Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Episode 1403 Talkback Off the Racks: Batman '66, The Superior Foes of Spider-Man, Quantum and Woody

In this episode we discuss the recent first issues of Batman '66 from DC, The Superior Foes of Spider-Man from Marvel, and Quantum and Woody from Valiant. We also touch on Trinity War from DC, Satellite Sam from Image, and Watson and Holmes from New Paradigm Studios.(1:23:48)

Listen here.
«13

Comments

  • Options
    John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087
    Prior to their re-launch I've never heard of them - today I'm a VALIANT fanboy. Buying all their books. Quantum and Woody rock \m/
  • Options
    abuddahabuddah Posts: 133
    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?
  • Options
    nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,741
    edited August 2013
    Sorry, @Murd, I have to disagree with you on Tom Fowler’s artwork. While I will say it wasn’t the best work I’ve seen from him, I think his style is great for a book like this. He’s heavily influenced by Jack Davis, which accounts for the long, lanky, rubbery figures. Personally, I love that look.

    As for the story, I thought it was good, but not outstanding. I'll give it a few more issues just because of the artwork.

    I was a little disappointed in Batman ’66. It was a decent attempt, but it just fell a little flat for me. I hated the coloring. I didn’t have a problem with the palette really, but the whole faux retro comic styling was poorly done and distracting.

    1) When comics misprinted on the press, it typically wasn’t the same plate (in this case the Cyan plate) offset on every single page, and offset exactly the same way. If they had mixed it up a bit—maybe the Magenta plate offset to the left on one page—but left most of the pages lined up correctly, it would have had greater verisimilitude.

    2) The “Benday dots” were terrible. They were too large, and they were faded out. Real Benday dots were either there or not there. If you wanted to fade a color, you would space the dots out more.

    3) Without the retro effects, the palette would have been fine for me. But if you’re going to try to make the artwork look like an old comic, it would help if you limited your paletted to the same 16 colors those comics used. And yellowing the pages a bit would have helped too.

    My daughter liked the comic, so I may get the next issue and give it one more shot, but we’ll see.
  • Options
    I wish someone had taken the plunge and read the digital version of Batman '66. It was more than just a digital first, it was the first of the DC2 (squared) initiative of books designed for digital reading. A lot of what made the book so great was in its digital presentation, much of which could not be reproduced in print form. The pacing of the jokes and action, the sound effects, even the style of the artwork all worked so much better than in the print version. This book was the first digital book that didn't feel like an experiment but felt like it could be the future of the medium. I know the CGS guys are all print purists, but I argue that you should be a purist about how the story was intended to be consumed and this was born for digital reading. (Plus its a few cents cheaper)
  • Options
    Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    I wish someone had taken the plunge and read the digital version of Batman '66. It was more than just a digital first, it was the first of the DC2 (squared) initiative of books designed for digital reading. A lot of what made the book so great was in its digital presentation, much of which could not be reproduced in print form. The pacing of the jokes and action, the sound effects, even the style of the artwork all worked so much better than in the print version. This book was the first digital book that didn't feel like an experiment but felt like it could be the future of the medium. I know the CGS guys are all print purists, but I argue that you should be a purist about how the story was intended to be consumed and this was born for digital reading. (Plus its a few cents cheaper)

    I'm also a print purist. I don't want my comics all multi-media-ed; if I want to see them move or have cool effects, I'll watch a movie or animated show. Plus, I don't buy any digital comics that I don't get to keep. Plus, I don't buy digital comics.

    I won't even mention how disinterested I am in Batman '66 to begin with.
  • Options
    rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    Pants. I was thumbing through Satellite Sam at the LCS. Chaykin's illustrations are GORGEOUS! Then I started reading dialogue and decided that I couldn't have that in my house.

    It was a tough decision, because it is beautiful.

    I wonder if I can find a copy without text?
  • Options
    fredzillafredzilla Posts: 2,131
    There is also this thread that is discussing the Batman '66 goodness in digital form. I wholeheartedly agree with @playdohsrepublic that, if you are ambivalent about the floppy version of Batman '66, try to check out someone's copy of the digital version and see if things change. I would be interested if anyone does have this kind of experience. I think DC should have added a digital copy to the book (or at least sell a combo version) for those wary of digital versions. That way it's a no risk proposition. I'll warn you though, if you want the Guided View experience for digital issue #4-6 (presumably floppy issue #2), don't hold your breath. Still a fun read, but lacks the animated transitions.
  • Options

    It's not animated, no audio sound effects (I was refering to the print ones), no multi-media aspect. It is still sequential art and dialogue used to tell a story. It's simply presented in a way that can only be done digitally. I whole-heartedly agree with the point about paying for digital files you don't own, and am a huge supporter of DRM-free downloads, but that is an entirely different discussion.
    I'm simply stating that a book designed to be read digitally should be read digitally when a print version can't reproduce the reading experience. As for why you would comment on a comment about how a book you have no desire to read should be read... that's beyond me.

    And I'm expressing the opinion that a comic that is designed to be read digitally to the point that the print version can't reproduce the reading experience is just taking gimmickry to a new level. If it's going to go to such extremes then it just might as well go all the way and be a direct-to-DVD motion comic or whatever they want to call it. I don't want a comic that I would need to pull out my smartphone or my tablet in order to get the 'full experience'; that's an implication that the printed page can't give the reader a 'full experience' or that just reading a paper comic book is a limiting experience.

    Give me a comic without the gimmicks or the need to use a device in order to read it.
  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

  • Options
    fredzillafredzilla Posts: 2,131
    edited August 2013

    Give me a comic without the gimmicks or the need to use a device in order to read it.

    But they did! And you still didn't want it.

    I won't even mention how disinterested I am in Batman '66 to begin with.

    :-\" ;)

    Look, no one is forcing anything on anyone. I think the point was that if you enjoyed the comic (as it was a "Buy!" from all the Geeks), you would do yourself a favor by getting the digital format and enjoying the books that way. Clearly you don't even care for the book so the argument is moot. Personally, I enjoy other's PoV and opinions. OUR opinion is that you should try it. :)
  • Options
    JDickJDick Posts: 206
    In regard to the likeness issue for certain characters in Batman '66. Is it the same issue as why the DVDs have never been released. Warner/DC owns the rights and likeness to their characters (Batman, Robin, etc.) and Fox owns the non-comic characters from the show like O'hara, Bruce's Aunt, etc. Not sure how all those villians fit in.
  • Options
    JDickJDick Posts: 206
    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
  • Options
    fredzilla said:

    Give me a comic without the gimmicks or the need to use a device in order to read it.

    But they did! And you still didn't want it.
    Well, not that one!

    I read plenty of the other digital-first comics on paper-later.
  • Options
    JDick said:

    In regard to the likeness issue for certain characters in Batman '66. Is it the same issue as why the DVDs have never been released. Warner/DC owns the rights and likeness to their characters (Batman, Robin, etc.) and Fox owns the non-comic characters from the show like O'hara, Bruce's Aunt, etc. Not sure how all those villians fit in.

    Well, they don't own Aunt Harriet -- she's a bona fide DC character, though she's quite a different person in the comics.

    The only villains who would be owned by Fox would likely be the ones specifically created for the show: King Tut, the Bookworm, Egghead, etc.

    Any dispute with the likenesses of the characters might have to do with obtaining such rights from the
  • Options
    JDickJDick Posts: 206

    JDick said:

    In regard to the likeness issue for certain characters in Batman '66. Is it the same issue as why the DVDs have never been released. Warner/DC owns the rights and likeness to their characters (Batman, Robin, etc.) and Fox owns the non-comic characters from the show like O'hara, Bruce's Aunt, etc. Not sure how all those villians fit in.

    Well, they don't own Aunt Harriet -- she's a bona fide DC character, though she's quite a different person in the comics.

    The only villains who would be owned by Fox would likely be the ones specifically created for the show: King Tut, the Bookworm, Egghead, etc.

    Any dispute with the likenesses of the characters might have to do with obtaining such rights from the
    Yeah...that's what I meant by "those villains".

  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457
    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
  • Options
    LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,803

    Folks, in my recent Batman 66 WB ep I asked Jeff Parker specifically about the likeness issues of cast members and possible celeb cameos in "the Bat Rope scenes" .

    He said DC's legal dept was being very careful with getting permission to use likenesses, In fact they approached the estate of a well known but dead singer of the 66 era about having his likeness in the book, and the estate wanted a mid 5 figure dollar amount for the cameo!

    This is a very litigious era, and while we'd all obviously like DC to give us Bob Hope Jerry Lewis and other celeb cameoes , just like the TV show did, it's not going to be easy, and in this case it's not their "fault".

    Similarly I asked Jeff on Twitter last night about the chances of seeing a World's Finest team-up between Adam West's Batman and a George Reeves Superman and he said that would most likely be a "RIGHTSMARE" (his word and capitalization). It's nice to think about something like that and lots of other era-appropriate celebrity cameos, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Even if DC decided they could convince a judge that such usage would be protected by the same parody/tribute rulings that have kept Mad in business all these years, I can't imagine they'd want to spend the money to do so. Easier to just avoid the problem altogether.

    I question who owns the TV-show specific villains, though. Guys like Bookworm, Egghead, King Tut, and False Face all showed up on Batman: The Brave and the Bold at one point or another, and Egghead even turned up in an issue of the B:TBatB comic book (teaming up with Egg Fu to fight Batman and Wonder Woman). DC also introduced their own version of King Tut in a Batman Confidential arc a few years back.
  • Options
    CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited August 2013
    Matt said:

    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
    Would you review Batman 66 if Miller was the writer?...after things get restored following the internet exploding.
  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457

    Matt said:

    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
    Would you review Batman 66 if Miller was the write?...after things get restored following the internet exploding.
    No. That whole era of his history I avoid regardless of look or writer. What makes it appealing to most (sound effects, dialogue, labeling of equipment, less then stellar "athletic" build of the Dynamic Duo, operating during the day, etc) are the very things that are like nails on a chalkboard to me.

    Did you ever play Apples-to-Apples? There is a Batman card that references the 60s series in a joke. I hate that era so much, when people put that card down figuring I'd use it, I tell them about my disdain & pick up another card. Yeah, my hatred is THAT bad.

    M
  • Options
    Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    I tried the original Quantum and Woody, didn't care for it, and chose to skip this new series altogether.

    Batman '66 was awesome! The gags were great and most of the dialogue rang true to the show. The coloring was off putting at first but a couple pages into the comic I'd stopped noticing it.

    I LOVED SFoSM! I immediately thought of Hawkeye when I started reading this issue. Nick Spencer can be hit or miss for me but the guy nails it here. Faaantastic first issue.
  • Options
    JamieDJamieD Posts: 210

    Folks, in my recent Batman 66 WB ep I asked Jeff Parker specifically about the likeness issues of cast members and possible celeb cameos in "the Bat Rope scenes" .

    He said DC's legal dept was being very careful with getting permission to use likenesses, In fact they approached the estate of a well known but dead singer of the 66 era about having his likeness in the book, and the estate wanted a mid 5 figure dollar amount for the cameo!

    This is a very litigious era, and while we'd all obviously like DC to give us Bob Hope Jerry Lewis and other celeb cameoes , just like the TV show did, it's not going to be easy, and in this case it's not their "fault".

    Thank you sir for clearing that up
  • Options
    NickNick Posts: 284
    edited August 2013
    Matt said:

    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
    Miller did write the character besides DK and Year One, it was called "All Star Batman and Robin" with art by Jim Lee. It only ran 10 or 11 issues, but was famous for Batman cussing and saying "I'm the God damned Batman!" Also issue 10 had cussing "blacked out" which on some of the error printings you could see the cuss word. I thought it was enjoyable enough, the Jim Lee art is worth the price of admission.

    Wiki Entry
  • Options
    Nick said:

    Matt said:

    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
    Miller did write the character besides DK and Year One, it was called "All Star Batman and Robin" with art by Jim Lee. It only ran 10 or 11 issues, but was famous for Batman cussing and saying "I'm the God damned Batman!" Also issue 10 had cussing "blacked out" which on some of the error printings you could see the cuss word. I thought it was enjoyable enough, the Jim Lee art is worth the price of admission.

    Wiki Entry
    I think Matt has intentionally and deliberately struck that series from his memory. And I don't blame him. I gave up on it after the third issue -- which wasn't difficult since the fourth issue was so far behind schedule, which was another major problem with the series, one that actually led to its demise.
  • Options
    MattMatt Posts: 4,457

    Nick said:

    Matt said:

    JDick said:

    Matt said:

    abuddah said:

    And when can we expect Matt's review of Batman '66?

    When Zatanna mindwipes the amazing Frank Miller version from my mind!

    M

    The amazing Dark Knight Strikes Back or the amazing All Star Batman?
    Year One & DKR. He didn't do anything else with the character, so I don't know what you were referencing.

    M
    Miller did write the character besides DK and Year One, it was called "All Star Batman and Robin" with art by Jim Lee. It only ran 10 or 11 issues, but was famous for Batman cussing and saying "I'm the God damned Batman!" Also issue 10 had cussing "blacked out" which on some of the error printings you could see the cuss word. I thought it was enjoyable enough, the Jim Lee art is worth the price of admission.

    Wiki Entry
    I think Matt has intentionally and deliberately struck that series from his memory. And I don't blame him. I gave up on it after the third issue -- which wasn't difficult since the fourth issue was so far behind schedule, which was another major problem with the series, one that actually led to its demise.
    =D>

    M
  • Options
    CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178

    Folks, in my recent Batman 66 WB ep I asked Jeff Parker specifically about the likeness issues of cast members and possible celeb cameos in "the Bat Rope scenes" .

    He said DC's legal dept was being very careful with getting permission to use likenesses, In fact they approached the estate of a well known but dead singer of the 66 era about having his likeness in the book, and the estate wanted a mid 5 figure dollar amount for the cameo!

    This is a very litigious era, and while we'd all obviously like DC to give us Bob Hope Jerry Lewis and other celeb cameoes , just like the TV show did, it's not going to be easy, and in this case it's not their "fault".

    If they cannot use celebrities, i think they should put their own spin on it and use the silver age versions of characters they own. The window opens up and there is Sgt Rock or Saturn Girl. It makes no sense but it might be fun.
  • Options
    Satellite Sam is expanding this industry and giving us an era of television that is not explored enough in any medium. You guys need to be paying attention to this comic Fraction can steer Chaykin away from cheesecake and insanity. The first issue was gorgeous and has the steady hand of one one of the best in the medium.
  • Options
    rebisrebis Posts: 1,820

    Satellite Sam is expanding this industry and giving us an era of television that is not explored enough in any medium. You guys need to be paying attention to this comic Fraction can steer Chaykin away from cheesecake and insanity. The first issue was gorgeous and has the steady hand of one one of the best in the medium.

    See my post above.
    I can't agree more. The only thing that kept me from buying the book was the language used in the dialogue.

    It was really hard not to buy it.
  • Options
    rebis said:

    Satellite Sam is expanding this industry and giving us an era of television that is not explored enough in any medium. You guys need to be paying attention to this comic Fraction can steer Chaykin away from cheesecake and insanity. The first issue was gorgeous and has the steady hand of one one of the best in the medium.

    See my post above.
    I can't agree more. The only thing that kept me from buying the book was the language used in the dialogue.

    It was really hard not to buy it.
    What exactly are you talking about? There was some language but it did not seem excessive by today's standards.
Sign In or Register to comment.