok. Then Venom, apparently, blows up himself and Carnage. Spidey is fine with this because it isnt murder if its done via explosion and not punching, or something, I dont know?

So yeah, that comic has really aged badly.

I'm getting the full run of Lethal Protector pretty soon, as well as Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Ground and probably a few more comics that involve venom and joker, any reccomendations there would be appreciated.

Edit: Also won an auction for Batman/Joker Going Sane storyling. I'm not sure about this plotline wherein its theorized that Joker would just turn into a normal guy after he killed The Bat, but it promises to be a psychological study of their mutual dependence regardless, so I'm interested enough to purchase it.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 04 February 2010 - 12:49 AM

[Gobbler]

Once again, Mad Love. It's all I can really talk about since I was never too much into comics.

Oh wait, there are some other ones - Top Cow's "early" productions, they usually had a lot more style than those watered down DC and Marvel comics.

Spirit of the Tao was an excellent comic, especially because people didn't seem to appreciate it enough to warrant the usual "I'm a comic book, I need to go on till kingdom come" thinking. I just can't stand never ending stories. Go watch a soap opera if you must, but stop adding story arcs and retarded ideas and just settle for creating something new, idiots. Blargh.

Witchblade got hit by that. Personally, I prefer to read until Pezzini's first final confrontation with Irons comes to a conclusion and refuse to accept that anything ever happened after that. In its defense though - Michael Turner is a god among artists and as long as he stayed in control of the story, you could have even endured it for a little longer. But alas, the artistic crew changed far too soon and blew it all up. I'm never going to forgive Randy Green for butchering its style in every way imaginable.

Same goes for the The Darkness, which was just plain hilarious, but suffered from straying too far from its roots in the end. When Silvestri took up his pen back then, oh, those were the times. Top Cow had such pretty synergies going for them, creating their own little universe and letting Witchblade and The Darkness meet each other pretty early in the game. Things felt cosy back then, but everything changes as soon as you feel like catching up with neverending storylines is becoming more of a chore than fun.

[civilian_number_two]

JM: Have you read Arkham Asylum? If so, I wonder why you prefer Killing Joke. I like KJ as well, but Arkham is smarter. Almost not really a Batman story, sure, but it's great nonetheless.

[J m HofMarN]

Otal - Did you like Mad Love? I might be putting it on my list.

Civ- I havent read Arkham yet, its coming soon in the mail. The thing I like so well about Killing Joke is that, well, first of all the Joker is at his very best in it. He isnt into some idiotic mass murder scheme, hes just trying to fuck with Batman's head directly and on a personal level. All the characters in it are people we know which gives it more of a resonance. I also like that Moore had the humility and respect for the character to basically point out that his origin story was in all likelihood a total falsity.

I'm definately looking forward to getting ahold of Arkham now though.

Out of curiosity, has anyone else read Maximum Carnage?

[Supes]

I've got a couple of favourites in no particular order:

The Killing Joke - Like JM am still waiting for Arkham Asylum to arrive to read.
Watchmen
V for Vendetta
The Dark Knight Returns
Authority by Warren Ellis

[Just your average movie goer]

You guys know me, I find a lot of comic books hard to get into. However, I do own several Batman graphic novels that I mentioned in The Dark Knight thread. Growing up though, I have to say that I loved The Phantom. I can't really choose a favourite but the quality of the stories was consistently very good. Most issues were about 32 pages but you always got your money's worth.

The other thing is that as far as a character for kids to look up to, he's probably one of the best role models out there. I like the fact that he's such a human character, always showing warmth, humility and humour. And who wouldn't want to be lord of the jungle, riding on your brilliant stallion with your loyal mountain wolf at your side?

I'm curious about continuity though. For those who came in late, the Phantom is a persona that has been adopted down the centuries by the first sons of an ongoing family line. So one man takes up the mantle, keeping the legend going that this is an immortal (the ghost who walks, the man who cannot die) and when it's time to retire, he hands the mantle down to his son... and there's no doubt that this has been happening.

The only thing that I wonder about it is whether there was a hand over during the time in which the comics have been published. I've read the early ones (written way back before WWII - preceeding the Superman comics by a number of years) and I've read the later ones - but I'm not sure if there was a change over during that time or not - because there should have been.

The reason it's confusing, you see, is that the love of the Phantom's life in the early adventures was that adventurous young woman Diana Palmer and the love of the current Phantom's life is... also Diana Palmer. So I wonder, did they change over and by amazing coincidence, the son of the father had a crush on a girl that looked a lot like his mother and had the same name? Or is this an example of sliding continuity like the kind in the original James Bond films?

There have definitely been some changes though - big ones too. The Phantom is based in the fictional country of Bengali (and there's a definite similarity there to existing places - the Bay of Bengal comes to mind). Originally, this was probably where you'd expect it to be. It was in Asia, near the strait of Malacca - which makes sense as that's a haven for pirates and the murder of the first Phantom's father by pirates is the event that started the whole thing. However, in later comics, Bengali is a landlocked country in Africa. Now, I guess they wanted a larger campus for more stories but that's a pretty big change. Also, the Phantom travels abroad far more in later comics.

The character's physicality has changed considerably as well - starting with someone who could be an ordinary man to a towering giant of a man with the physique of Superman. This has led an amusing little oddity in the comics for some fans, including myself, as occasionally you see this line in the captions:

There are times when the Phantom walks the streets as an ordinary man. This is one of those times.

However, these days, it should probably read more like this:

There are times when the Phantom walks the streets as an ordinary seven foot man with a five foot shoulder width, wearing an ordinary trench coat and accompanied by an ordinary mountain wolf. This is one of those times.

Still though, great comics.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 04 February 2010 - 09:13 PM

[J m HofMarN]

JYAMG- I definately agree that comics should work basically on an episodic deal unless its a multi issue story arc, although all of the episodic ones should add to general development while not hinging on it... Its a difficult balancing act I guess and I can see how it would get bothersome.

Supes= I'm kind of puzzled not to see any of a certain DC title on there, given your handle.

[Supes]

JM - Hehehe, yeah I am a little odd like that ;-) Actually, I particularly enjoyed the Death of Superman series. I was buying the individual comics at the time this was run so it got a little expensive in buying the cross over tiles I didn't generally buy back then such as Justice League America. And I am also partial to the Elseworlds one shots that often come out for Superman, such as KAL (although I really did not like Stan Lee does Superman). Overall though I find that one shots of Superman storylines often miss something and as such none have been complete stand outs for me. I find Superman to be a more Epic character and as such seems to be better dealt in the larger story arcs.

I should also add to me list from above KINGDOM COME - The original 4 books, not the extended content.

[Supes]

Quote

Oh, if DC does a reset every few years, I think they'd better do one now. The last time I went into a comics store, I picked up one of the new Batman comics and discovered that at this point, the title character is actually dead and Dick Grayson's under the cowl. I don't know - maybe a whole lot of readers are hooked on this storyline but if anyone's just seen The Dark Knight and they're planning to delve into the comics, DC will lose them.

One time, I picked up one of their Crises on Infinite Earths things in a library and had a flip through it - one of the most confusing messes I've ever seen committed to paper. You'd probably need a PhD in DC comic history to make sense of it.

Now having said all that, I think a bit of ongoing continuity is a good thing too but within reason. I don't think a comic made after the year 2000 should be referencing events from a comic back in the 80s.

Given your very good point about derailing JYAMG I thought I'd bring this part of your post in the Movie Theatre over here to respond.

I'm not sure when DC last did a rest and it's not always through the entire universe that it's done. For example, MAN OF STEEL 6 part series done in the '80's I think was designed to update Superman and start his story again in the modern day. Partly to remove some of the superfluous history, but also more to bring Metropolis and the Character into what was then modern day.

CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS was a Universe wide way that DC went about trying to clean up around 50 years of stories and history and characters as well as resolve the Golden Age characters, working with Silver Age Characters, working with Bronze Age characters. The invention of multiple earths allowed for wide story telling but the prevelance with which writers ere crossing them over started to make it a nightmare for continuity. As such they decided to collapse the earths and bring those characters they deemed appropriate to continue running into the one Universe. I agree, it was a hell of a mess and really is only for people that were trying to read several comic titles around that time. I personally found CRISIS fine to read, but I was into all that back then so was no drama.

I do find it slightly ironic that it was only around another 10 years later they ran ZERO HOUR, which also was essentially a restart story arc that impacted the entire universe.

[Just your average movie goer]

Ten years, hey? It sounds like they let all their plot arcs get out of hand pretty quickly then.

JM, regarding your point about the difficult balance in having stories that build on each other but can be enjoyed independently, one way would be to avoid too many major events. Another is to make sure that regardless of what has come before, a newcomer shouldn't need to read anything else to understand the comic in their hands - this could be handled by just having a few lines to help readers out. For instance, when an obscure character comes up, have the title character briefly reminisce about past experiences with this person - not for long but just long enough so that a newcomer will know who this person is.

Still though, if they reset continuity ever so often, it won't be such an issue. The other thing is that doing something like that might allow for more variety in interpretations of characters. For instance, maybe they could make a brief ten part series on Batman with the events set in the 1800s. This might also allow for them to flesh out some of the more interesting 'Elseworlds' tales (is that what DC calls them, Supes?). I've heard about a few of them and they sound rather interesting. However, it wouldn't have to be anything like that. It could be just changing the character is little ways. You could have a series where Batman is a borderline psychotic. Then you could have a series where Batman is a bit more likeable. Or you could just simply update the story to keep up with the times - 60s Batman, 70s Batman, 80s Batman etc.

Lastly, one final word on events. Comics shouldn't have too many of them because if you have events all the time, then they stop being events.

[J m HofMarN]

Just finished reading Going Sane and Arkham Asylum

Civ - sadly I have to say, Arkham Asylum was not that great. Ok it was different, and dark, but I think it tried too hard to be too dark. Why exactly did Mad Hatter ramble to Batman about how hes a pedophile? I mean, what did that serve? I also really dont get just what Batman was doing there. I'm guessing the Joker's plan was to slap batman's ass (really?) and then have him fight Cavendish.... only before he did he'd sick random people on him who would either try to kill him, be shoved down stairs by him, or talk about their sexual interests at length. Killing Joke still reigns as my favorite Batman comic, but AA did have its moments.

Going Sane? Please, don't bother with this series. Its a four comic story arc wherein Joker finally decides he's killed Batman and decides to lead a normal life... Well... sort of. Joker's Joker personality simply evaporates, and he becomes a normal guy with occasional flashbacks who likes to watch old comedy movies with his new girlfriend. Oh, and Batman meets a doctor who makes him not die after some children, walking near a frozen river in the middle of the night for no reason, pluck his carcass out of it.

What really gets me about this story is that, like Venom On Trial it had such dynamite potential for depth that was just bulldozed right over. Making Joker in essence disappear once Batman died was a total cop out. I recall one comic actually pointed out that Joker couldnt survive without Batman. It would have been really great to see just how Batman's death affected the guy. And I'd also have prefered to see how Batman would get on without the Joker. A more mature writer could have had them both thinking the other was dead, and attempting to lead normal lives. I would have really been interested to see Joker's own method of coping with getting a job, riding the buss, waiting in line, and so forth. It would also have been kind of nice to find out just what the fuck Batman would do without his arch enemy.

But no. Batman knows the Joker is still alive, and the Joker isnt even in most of the comic, since his personality just instantly disappears upon Bats' death.

I was really disappointed in that one. I'm looking forward to Mad Love though. Should be here Monday!

Oh and Movie Goer, I'm not sure if its out yet, but I recall seeing a preview of a comic book cover featuring Bat Pilgrim.... No I'm serious. Its apparently some sixteen hundreds time travel insanity.... Hopefully nothing like that gawdamn headless horseman fanfic I reviewed.... but still, might interest you!

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 21 February 2010 - 04:01 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

So, DC does this stuff occasionally. Good, because a one-off title or a short series is something that a new reader can really get into, whereas diving into a twenty year continuous timeline is a somewhat daunting prospect.

I'm also glad to see that this thread is back on top, having pushed down that stupid thread about the transformers logos. I was almost going to write something there to point out that this is a book club - but then I read your comments in the Movie Theatre about spambots; so if I had replied, I would have been telling off a line of useless binary code rather than an actual person. Now, I'm sure all of you who witnessed the emergence of these things have probably already had your chance to say this... but since I have only just discovered them, I'd like to say it too. Creating computer programs that post advertising on internet forums is incredibly stupid. What's more disturbing however is that there are so many semi-literate morons posting on forums these days, that these unintelligent computer programs can blend right in. Fortunately, most people at Chefelf use correct word order and punctuation so it's a little harder for them here; and now that I know that spambots generally include links to commercial sites in their posts, I'll be able to spot them straightaway in future. Still, I swear the Internet is going downhill.

Anyway...

I now know from your above post that Arkham Asylum is not for me either. I like a bit of darkness in comic books too but in moderation. Unfortunately, I suspect from some of the more recent Batman comics I've perused (leading up to when the writers killed the character off) that some of these writers just make their comics dark for the hell of it. Having something dark does not make it a stronger work in and of itself. Darkness is one possible aspect of a story. Actually, I am reminded of those awful advertisements for television shows where they try to lure audiences in with lines like "This episode, one of the main characters dies," or "This Friday night, everything goes to hell in a handbasket." From these pitches, presumably we are supposed to leap out of our armchairs in excitement. Yes, these must certainly be solid programs - after all, they're dark.

So if there are any DC comic writers reading this, don't try to make stories darker. Just try to make good stories. If they happen to go into dark territory because of the nature of the story, that's one thing - but contriving darkness for darkness' sake is not good.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 22 February 2010 - 08:23 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I think that's one of the great things about the Joker as a character is that, for me at least, you can read just about any story with him, and if its true to character and written right, it still has a certain levity about it. The joker isnt a dark evil guy, he doesnt want to kill everyone, or rule the world under an iron fist, etc. He's just batshit insane with a bent for murder and chaos. So one of the important things in works with him is that they SHOULDNT be dark, even though obviously the content is going to be dark. You should still be able to chuckle at it, even if the content is horrible, which says something about people and the characters, and kind of makes you think. Thats a big part about why the Dark Knight joker was so good, because even though he was less silly, he still had that something to him. He's a serious foil for Batman in large part because of the fact that he doesnt take things seriously. That's probably why I like Killing Joke so well, because despite the horribly dark subject matter that would come off as an attrocity with any other villain, the comic still has a very light tone to it as though none of it were happening deliberately but just by a quirk of fate, "life and all its random injustice" as the man himself put it.

[civilian_number_two]

In defence of Arkham Asylum: it is not really a Batman story. It is a story of Amadeus Arkham, a sort-of proto-Batman character, and it's full of Jungian symbolism and reference's to Crowley's Thoth Tarot. Also, yes, Lewis Carroll, sacred geometry, and some pop-culture notions of literary asylums. There's a lot of the silly, a lot of the pretentious in there, but I think it's interesting. You're right I think to reject it on the level of plot; it is not a straight-forward adventure story, and if it were, it's just Batman stomping bozos over text baloons from a dead man's diary. Its reference to Alice In Wonderland carries at least a vague suggestion that it might all be a dream, or at least that the literalness of everything may be questioned. I should read it again to get a better memory of it, but I think it's intended as a psychological definition of Batman: as a response to the violent murder of his parents, he defines himself as a protecter and healer, while in his heart he is a murderous psychopath. Arkham's personality splits between the healer and the man seeking revenge, and the duality is his undoing. Two-Face's ultimately comes to terms with his duality, but Batman's fate is in question. There's more in there as well; Grant Morrisson visualizes the asylum iteslf as an embodiment of Batman's mind, and he pits him against various "shades" as he searches for his definition of self. Apparently Morrisson put out an annotated edition of it as well, so you can see the sources of his symbolism, which is what TS Eliot eventually did with The Waste Land. Coincidentally, lit teacher Tomothy Callahan, who wrote a book about Morrisson, makes a comparison between the two in this article:

http://www.comicbook...rticle&id=10710

I don't know that I can meet Arkham Asylum all the way: I think much of it is pretentious, much in fact like The Waste Land, but I do like it.

[J m HofMarN]

I noticed that it was definitely far from a typical Batman comic, or story, I actually like the fact that it's different and definately value that. I also spotted some of the themes you're suggesting, though the full spectrum of its references and elements had eluded me until you pointed it out. The duality of the Batman personna is certainly interesting, though I don't exactly think Amadeus Arkham is a proper mirror in that respect. The asylum embodying Batman's inner struggle is certainly made clear enough by the Mad Hatter. Good on them for bringing Aleister Crowley into things, he should show up more often in comic books! I think that if this comic had been handled from the perspective of trying to tell an interesting and fleshed out story as well as work as a character study and showcase of neat things the author was aware of, it could have worked a lot better. So my criticism of AA isnt so much that it was bad, as that it didnt live up to its potential. Elements of the plot, such as Cavendish going mad, seemed slightly contrived, and I would have really liked to see some kind of exposition of Arkham functioning the way it was meant to, IE before being taken over by the residents. Of course, thats a study that I'm working on myself in my own comic book idea. The potential to delve into the psychological elements of the Batman mythos was largely overlooked in favor of displaying almost scatological references to serious mental conditions "lol two face pissed on the floor. rofl maxi zeus is shitting in a bucket!" considering that several of the enemies he faces were once doctors of psychology or employees of arkham. Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, Lockup and Cavendish would all fit this category and I'm sure there are more, a stronger emphasis and closer look at the inner workings of Batman and his enemies, and the respective ways they seek to cure the world, and in which the world in turn tries to cure them, would definately be interesting.

Just as a contrast to the "I am so smart" intellectual referencing of AA, I would point out my obvious hero, Alan Moore. Moore is, literally, a genius. He's very intelligent for a crazy snake worshipping son of a bitch. Look at Killing Joke and you can see a complete story, a lot of conflict in his characters, all that. But when you look deeper at the artwork, you notice that the comic is laid out in such a way that the images flow like water. The first and last images are the same, every segue into the Joker's memories flows freely from the preceding present day image. It doesnt hit you over the head with literary quotes, but it does clearly show that the author put a great deal of thought into it without breaking up the rhythm of the story. Indeed some of this stuff is only uncovered in subsequent readings. Same with Watchmen. Observe Tales of the Black Freighter being used as a mirror of the comic's story. Also, those little lyrical references he does? All of them are period proper, and even when the movie was made it was recognized that those songs fit the story incredibly well. At least one of them (Sound of Silence) was written about an event that had an impact on the world of Watchmen (The murder of Kitty Genovese that influenced Rorschach to take up masked adventuring). So, yeah, I think theres a fine line between "I'm smart, and lets all enjoy what I can produce" and "I'm smart, if you were smart you'd know what the shit I'm talking about" AA is somewhere inbetween but leans towards the latter.

Quote

Yeah. It's not just about Batman being crazy; it's about Arkham Asylum being the literal embodiment of Batman's mind. This is his psychological struggle with himself and this is about death and rebirth and healing and resurrection. All those Jungian and Joseph Campbell things are definitely intended by Morrison. I'm so glad he put the annotated script in the "Arkham Asylum" 15th anniversary edition, so you can see how clearly the symbolic structure was part of it from the very beginning.

Dear christ. Are you serious? This reminds me of what some horrid rock band would say when someone points out that their lyrics make no damn sense. And I've never read a comic book yet that required a fugging teacher's edition. I was lukewarm about AA until I read all this, but now its starting to sound worse and worse the more I hear. I prefer a comic book that, as I grow older and hopefully wiser and better read, I can go back into it and pick out one or two elements I missed and enjoy the whole of the comic even more. As the Joker once said "Theres no joke if you have to explain it!"

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 March 2010 - 02:35 PM