With Batman in the news again... or rather the movie version... I thought it might be appropriate to show this page I drew 30 years ago for the Glasgow Comic Art Show 1990. Sergio Aragonés bought the original art in a charity auction at the event so this is scanned from the convention booklet.
Great page Lew, and what a thrill that the great Sergio picked it up. I wasn't aware a new Batman movie was on the cards so will check it out. I liked the last few in the series but hope the new film doesn't get too dark and brooding like the comic
problem is, there hasn't been a character for Batman for … well, since at least the late 60s.. these days, Batman is just a name to a character who could be anything with any powers (or no powers as the original is), who is either a hero, a Super Hero, a demented criminal, against murder, in favour of murder, against guns, in favour of guns, drug user, rapist or anything else you can think of.. there is NO defining character for who 'Batman' is.. same with way too many American comics these days..
Never been a big fan of Frank Miller with his 'lets put American Ninja's in everything'.. and these days when ever they do Batman, they have to base it on his 'Dark Knight Returns'.. which deals with a kinda post apocalyptic world where Batman is an old man, well past his time, so has to use an armoured suit and tank... but now, he starts OUT like that... sigh..
well.. since both Marvel and DC are quite happy to not care much about the comic side apart from a mine for Movies and TV, I means I can ignore most of them. so I'm fine.
Your stuff is far better quality and does such a better job of keeping characters as a single character, not just whatever the current storyline declares the character needs to be..
Thanks Ryan. Yeah, I think there's definitely a case to be argued in keeping comic characters consistent, both in personality and looks. Not that I'm saying artists should emulate each other, but (for example) Peter Parker should recognisably be Peter Parker, and Sue Richards should recognisably be Sue Richards (to name but two). Back in the 1970s, no matter who drew the characters they were still recognisable. These days it's not always easy to recognise who's who as artists interpret them how they like and that's not welcoming for new readers.
Spot in Ryan and Lew.The best Batman book at present imho is "Batman: the Adventure Continues" based on the cartoon version which is closer to the "real" character circa 1970. I liked Miller's take on the character but it should have only been used as a stand alone tale not as a reboot of Batman .., again imho.
Batman: Year One was very good too. I can appreciate the need to update Batman. After all, even the 1966 TV version was an update to reflect the times, but the grimy, sadistic stories are OTT. The new villain, Punchline, is such a poor attempt to emulate the success of Harley Quinn (a character I can't stand btw) but without any personality.
It was in the cartoons where Harley originated. Personally I've always found her annoying from day one. Even worse now she's a proper psychopath. But each to their own.
The cartoon take on her (like you said, the Original Bruce Timm/Paul Dini version) was kinda the annoying sidekick who looked up to and loved the Joker. though he just used her mostly, but does show another good thing with when the Joker is used RIGHT.. She suggests one thing to attack Batman, and the Joker says no, cause its gotta be funny. But now? they are all a bunch of psychopaths so it's a bit stupid and silly.. you get things like 'New 52' where the joker.. peals off his face... ehuh..
Great page Lew, and what a thrill that the great Sergio picked it up. I wasn't aware a new Batman movie was on the cards so will check it out. I liked the last few in the series but hope the new film doesn't get too dark and brooding like the comic
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the new Batman movie looks darker and grottier than any of the previous ones, Paul. Check out the trailer on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it'll appeal to the 20 or 30 somethings and I appreciate it's not aimed at me, so fair enough I guess. I'll be rewatching the 1966 TV series.
Typo there; "grottier" instead of "grittier", but it still applies! Ha!
ReplyDeleteproblem is, there hasn't been a character for Batman for … well, since at least the late 60s.. these days, Batman is just a name to a character who could be anything with any powers (or no powers as the original is), who is either a hero, a Super Hero, a demented criminal, against murder, in favour of murder, against guns, in favour of guns, drug user, rapist or anything else you can think of.. there is NO defining character for who 'Batman' is.. same with way too many American comics these days..
ReplyDeleteNever been a big fan of Frank Miller with his 'lets put American Ninja's in everything'.. and these days when ever they do Batman, they have to base it on his 'Dark Knight Returns'.. which deals with a kinda post apocalyptic world where Batman is an old man, well past his time, so has to use an armoured suit and tank... but now, he starts OUT like that... sigh..
well.. since both Marvel and DC are quite happy to not care much about the comic side apart from a mine for Movies and TV, I means I can ignore most of them. so I'm fine.
Your stuff is far better quality and does such a better job of keeping characters as a single character, not just whatever the current storyline declares the character needs to be..
Thanks Ryan. Yeah, I think there's definitely a case to be argued in keeping comic characters consistent, both in personality and looks. Not that I'm saying artists should emulate each other, but (for example) Peter Parker should recognisably be Peter Parker, and Sue Richards should recognisably be Sue Richards (to name but two). Back in the 1970s, no matter who drew the characters they were still recognisable. These days it's not always easy to recognise who's who as artists interpret them how they like and that's not welcoming for new readers.
ReplyDeleteSpot in Ryan and Lew.The best Batman book at present imho is "Batman: the Adventure Continues" based on the cartoon version which is closer to the "real" character circa 1970. I liked Miller's take on the character but it should have only been used as a stand alone tale not as a reboot of Batman .., again imho.
ReplyDeleteBatman: Year One was very good too. I can appreciate the need to update Batman. After all, even the 1966 TV version was an update to reflect the times, but the grimy, sadistic stories are OTT. The new villain, Punchline, is such a poor attempt to emulate the success of Harley Quinn (a character I can't stand btw) but without any personality.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah I forgot Year one that was good. I loved the Bruce Timm version of Harley Quinn in the cartoons and the Batman Adventure comics.
ReplyDeleteIt was in the cartoons where Harley originated. Personally I've always found her annoying from day one. Even worse now she's a proper psychopath. But each to their own.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon take on her (like you said, the Original Bruce Timm/Paul Dini version) was kinda the annoying sidekick who looked up to and loved the Joker. though he just used her mostly, but does show another good thing with when the Joker is used RIGHT.. She suggests one thing to attack Batman, and the Joker says no, cause its gotta be funny. But now? they are all a bunch of psychopaths so it's a bit stupid and silly.. you get things like 'New 52' where the joker.. peals off his face... ehuh..
ReplyDelete