I like Batman as much as the next guy. He’s a character with a simple, relatively believable back story and far and away the most impressive roster of villains of any superhero out there. The character’s continuous appearance for over 70 years in just about every media there is, from comics to movies to video games, is a clear testament to the versatility and longevity of the character.
But, perhaps as a result of that continuous, never ending flow of Batman material, I have never followed any of the monthly Batman titles for more than a handful of issues, usually when they get a writer or artist I particularly like or do a single story I find interesting. My favorite version of the character is the one presented in Batman: the Animated Series and its assorted spin-offs in the 1990s. I liked its more simple approach to Batman and his supporting cast, free of the complicated continuity of the DC comics universe.
It was this connection to continuity that kept me from reading much of Grant Morrison’s run on the regular Batman title, but when DC launched Morrison’s new series Batman and Robin, I decided to jump in, hoping that it would stand alone like his excellent All-Star Superman. It turned out that Batman and Robin would in fact be firmly entrenched in the DC universe, picking up soon after the largely unintelligible Final Crisis, but its premise was relatively simple. All the reader needed to know was that Bruce Wayne had died and former Robin Dick Grayson had taken over as Batman, with Damian, Bruce’s son and grandson of classic Batman villain Ras al Ghul, stepping in as the new Robin.
The thing I love most about the series is the juxtaposition of these two characters and the sharp contrast with their predecessors. Where Bruce Wayne was driven and overly intense, Dick Grayson is a bit more relaxed, yet unsure of himself. Damian’s Robin is no wisecracking sidekick, but an imperious little snot with an overblown sense of entitlement who nevertheless backs up Grayson as Batman. The interplay between the two characters is a refreshing change from the usual hero-sidekick stuff.
So I greeted the ads for the release of Batman: the Return of Bruce Wayne with more than a little disappointment. Dick Grayson’s Batman was just getting interesting, and now that wet blanket Bruce Wayne is going to come back and ruin everything. On the other hand, Grant Morrison is writing it, with an impressive lineup of artists including Chris Sprouse (Tom Strong) for the first issue and Frazer Irving (Seven Soldiers: Klarion) for the second.
The first two issues tell the story of a mysteriously resurrected Bruce Wayne who is lost in time with no memory of who he is. But amnesia can’t repress his need to see justice done, first for a tribe of cave men wiped out by their aggressive neighbors, and later in 16th century Gotham as he tries to put a stop to a trumped up witch trial. All the while, Superman and some of the Justice League chase him through time making cryptic comments about how something bad will happen if he makes it back to the 21st century.
It’s an intriguing story, covering a lot of the cosmic weirdness that fans of Morrison’s Doom Patrol and Invisibles should be familiar with. Even though the time travel story seems at odds with the usual Batman fare, the idea that Bruce Wayne is first and foremost a survivor is a strong one, especially when that very survival is the story’s underlying threat.
I’m sure the story will end with some kind of return to the basic Batman status quo, which is unfortunate but ultimately necessary. Staying simple and basically the same is what has ensured the character’s survival for this long, after all.
— Jefferson Powers
I haven’t really been a Marvel fan since the early 1980s. I used to thrill to John Byrne’s Fantastic Four and Alpha Flight, Frank Miller’s Daredevil, Chris Claremont’s X-Men, Bill Mantlo and Rick Leonardi’s Cloak and Dagger… I even read Secret Wars II and ALL the crossovers.
But in 1986 when DC managed to poach a large amount of Marvel’s talent, I went with them, and found Byrne’s Superman and Miller’s Batman just as thrilling. For the most part I never looked back, a situation helped by the declining quality of most of Marvel’s output throughout the dark ages of the 1990s.
Since then there really hasn’t been much to lure me back to Marvel, with a few exceptions (Ed Brubaker’s incredible work on Daredevil and Captain America being chief among them). My taste for big crossovers has faded sharply since those heady Secret Wars II days, so even though I started reading Brian Michael Bendis’ New Avengers when it started back in 2004, it quickly sank into the fog of whatever summer “event” was going on at the time and lost me.
So it took a little work to convince myself to pick up the newly renumbered Avengers #1, by Bendis and John Romita Jr. I do have to admit that the collector’s nightmare of starting a series over with a new number one issue usually works on me – I’ll at least pick it up and look at it most of the time. And I’ve always found Romita Jr’s artwork to be very appealing, ever since he drew X-Men and Star Brand back in the glory days.
The classic Avengers team of Iron Man, Captain America (albeit the new one), Thor and Hawkeye are joined by Spider-Man, Wolverine and Spider-Woman, all favorites of writer Brian Michael Bendis and mainstays of the team since his New Avengers in 2004. It’s a treat to see Romita Jr draw them: his Thor is larger than life (even for a superhero), towering over the other characters, his Spider-Man is lithe and acrobatic, and he remembers that Wolverine is supposed to be short.
While I’m not sure I’ll ever get used to Wolverine being an Avenger, Spider-Man’s presence rings true and seems particularly important, as I imagine his jokey, carefree voice is closest to Bendis’ own. Bendis is a master of snappy dialogue, and he doesn’t disappoint here, although the sheer amount of witty repartee strains credibility a bit – nearly all the characters, not just Spider-Man, are a little too quick with the jokes. The “menace from the future” plot is extremely tired, but the surprise reveal at the end of the issue made it look like things may not necessarily be what they seem.
It was certainly intriguing enough to make me want to read the next issue, which is the ultimate goal of any monthly comic book.
— Jefferson Powers
My news segment from April 2010 at the Starfest Convention in Denver CO. Obviously stuff changes on a daily basis, and things have changed in the month since I did this, but it’s a good primer on the current info. Also I think it was entertaining and possibly the best presentation i’ve given of this type.
Here are my thoughts on Iron Man 2:
What I liked:
They beefed up all the secondary characters really well, I thought Nick Fury, Happy Hogan, Agent Coulson, Natasha Romanov, were all well fleshed out and while not the focus of the story, really added to it.
The initial 45 minutes were really exciting, the first action sequence was great, and the story was set up well.
The last 45 minutes were also action packed, and really moved well, better paced and better action than the last film’s conclusion.
All of the action scenes worked great, just like the first film.
Smart villains, I thought both Whiplash and Justin Hammer were good foes for Tony Stark, and I was really surprised that they didn’t have Mickey Rourke playing a simple dumb brute, he was a really smart adversary.
The performances were good all around.
The “after the end credits” scene was totally worth waiting for (I won’t spoil it here).
Good continuation of the story, it’s great to have the origin out of the way, and this really worked to move the story forward.
What wasn’t as good:
The middle 45 minutes dragged a little, I thought they really dragged out the scenes with Hammer and Whiplash, and the discovery of his father’s “discovery” was a little far fetched.
I would like to see more of the action scenes in the daytime, both films had the final battle take place at night, and I think that’s cheating, let us see the fight!
The “final” scene with the senator was a really strange moment to end on, it really just laid there as a scene, not an upbeat moment like ending with “I am Iron Man”, strange choice from Favreau.
I personally didn’t like that Tony and Pepper end up together at the end, it really didn’t seem to be leading that way, it would have made sense that Pepper and Happy had gotten closer in the time that Tony had disappeared, and there were several moments in the film that suggested that (this is what happens in the comics). It would better serve Pepper as a character if she stayed President while not being his girlfriend and he has to respect her that way, it would also grow Tony as a character.
I did think Sam Rockwell’s performance was a little over the top as Justin Hammer, he could have dialed it back a little and it would have meshed with the other performances better, especially in his scenes with Whiplash.
I thought Rhodey’s motivations are very unclear, I was never sure why he chose to do what he chose to do at any given time, he should have been developed better as a character as far as his background to explain betraying Tony.
While I thought her performance was overal pretty good, and above average for a love interest in a Superhero Movie, I got really annoyed with Gwynth Paltrow’s character’s continual response to a dangerous situation to be staring at it. She did the same thing in the first film. How about trying RUN AWAY FROM DANGER INSTEAD OF STARING AT THE THING ABOUT TO FALL ON YOU!
My final negative was the music, the first film really benefited from a very original music score by Ramin Djawadi, it really added to the feel of the film, made it fun, and I think it was a big part of it’s success.
For this film, Favreau turned to a composer he’d used before, John Debney, who is extremely experienced, but I think that was the mistake, the score didn’t add anything to the film, it sounded like any other movie, it had no distinct musical feel.
Just because the negatives outweigh the positives, don’t come away from this thinking I didn’t like Iron Man 2, I loved it, and plan to see it a couple more times. My overall feeling about the movie is positive.
I wouldn’t bother criticizing it this thoroughly if it wasn’t worth it as a movie.