Sigh.... looks like I might not be reading DC Comics much longer

Planeis · January 2013

When the new 52 happened, I tried a couple things. I started reading Justice League, Superman, Batman, and Supergirl. Justice League is... OK... for now. But when my subscription to Batman and Superman runs out, I don't think I'll be re-newing them.

Batman is the title I have a subscription too, and I've read some trades of the other titles too. I really don't like the writing on the Dark Knight and Batman Inc. Snyder does OK. My main problem is the violence. Maybe I'm too naive or too sensitive or something, but I think we if we added up the number of people who have died on panel in Batman books since the new 52 started, it would be well into the hundreds. There's blood everywhere, especially all over the first Dark Knight trade I just finished. Just gobs of blood all over seemingly every panel. Characters that aren't themselves, including Batman (at one point in The Dark Knight Batman kicks Bane off an incredibly high cliff, Bane falls into the ocean and washes away... seemingly to his death... Batman just responds "he'll be back" ... oh really? is that the writers reasoning for essentially killing someone? just say they'll "be back" and its all ok?).

Am I crazy? I haven't been the most avid read of comics since about 2005, but I've read my fair share and I just don't remember there being this much violence in Batman and this much blood all over everything.

When it comes to Superman its really primarily the writing. At least Scott Snyder does OK writing on Batman. Superman is terrible, just awful. Is anyone reading the Superman title right now? Scott Lobdell has created a version of Clark/Superman that is a giant douche, there's terrible dialogue, a boring go nowhere story, and the art is just... ugh. Kenneth Rocafort has interesting stuff in some panels, in others just bleh. Huge, huge portions of his pages have nothing drawn on them. Just empty space.

Supergirl has good art, but the writing, inconsistant characterization... ugh. I really see myself not reading any DC stuff soon.

I also just don't feel like I have a sense of whats going on. I've read large portions of Teen Titans, Wonder Woman, Justice League, Superman, Action, Supergirl, Batman, Dark Knight, Batman Inc and yet I feel so lost. When I read in Superman 15 about Lex Luthor being in jail and in a prison he designed (what the?) I had no idea. I didn't know Lex was in prison and I don't know what for.

Maybe it's me... I'm gonna be giving some of the Marvel stuff a try though.

Matt · January 2013

Planeis said:

...

Am I crazy? I haven't been the most avid read of comics since about 2005, but I've read my fair share and I just don't remember there being this much violence in Batman and this much blood all over everything.
...

I'm not reading any of it, but violence-wise, possibly AzBats during Knightsquest.

M

batlaw · January 2013

Youre not crazy or alone. The new52 just sucks almost completely.
Batman Beyond Unlimited is fantastic and Legends of the Dark Knight shows promise
(but Ive only read the first issue so far).

CaptShazam · January 2013

Violence has increased with the new 52 but it has been increasing since at least the buildup to Infinite Crisis. The Batman books have been really dark in the new 52. I stayed with Detective for about 12 issues which was about 10 issues too long. Dark Knight was one and done. I have enjoyed the main Batman book and Batman & Robin books.

David_D · January 2013

For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.

Some signposts to remember-- Jason Todd being beaten to near-death then blown up by the Joker? 1988.

Batman getting his spine broken by Bane and being replaced by a blade-wielding former assassin who kills and nearly strangles Nightwing to death? 1993-94.

Stephanie Brown being tortured to death by The Black Mask? 2004.

And those are just some ones that come to mind.

This is not, of course, to say that this is what you as a reader might want, or that just because Batbooks were dark before they need to continue to be so. I get that. I would just say that it should be no surprise that the New 52 Batbooks have been dark, as that has been the business of those books for a long time now.

To the general point of the original post, though, I agree. From what I have read, all in all, the New 52 books have been darker than the DCU prior to the relaunch (maybe with the exception of books that were already pretty dark or grim, like the Batbooks and the Green Lantern books. Those books didn't get darker, they just stayed that way). And I can understand where that is not what some readers will want.

An exception, perhaps, maybe something to try, would be Action Comics. I'm not saying it has been everyone's cuppa, to borrow from Jamie, but in general I have found that to be a pretty hopefully book. Sure, there are world-imperiling threats (it is a Superman book) but the stories, from what I remember, tend to resolve without a lot of blood or body count.

TrustyMutsi · January 2013

You're not crazy. I feel the same way. DC strories had heart and legacy. Now they are trying to be edgy in a overly desperate manner.

kfreeman · January 2013

Try new things and don't look back. Have no guilt whatsoever.

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.

But they have never been this consistently dark. There was always a balance between the darker stories and the general run. Events like Jason Todd's murder were rare events, and generally notable for that reason. I agree with Planeis' observation, and the unceasing darkness of tone and subject matter is one of the reasons why I dropped the Bat-books.

David_D · January 2013

Chuck_Melville said:

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.
But they have never been this consistently dark. There was always a balance between the darker stories and the general run. Events like Jason Todd's murder were rare events, and generally notable for that reason. I agree with Planeis' observation, and the unceasing darkness of tone and subject matter is one of the reasons why I dropped the Bat-books.

You may be right-- there are plenty of Batbooks I haven't read. And rarely have I read more than 1 or 2 at a given time.

But I will say that I am at a loss to remember any stories that I wouldn't describe as dark. In the titles I have read (say, all of the Morrison era, Detective post-Death in the Family, and the sequence of 90s-00s crossovers like Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land, etc.) what I remember is that dark was the norm. Legends of the Dark Knight, which I read for a few years, was consistently dark. It was the general tone. And if a story came along that was light or hopeful, it was the exception. At least, that is my memory of it.

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

There was once an emphasis on Batman trying to maintain an ideal: no guns, we don't do what the villains do, the general welfare of the victims is our primary concern, etc... and a general tone of 'we fight in the darkness, but we're trying to bring it all into the light'. Remember that the climatic battle between Batman and Azrael at the end of Knightsend had them both climbing through dark tunnels out of the Batcave into the light of day. (In the novelization, Denny O'Neil actually took it a step further, using the metaphorical moment to allow Bruce Wayne to permanently shed the role of Batman.)

I will say that there has been a general and gradual darkening of tone overall over the past several years... and that writers have been generally responding to readers' reactions. (Sales do make an impact.) Batman's adversaries, who were once simply costumed criminals with odd quirks and compulsions, have practically all been turned into psychologically disturbed murderers and perverts. We almost never see Bruce Wayne in action anymore (or, at least, I didn't, up to the point where I stopped buying the books). Remember when Bruce took more active roles in helping victims, as with the VIP program and the Wayne Foundation? (Morrison, at least, did some stuff in this direction in the Batman, Inc book, one of the very few bat-titles I'm still following.) Frankly, I think both the books and the character are bending under the weight of all that darkness.

I wouldn't want to entirely remove Batman from fighting his battle in the darkness -- but I do miss seeing the occasional battle of wits with characters like the Calendar Man, trying to figure out the obscure clues, the confrontations in the bizarre settings (like giant promotional props), the villains' outrageous gimmicks...

Gosh. I miss when the comic was fun to read.

Planeis · January 2013

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.

Some signposts to remember-- Jason Todd being beaten to near-death then blown up by the Joker? 1988.

Batman getting his spine broken by Bane and being replaced by a blade-wielding former assassin who kills and nearly strangles Nightwing to death? 1993-94.

Stephanie Brown being tortured to death by The Black Mask? 2004.

And those are just some ones that come to mind.

This is not, of course, to say that this is what you as a reader might want, or that just because Batbooks were dark before they need to continue to be so. I get that. I would just say that it should be no surprise that the New 52 Batbooks have been dark, as that has been the business of those books for a long time now.

To the general point of the original post, though, I agree. From what I have read, all in all, the New 52 books have been darker than the DCU prior to the relaunch (maybe with the exception of books that were already pretty dark or grim, like the Batbooks and the Green Lantern books. Those books didn't get darker, they just stayed that way). And I can understand where that is not what some readers will want.

An exception, perhaps, maybe something to try, would be Action Comics. I'm not saying it has been everyone's cuppa, to borrow from Jamie, but in general I have found that to be a pretty hopefully book. Sure, there are world-imperiling threats (it is a Superman book) but the stories, from what I remember, tend to resolve without a lot of blood or body count.

Sure, they're dark. People get murdered. But the on panel violence you listed were years and years apart. I'm not a Batman expert, but to me there's a difference between an off panel death, like the kind you might read in a James Patterson murder mystery or a CSI TV program... and Batman walking into a train car of Gothamites who are covered in blood, dismembered and we're told that they did it to themselves. Ick. No thank you.

Planeis · January 2013

David_D said:

Chuck_Melville said:

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.
But they have never been this consistently dark. There was always a balance between the darker stories and the general run. Events like Jason Todd's murder were rare events, and generally notable for that reason. I agree with Planeis' observation, and the unceasing darkness of tone and subject matter is one of the reasons why I dropped the Bat-books.
You may be right-- there are plenty of Batbooks I haven't read. And rarely have I read more than 1 or 2 at a given time.

But I will say that I am at a loss to remember any stories that I wouldn't describe as dark. In the titles I have read (say, all of the Morrison era, Detective post-Death in the Family, and the sequence of 90s-00s crossovers like Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land, etc.) what I remember is that dark was the norm. Legends of the Dark Knight, which I read for a few years, was consistently dark. It was the general tone. And if a story came along that was light or hopeful, it was the exception. At least, that is my memory of it.

Even in Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land... I read the trades of all of those. And the novelizations. They weren't dripping in blood like a Tarentino movie.

I don't know. Maybe you're right and my sensibilities have changed. Is anybody reading Superman, Supergirl?

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

Planeis said:

David_D said:

Chuck_Melville said:

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.
But they have never been this consistently dark. There was always a balance between the darker stories and the general run. Events like Jason Todd's murder were rare events, and generally notable for that reason. I agree with Planeis' observation, and the unceasing darkness of tone and subject matter is one of the reasons why I dropped the Bat-books.
You may be right-- there are plenty of Batbooks I haven't read. And rarely have I read more than 1 or 2 at a given time.

But I will say that I am at a loss to remember any stories that I wouldn't describe as dark. In the titles I have read (say, all of the Morrison era, Detective post-Death in the Family, and the sequence of 90s-00s crossovers like Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land, etc.) what I remember is that dark was the norm. Legends of the Dark Knight, which I read for a few years, was consistently dark. It was the general tone. And if a story came along that was light or hopeful, it was the exception. At least, that is my memory of it.
Even in Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land... I read the trades of all of those. And the novelizations. They weren't dripping in blood like a Tarentino movie.

I don't know. Maybe you're right and my sensibilities have changed. Is anybody reading Superman, Supergirl?

This is pretty much why I dubbed this era as the 'creepy Batman' era.

No, I gave up on all of the Super-books as well, except for Action Comics... and I might drop that when Morrison leaves.

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

Could the problem be with the changing readership? That a book these days can't sell unless it's dripping in darkness and blood? (I'm tempted to add in incomprehensibility as well for a few titles...)

Torchsong · January 2013

Planeis said:

I don't know. Maybe you're right and my sensibilities have changed. Is anybody reading Superman, Supergirl?

I'm reading Supergirl and still enjoying it. I like the take they've done on her where she's taking a while to get used to the idea of living on Earth...if she ever does! Bear in mind, when it comes to SG, I'm biased as hell. I've been reading her exploits since the 70s. I've found something to enjoy in every "re-thinking" they've done of her, though.

I think it helps to look at Batman...and the majority of the reboot...as Image comics finally coming home to roost. I'm reading Savage Dragon for the first time (I know...I know...) and the bloodshed and body count in that particular title can get pretty high (alongside the humor!). To me at least, that general feel echoed into the majority (not all) of the Image titles. And with Lee at the helm, Capullo on art chores for the flagship, and (for a time) Leifeld on several titles, it was pretty easy to draw the parallel.

I still enjoy Batman. I like Snyder's writing, and I love Capullo's artwork. Detective I can take or leave. Dark Knight has been bad, but I'm hoping with Ethan Van Sciver jumping onto art chores and a new writer there'll be some turnaround. Batgirl and Red Hood have both been solid reads.

I still find books to enjoy from DC. Sadly, they're on the periphery - All-Star Western surprised the hell out of me, because I've never really been a fan of Western comics or Jonah Hex, but I love it. I've bored the hell out of everyone on here praising Demon Knights - but can I bore you a little more to say the new writer picked the ball up where Cornell dropped it and is running VERY WELL with it? So many of the titles I love are always one bad month away from cancellation...I get that. It's why I try and support them more than dutifully grabbing a Bat or Super title every month.

And to show my hypocrisy - Wonder Woman is still the best title they're putting out. I *laughed* - a gut rolling belly laugh - at the most recent issue. Haven't done that with a comic in years.

Hex · January 2013

I gave the New52 a shot. I really really wanted it to work out. Sadly everything I enjoyed got the axe and the others I was getting didn't hold my attention past 12 issues.

Mind you, I have not read everything DC has put out since the reboot, but I think the best thing they have going doesn't even have its own monthly title... the Shazam back up in Justice League. I think the main Justice League book turned out to be a disappointment, but if that Shazam back up was a monthly title, I'd grab it in a heartbeat!

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

Torchsong said:
I think it helps to look at Batman...and the majority of the reboot...as Image comics finally coming home to roost.

You say that as if it were a good thing.

Frankly, I have had a bias against most Image titles for pretty much the same excesses -- as well as others. So it 'coming home to roost' at DC does not really thrill me, or bring me to my feet shouting hallelujahs.

Torchsong · January 2013

Chuck_Melville said:

Torchsong said:
I think it helps to look at Batman...and the majority of the reboot...as Image comics finally coming home to roost.
You say that as if it were a good thing.

Heh...no I don't. :)

LibraryBoy · January 2013

TrustyMutsi said:
You're not crazy. I feel the same way. DC strories had heart and legacy. Now they are trying to be edgy in a overly desperate manner.

I don't know if that's true across the board, but where it is true, it's so super-true that it more than makes up for the books that aren't doing it. There's nothing less adult than running around screaming how adult you are (like those kids I knew who were all "we can't play with G.I. Joes anymore... we're in SIXTH GRADE now!"), and that's exactly what the worst offenders are doing.

Of course, that's been true at DC since DiDio and company came to power*, so it's not such a big change, but it definitely seems more prevalent over all than it did prior to ~~Flash Sucks At Time Travel~~ Flashpoint.

* Not a personal attack on the guy... never met him, he might be great, but we clearly have different tastes in comic bookery.

David_D · January 2013

Planeis said:

David_D said:

Chuck_Melville said:

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.
But they have never been this consistently dark. There was always a balance between the darker stories and the general run. Events like Jason Todd's murder were rare events, and generally notable for that reason. I agree with Planeis' observation, and the unceasing darkness of tone and subject matter is one of the reasons why I dropped the Bat-books.
You may be right-- there are plenty of Batbooks I haven't read. And rarely have I read more than 1 or 2 at a given time.

But I will say that I am at a loss to remember any stories that I wouldn't describe as dark. In the titles I have read (say, all of the Morrison era, Detective post-Death in the Family, and the sequence of 90s-00s crossovers like Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land, etc.) what I remember is that dark was the norm. Legends of the Dark Knight, which I read for a few years, was consistently dark. It was the general tone. And if a story came along that was light or hopeful, it was the exception. At least, that is my memory of it.
Even in Contagion, Cataclysm, No Man's Land... I read the trades of all of those. And the novelizations. They weren't dripping in blood like a Tarentino movie.

I don't know. Maybe you're right and my sensibilities have changed. Is anybody reading Superman, Supergirl?

You may be right that, even though past decade stories (like No Man's Land, Cataclysm, Contagion, etc.) had huge amounts of death and disaster, they may have had less on-panel blood. That may be a thing that has increased the last few years.

David_D · January 2013

Planeis said:

David_D said:
For context, at least in the case of the Batman books, they have been dark for decades. I don't think the New 52 is really that different from what came before. For example, right before the New 52, Detective featured a story of Gordon's son as a serial killer and how the family, and Gordon, had to deal with the reality of that. With some exceptions, it has been a looong time since Batbooks have not been dark. Nearly 30 years.

Some signposts to remember-- Jason Todd being beaten to near-death then blown up by the Joker? 1988.

Batman getting his spine broken by Bane and being replaced by a blade-wielding former assassin who kills and nearly strangles Nightwing to death? 1993-94.

Stephanie Brown being tortured to death by The Black Mask? 2004.

And those are just some ones that come to mind.

This is not, of course, to say that this is what you as a reader might want, or that just because Batbooks were dark before they need to continue to be so. I get that. I would just say that it should be no surprise that the New 52 Batbooks have been dark, as that has been the business of those books for a long time now.

To the general point of the original post, though, I agree. From what I have read, all in all, the New 52 books have been darker than the DCU prior to the relaunch (maybe with the exception of books that were already pretty dark or grim, like the Batbooks and the Green Lantern books. Those books didn't get darker, they just stayed that way). And I can understand where that is not what some readers will want.

An exception, perhaps, maybe something to try, would be Action Comics. I'm not saying it has been everyone's cuppa, to borrow from Jamie, but in general I have found that to be a pretty hopefully book. Sure, there are world-imperiling threats (it is a Superman book) but the stories, from what I remember, tend to resolve without a lot of blood or body count.
Sure, they're dark. People get murdered. But the on panel violence you listed were years and years apart. I'm not a Batman expert, but to me there's a difference between an off panel death, like the kind you might read in a James Patterson murder mystery or a CSI TV program... and Batman walking into a train car of Gothamites who are covered in blood, dismembered and we're told that they did it to themselves. Ick. No thank you.

Sure, the moments I listed were years and years apart only because they were some famous examples of Batman long being a grim series including villains that kill, often in savage or twisted ways. But, trust me, in the years between those instances, there were plenty more instances of on-panel death and violence to be had. Heck, Batman's origin involves a child witnesses the double homicide of his parents. So every time his origin is flashed upon we see that. Sure, there are times where the actual blood may not be as prominent as it has been lately, I take your point on that. But that doesn't mean the death or violence has been left off-panel. And sometimes the bloodless ones can be even creepier, like Joker gas or poison. Including groups of people in disasters, or groups of people killed by Joker gas. And sometimes that is even worse.

I remember as a kid, frankly too young to have it, I had the Batman Vs. The Hulk book, and there was this one point were Joker is mad at one of his henchmen and, I think it was, he hands him a rose with a poison thorn that pricks him, and the Joker venom or whatever it was kills him and turns his face into a rictus. That freaked me the heck out as a kid. Maybe even worse than blood. It was, at least as I remember it, a grim on-panel death moment. And it looks like that book was from 1981.

David_D · January 2013

Chuck_Melville said:
There was once an emphasis on Batman trying to maintain an ideal: no guns, we don't do what the villains do, the general welfare of the victims is our primary concern, etc... and a general tone of 'we fight in the darkness, but we're trying to bring it all into the light'. Remember that the climatic battle between Batman and Azrael at the end of Knightsend had them both climbing through dark tunnels out of the Batcave into the light of day. (In the novelization, Denny O'Neil actually took it a step further, using the metaphorical moment to allow Bruce Wayne to permanently shed the role of Batman.)

I will say that there has been a general and gradual darkening of tone overall over the past several years... and that writers have been generally responding to readers' reactions. (Sales do make an impact.) Batman's adversaries, who were once simply costumed criminals with odd quirks and compulsions, have practically all been turned into psychologically disturbed murderers and perverts. We almost never see Bruce Wayne in action anymore (or, at least, I didn't, up to the point where I stopped buying the books). Remember when Bruce took more active roles in helping victims, as with the VIP program and the Wayne Foundation? (Morrison, at least, did some stuff in this direction in the Batman, Inc book, one of the very few bat-titles I'm still following.) Frankly, I think both the books and the character are bending under the weight of all that darkness.

I wouldn't want to entirely remove Batman from fighting his battle in the darkness -- but I do miss seeing the occasional battle of wits with characters like the Calendar Man, trying to figure out the obscure clues, the confrontations in the bizarre settings (like giant promotional props), the villains' outrageous gimmicks...

Gosh. I miss when the comic was fun to read.

I don't agree that Batman or Bruce Wayne's attempts to help victims, and aspirationally make Gotham a better place overall, has lessened. There is the Batman Inc. example you mentioned- an attempt to take the wealth of Bruce Wayne, as well as the idea and technology of Batman, and spread it to help the world at large. That is as aspirational as what a hopeful futurist like Tony Stark does.

And even Snyder's Batman for the New 52 started with Bruce Wayne making a push to help Gotham at the macro level (which is, of course, what the Court of Owls pushed back against).

Sure, the villains are grim and dark, the tone is darker than it was pre-Frank Miller. But in those many years, I would argue that it makes what Bruce Wayne, Batman, and Gordon are trying to do seem even more heroic, more noble, maybe because it seems impossible.

And while I totally respect there are readers, yourself and I am sure many others, who miss the more fun, less dark or twisted villains, I think that train left the station a long time ago. Heck, even Calendar Man in Long Halloween was portrayed as a dangerous obsessive kept in a Hannibal Lecter cage. And that story was something like 15 years ago. With some exceptions, ever since Miller's work in the late 80s, it seems dark and twisted psychodrama stories are the norm. I don't think it will be time for more Joker Fish anytime soon.

That said- an occasional exception to the normal tone of this books has been the current, digital first Legends of the Dark Knight. As those short stories are not bound by continuity nor, it would seem, do they have to be in the current era or tone, some of them have been pretty fun, even throwback style stories.

Elsiebub · January 2013

The threadstarter's right. I've enjoyed the Bat-line lately overall (very slightly more than I did pre-Flashpoint), but much of it is so dark and violent that it annoys me. And I'm usually not annoyed by darkness and violence in comics.

Snyder's book in particular is too obsessed with violence. I LIKE the stories alright, but every now and then he'll throw something in that's just gruesome for gruesome's sake, and it really turns me off as a reader. Like in the latest issue: the tapestry of skins? That's just yucky and revolting and whatever thematic value it has is quite minor. There's also been a ton of grisly stuff in the series so far, from the "Se7en"-style murder in the very first issue, to Bruce getting stabbed through the chest. Again, none of those things in and of themselves would put me off, but I don't really see how the LEVEL of violence is justified or meaningful; it seems more like shock value.

I don't really buy Dark Knight or Detective, but every time I checked out what Finch or Tony Daniel were doing, it all seems kind of boringly "grimdark". I realize those two guys aren't on those titles anymore, but I haven't noticed or heard about a tonal shift in the books.

For the most part I think Batman & Robin has been less dark (and consequently more fun) than the other Bat-titles... but that's a strange thing to say given that the entire first story arc was about Damian deciding to commit murder. I guess what I would say is that there's something about Tomasi's writing that -- however dark the themes -- doesn't seem to fit into the familiar grim/gritty/violent mold in the same way that most of the other Bat-writers do. With Gleeson as well, it seems that he's a different breed from most of the other regular Bat-artists, so even if he happens to be illustrating something grisly, it comes off as interesting rather than typical. That's not to say that I think Tomasi and Gleeson are all-out *better* than Snyder and Capullo (although they *might* be...) but just that I think they have a way of rendering stories that sort of "defamiliarizes" the darkness in a way I appreciate.

I have to set Inc. aside and talk about it last because, for all intents and purposes, it really does function on its own and could almost (ALMOST) be thought of as existing in a separate continuity. It's my favorite Bat-book overall, and that's due to the range and depth (continuity-wise especially) of Morrison's Bat-saga. That said, once again, YES, this title is far darker post-New 52! The first series of Inc (2010-2011) was PLAYFUL and fun! This new volume of Inc. is definitely far more obsessed with death. This wouldn't be much of a negative -- since it IS the endgame of the saga -- but it just seems that there's a lack of range. Morrison's previous run(s) had various artists and a ton of flackbacks to past eras. There were MANY opportunities for him to showcase wacky elements of Bat-history. Now, though? It's all illustrated by one artist and it's mostly a linear narrative. Oh, and there have been deaths a-plentiful. Inc is still a very good title, but like the other series mentioned above, there's a definite uptick in violence that seems pointlessly lurid at times.

Matt · January 2013

As I said before, I am not reading any of the New52 and have not read any of the Batman comics since Morrison's 2nd storyline began. I can only speak as a longtime Batman fan. It's a slippery slope for this character.

When I was younger, I enjoyed seeing Batman pitted against a flashy, ridiculous villain (remember the Cavalier?), but as I got older, I looked at the character differently. Watching shows such as CSI, the Shield, and now the Investigation Discovery Channel, those are the types of cases I expect Batman to be handling. At some point, I recall Batman and Gordon discussing when he'd be called in to assist with cases. Those would primarily be cases of a bizarre or severe nature. So, expecting Batman to be called in to bring down a grand theft auto gang properly wouldn't happen unless that gang was really related to something grander.

Now, assessing those shows and channel I previously mentioned, it only seems a natural evolution to see more horrific crimes for Batman to investigate. Since Knightfall (which is where I really started to collect Batman consistently) I have noticed the stories were getting darker in tone...but also more realistic (to some extent.) Batman is one of the few comic characters that COULD exist, so why not put him in situations which are more realistic in nature (this is one of the problems I had with Morrison trying to keep all of his various versions and stories throughout the years continuity.)

I've come to view Batman as a veteran detective/general, who knows nothing else in his life and extremely good at what he does. Rather than wear a uniform, he wears a suit accented with a bat-motif.

Chuck_Melville said:

... We almost never see Bruce Wayne in action anymore (or, at least, I didn't, up to the point where I stopped buying the books). Remember when Bruce took more active roles in helping victims, as with the VIP program and the Wayne Foundation? (Morrison, at least, did some stuff in this direction in the Batman, Inc book, one of the very few bat-titles I'm still following.) ...

You see, this is one of the reasons I knew Morrison's direction of Batman was not for me. The first story, the Morrison interviews, and the storylines I have seen since his run began all began to focus on Bruce Wayne, with Batman the mask. I prefer the complete reverse. If the Bruce Wayne persona was rarely seen in a year's worth of comics, it did not bother me one bit.

Since Infinite Crisis, there seems to be a shift to put Batman back as a superhero and Bruce Wayne being the true persona. I preferred it back beforehand when Batman WAS Batman. The best way I can distinguish these two points of view on the character is: Batman: The Caped Crusader is the Bruce Wayne is Batman, a "superhero", and has more of those "CalendarMan" flashy adventures. Batman: The Dark Knight Detective is the Batman is Batman (who masks himself as Bruce Wayne), detective/vigilante/anti-hero, with darker tone, more reality based cases.

M

Chuck_Melville · January 2013

Matt said:
You see, this is one of the reasons I knew Morrison's direction of Batman was not for me. The first story, the Morrison interviews, and the storylines I have seen since his run began all began to focus on Bruce Wayne, with Batman the mask. I prefer the complete reverse. If the Bruce Wayne persona was rarely seen in a year's worth of comics, it did not bother me one bit.

Since Infinite Crisis, there seems to be a shift to put Batman back as a superhero and Bruce Wayne being the true persona. I preferred it back beforehand when Batman WAS Batman. The best way I can distinguish these two points of view on the character is: Batman: The Caped Crusader is the Bruce Wayne is Batman, a "superhero", and has more of those "CalendarMan" flashy adventures. Batman: The Dark Knight Detective is the Batman is Batman (who masks himself as Bruce Wayne), detective/vigilante/anti-hero, with darker tone, more reality based cases.

M

I view Batman and Bruce as being the same person; just different sides of the same coin. There was a time when Bruce could be just as effective in battling crime, not directly on the streets but through social interaction, and was actually an extension of Batman's arsenal. Having him around more also helped make Batman a bit more human. That's one reason why I prefer Morrison's stories over the rest of the books. And I've never viewed Batman as an 'anti-hero', though that does seem to be the direction he's been heading in for the past few years. And that makes him even more unpalatable. If he becomes more 'anti-hero', then he becomes less of a Batman in my eyes. I want the hero, not the anti-hero.

And while the stories have been far darker in tone, I wouldn't call them more 'reality based'. I just call them darker. The stories seemed more designed to appeal to fans of the grotesque than to Batman fans. Do I really need to read stories about the Joker ripping off his face? Do I really need to see graphic images of Batman holding a set of bloody dentures so that they appear superimposed into his face? Who are we really appealing to here!? I want the detective/vigilante/samurai who battles crimes and solves mysteries, not the obsessive who's eternally caught up with Hannibal Lector stand-ins.

CaptShazam · January 2013

DC has no issue over exposing their characters. So if they put out a small line of titles that was more silver/bronze age in tone with modern writing/art, would it sell?

Matt · January 2013

Chuck_Melville said:

Matt said:
You see, this is one of the reasons I knew Morrison's direction of Batman was not for me. The first story, the Morrison interviews, and the storylines I have seen since his run began all began to focus on Bruce Wayne, with Batman the mask. I prefer the complete reverse. If the Bruce Wayne persona was rarely seen in a year's worth of comics, it did not bother me one bit.

Since Infinite Crisis, there seems to be a shift to put Batman back as a superhero and Bruce Wayne being the true persona. I preferred it back beforehand when Batman WAS Batman. The best way I can distinguish these two points of view on the character is: Batman: The Caped Crusader is the Bruce Wayne is Batman, a "superhero", and has more of those "CalendarMan" flashy adventures. Batman: The Dark Knight Detective is the Batman is Batman (who masks himself as Bruce Wayne), detective/vigilante/anti-hero, with darker tone, more reality based cases.

M
I view Batman and Bruce as being the same person; just different sides of the same coin. There was a time when Bruce could be just as effective in battling crime, not directly on the streets but through social interaction, and was actually an extension of Batman's arsenal. Having him around more also helped make Batman a bit more human. That's one reason why I prefer Morrison's stories over the rest of the books. And I've never viewed Batman as an 'anti-hero', though that does seem to be the direction he's been heading in for the past few years. And that makes him even more unpalatable. If he becomes more 'anti-hero', then he becomes less of a Batman in my eyes. I want the hero, not the anti-hero.

And while the stories have been far darker in tone, I wouldn't call them more 'reality based'. I just call them darker. The stories seemed more designed to appeal to fans of the grotesque than to Batman fans. Do I really need to read stories about the Joker ripping off his face? Do I really need to see graphic images of Batman holding a set of bloody dentures so that they appear superimposed into his face? Who are we really appealing to here!? I want the detective/vigilante/samurai who battles crimes and solves mysteries, not the obsessive who's eternally caught up with Hannibal Lector stand-ins.

I think the idea of "anti-hero" can very to each person. I prefer Batman as an anti-hero when revelations like his contingency plans, Tower of Babel, OMAC, hiring Mirror Master, etc. The kinds of actions that makes perfect sense, but are questionable regarding being a hero's quality. I see Batman as the person who'll do the 'black ops' type moves the rest of the JLA or hero community wouldn't.

As for the alteration of his rogues gallery, I again cannot comment on the changes because I have not read them. The stuff I see occurring with this "Joker" storyline seems more shock and awe then it needs to be. The reveal in Identity Crisis was great because it shocked you with something not really done before (at least in the mainstream DC.) Since then, it's become almost cliche...much like having an event each year since Infinite Crisis & Civil War.

M.

Torchsong · January 2013

CaptShazam said:
DC has no issue over exposing their characters. So if they put out a small line of titles that was more silver/bronze age in tone with modern writing/art, would it sell?

I think you have to add the word "enough" to the end of that sentence. These books are being written. People just aren't buying them (or, to be fair, they aren't worth buying.).

Legion has been a solid read each month. Wonder Woman is epic in every sense of the word. While Sword of Sorcery gave me pause at the beginning (one dark scene), it has evolved into a great retelling of the Amethyst story. Demon Knights (would you SHUT UP about Demon Knights, Al? :) ) continues to be a solid read, even with a change of writers.

Even their misfires were at least attempts - Blackhawks, Hawk & Dove (Liefeld or not, I love the characters), Resurrection Man...even Legion Lost, bad as it was, tried to give us, if not a return to the "good ol' days" an attempt to do some things differently. I'm told Frankenstein's book was really good.

So my hope is that DC will continue to throw stuff at the wall and hopefully some of it will stick. I know it's an uphill battle to think I'll be reading Demon Knights or Sword of Sorcery next year this time, but it's a battle worth fighting with my dollars.

RedRight88 · January 2013

Chuck_Melville said:
Could the problem be with the changing readership? That a book these days can't sell unless it's dripping in darkness and blood? (I'm tempted to add in incomprehensibility as well for a few titles...)

Bingo...People keep buying it

People need to understand that DC Comics is first and foremost a business, and businesses need to make money. Thus, they will be more inclined to put out products similar to the products that make them the most money.

If Superman Family Adventures sold more than the BatBooks, then there would more books like that... Unfortunately, that is just not the case.

The power is in your hands people...If you keep buying stuff you don't like, then your complaining won't mean jack.

luke52 · January 2013

I must admit I've been dropping DC titles left and right lately. Sword of Sorcery, Phantom Stranger, World Finest and Dial H have all gone in the last few months. And granted I'm not reading all books and there are some poor books out there. But I just can't help but wonder if people are missing out the really good books for some reason. Aquaman, Batman, Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Demon Knights, Earth 2, Justice League (I don't understand why everyone is slating this title so much), All Star Western are all really strong books at the moment, and I'm loving reading them right now. I'm sure there are more good books out there too right now, I've heard a lot of good things about all of the Batman titles, Action Comics and Justice League Dark to name a few.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm also looking forward to the new JLA and Vibe books, as well as Trinity War and Multiversity events. I think DC is doing a lot of good right now. That's not to say they're not doing some dross too, but overall I'm happy with the way things are going.

WetRats · January 2013

RedRight88 said:
Bingo...People keep buying it

People need to understand that DC Comics is first and foremost a business, and businesses need to make money. Thus, they will be more inclined to put out products similar to the products that make them the most money.

If Superman Family Adventures sold more than the BatBooks, then there would more books like that... Unfortunately, that is just not the case.

The power is in your hands people...If you keep buying stuff you don't like, then your complaining won't mean jack.

I'm pretty sure everyone participating in the thread understands that DC is a business.

I'm also pretty sure we all understand the basic economics of supply and demand.

I'd even go so far as to say most of us know that our complaining doesn't mean jack, whether we buy the books we like or not.

But your platitudes are insulting.

The power IS NOT IN MY HANDS!

If the power were in my hands, O.M.A.C. would still be be being published.

Hell, if the power were in my hands, Sandman Mystery Theater would sill be being published!

I am one over-the-hill comics fan, scrounging about trying to find the occasional book that still suits my taste, while the general target audience continues to get younger, and apparently increasingly hungry for gore and explicit violence and "darkness".

And I'm here on this forum to find the occasional sympathetic ear (eye?) when I whine about characters I used to love being handled "wrong" and argue with folks who have different ideas about the "right" way to handle them.

You post seemed to say "Shut up. You can't fix this." If so, too bad. This thread's about expressing disappointment, not fixing anything.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Sigh.... looks like I might not be reading DC Comics much longer

Comments