Episode 1350 Talkback: Comic Talk
Pants
Posts: 567
It's another mixed bag this week, as we touch on topics including (but not limited to) the Annunciation of Neil Gaiman's Angela at Marvel, the latest creator departures from DC, the upcoming 'Batman: Zero Year' arc, the ongoing multimedia renaissance of the '60s Batman TV series, and recent DC-licensed video games. Plus, at no extra charge, more Dr. Who talk with Pants and Shane, and Murd and Matt compare notes on 'Oz, The Great and Powerful.' (1:33:28)
Listen here.
Listen here.
Comments
M
Well done, sir.
Also I loved Shawn's 3 simple rules for Super Show. "expect the unexpected"
What is going on at DC? You got people walking away, people being replaced without any word at all from DC (like with Supergirl). I understand editorial wanting to keep a path in place for characters, but you can also let these creative teams do their thing at the same time.
I love me some '60's Batman, I will definitely be getting the comic and the figures. Hoping the dvd's aren't far behind.
Good yoink there Murd.
"Roadhouse."
-Shawn
So DC needs to get their ducks in a row.
Matthew
In this case, the connection to existing content is used to sell the work. The movie was created to be a prequel to the movie we all know (and novels that many know). Therefore, I think how the work did or didn't meet expectation is a fair part of the review. Because the whole hook of the movie is expectation and prior knowledge (as well as the buy-in that comes with that).
How it compared to what we expected shouldn't be the entire review. But it is also not an irrelevant way to talk about something. Especially something that is building off of existing works.
I dunno... on the one hand, yeah, it can be weak critical sauce, but on the other hand, I totally understand the impulse.
I'm thinking the show should stay away from reviewing everything. It seems we are accused of only being negative or jerking off when we review.
M
Angela in the Marvel Universe sounds so bizarre... but it might actually be fun. I remember getting an extra copy of Angela #1 back in the day, so maybe I'll be able to sell that for slightly over cover price sometime soon!
Year Zero is the straw that broke the camel's back as far as my purchasing of "Batman" goes. It's ELEVEN issues at $4 an issue? And I generally like the guy's writing, but Snyder's habit of inserting stuff into the past and harping on and on about the history of Gotham has started to bug me even before now (it used to be cool, now it's overdone). Still, Year Zero might turn out to be good--it obviously has that potential--and if it is good then I'll read it in hardcover. But, I mean, I probably won't even get to see Capullo draw Batman in costume for 11 issues? I can't commit to $44 if I don't at least have Capullo's awesome renditions of Batman to fall back on every month.
DC needs to get their house in order. There are some monster hits over there, but even titles with names like Johns (Vibe), Morrison (Action), and Snyder (Talon) have put up weak numbers lately, or have sales erosion that's far higher than one would expect. And it's like DC is chasing away popular creators due to heavyhanded editorial mandates. They should let the creators they hired write the stories they WANT to write, because obviously, for the most part, editor-directed comics haven't done all that well for them in the last few years.
Batman '66 sounds GREAT and I'll buy it whenever the floppies come out. Hopefully someone like Allred or better yet Amanda Conner will be able to draw interiors for the series at some point.
A year-long story set in the past allows you to get round this, you could just have Batman doing his thing & not having to deal with Damian's death. When it finishes, sure he won't be a happy chappie, but his grieving would be much less of a focus. And hopefully, by that time, "Batman and Robin" (surely a better place to deal with Robin's death) will have dealt with it anyway.
Anyone notice how much of DC's most interesting stuff is their digital first stuff?
I don't think I overstepped myself commenting on the notice of Year Zero. I roll my eyes whenever we get a detail story expanding or reinterpreting well known origins. I felt the same about Earth-1 graphic novels & JMS' "additions" to Spider-man's origin.
M
I wouldnt say the most interesting but Im enjoying alot of the Digital first stuff with Batman Beyond,Smallville,Arrow,and Superman Beyond. But their are plenty of books like Earth 2,Wonder Woman,Aquaman,and Justice League Dark to name a few.
M
Morrison: Well, what I don’t want to do is the whole weepy Batman; the Batman in mourning thing. Over my run, we’ve seen a Batman who’s basically a super Buddhist meditation addict who’s going through one of the most hardcore rituals. This is a guy who works in a superhero universe who has seen friends die and come back to life. So what I wanted to do, and what you’re going to see coming up, is a Batman who has a very different approach to death than what most of us do.
That's just my opinion. I don't mean to offend or anything. Either I my feedback has some insight or I'm crazy. Decide for yourselves and proceed with the show as you desire.
You just got the blunt end of an issue brewing since at least the Avengers review. Our reviews always seem to fall prey to too positive or too negative. Nothing personal, its just an exposed nerve that got tweaked with the word "another."
M
Colin Baker did 2, though that was due to pretty much being fired by then-BBC Controller Michael Grade. Sylvester McCoy did 3, but that was when the original series ended (again thanks to Michael Grade... old school Doctor Who fans hate that guy!), so we have no idea if he'd have went on past that or not (though there were already story plans in the works for a McCoy-starring season 27 when the axe fell, so we can probably assume he would've).
So, yeah, 3 years isn't hardwired into the formula or anything, but there's something of a tradition there, either by choice or circumstance.
One more thing - in regards to rumors about the show? Never believe anything you hear about the series until you see it on screen! The British tabloids are infamous for spreading untruths about the show (Rupert Grint is the new companion! Gillian Anderson is going to be the regenerated Rani! Ben Kingsley is going to be Davros! etc. etc.), and the internet is, well... it's the internet. And guys like Davies and Moffat like to mislead the fans in order to keep their story surprises secret. So take everything you read with a grain of salt unless/until you actually see it on the show.
I am the same way. Love Dr Who when I was a kid and it aired everyday on PBS. Then when it came back I watched the first 2 seasons. But not a fan of David Tennet so gave up on the show. Tried getting back into it a few times and it seems to have lost something it had back in the original run.
Actually, it's the other way around
Disney's history with Oz
After the successful release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937, Walt Disney planned to produce an animated film based on the first of L. Frank Baum's Oz books. Roy O. Disney, chairman of the Walt Disney Studios, was informed by Baum's estate that they had sold the film rights to the first book to Samuel Goldwyn, who re-sold it to Louis B. Mayer in 1938.[10] The project was developed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer into the well-known musical adaptation starring Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton and Billie Burke, released the following year.
In 1954, when the film rights to Baum's remaining thirteen Oz books were made available, Walt Disney Productions acquired them[11] for use in Walt Disney's television series Disneyland and the live-action film Rainbow Road to Oz, which was abandoned and never completed.[12] Disney's history with the Oz series continued with the 1985 film Return to Oz. That film performed poorly, both critically and commercially,[13][14][15] but it developed a cult following since its release.[16][17] After Return to Oz, Disney lost the film rights to the Oz books and they were subsequently reverted to the public domain.
Development
The film was made without the involvement of MGM, because the Oz novels by L. Frank Baum are in the public domain.