I usually like to use my column here as a chance to inform people and maybe entertain at the same time. I usually like to use my column as a force of good. I also usually don't have the clarity of mind when driven to such a rage by bonehead maneuvers by the powers-that-be to properly channel it into a semi-coherent comic book rant. This article goes against that norm, though.
The powers-that-be in this case happens to be DC Comics, which also happened to be the subject of my last semi-coherent comic book rant after they killed off Batman.
Even with the death of the Dark Knight well behind us and being about one-third of the way through the "Battle for the Cowl" story arc, DC still has several titles that deal with the Dark Knight by using the spin that these are simply excerpts from Batman's greatest case files (after all, Batman kept meticulous records). These titles are the Batman/Superman crossover and Batman: Confidential.
For the most part, I've enjoyed these titles as you see interesting spins on Batman's first team-up with Superman against Lex Luthor or a different take on the Joker's origin story. However, recently I've been noticing a trend becoming quite clear after the events of the recent 3-issue story arc in Batman: Confidential.
This trend is the integration of long-forgotten villains or villains introduced through non-comic book media into the comic canon.
The most recent example is the villain King Tut. For those who are not familiar with the many forms of Batman in the media through the years, King Tut is a villain who never appeared in the comics, but was a fabricated villain for Adam West's 1966 Batman series. Victor Goodman was an archeologist obsessed with the legends of King Tut. While moving part of his King Tut exhibit into the Gotham Museum of History, an Egyptian urn was dropped on his head and when he awakened, he imagined himself as the ancient Egyptian ruler (As was the motif for the show, the villain was always played by a celebrated actor or actress; in this case, the split personality archeologist Victor Goodman was played by Victor Buono). WHAM!
The obviously bad idea that, 43 years after King Tut's appearance in the campy TV show, the brass at DC felt it was a good idea to bring this character into the comic storyline is a clear sign of desperation in terms of writing. It symbolizes a lack of confidence in their planned re-launch (when they bring the Dark Knight back sometime within the next six months) that they are adding campy 60s villains to one of the most celebrated rouges' galleries in comics. ZZZAP!
The next thing you know, we'll be seeing Vincent Price's "Egghead" character (a man with an egg-shaped head, pale complexion, and an obsession with poultry embryos) or Roddy McDowell's "Bookworm" (a really ticked-off librarian and a Riddler knockoff) with his "Book-Mobile" causing Batman and Robin about as much difficulty as they did in the 60s (also, both never in the comics). BONK!
"What about characters that did appear in the comics and the TV show?" you ask. What? Like False-Face (master of disguise character), who only made one appearance in the comics (Batman #113, February, 1958; a bad year of villainy for the Dark Knight as it was also the year Calendar Man made his infamous debut) before people said he was nothing more than a toned-down Clayface? (False-Face would be re-imagined again when the animated series Batman Beyond used him as an international spy, but he failed there, too) He was used in the TV show only because
he was a jewel-thief and not a murderer which played better for 1966's primetime audiences and his costumes were easier to construct using the technology for the time (he was played by Malachi Thorne of Star Trek fame and nearly sued the producers of Batman for refusing to put his name in the credits in order to sell the illusion that False-Face could be ANYONE; in the end they settled on his name appearing in the end credits of the last part of his two-part arc). BAM!
If Louie the Lilac (played by Milton Berle, a gangster obsessed with lilacs and the color purple; basically a cheap Joker knock-off because Berle refused to wear any heavy make-up for a different character) makes an appearance, I may have to swear off Batman comics like I did with Spider-Man after his most recent re-launch. OOF!
To prove my point, with the "Battle for the Cowl" re-launch effort underway, old one-shot villains are re-emerging for no reason whatsoever. Jane Doe, Adam Bomb, Anarchy...do any of these names ring a bell? No? Of course not! They are being dragged out of obscurity and into the limelight for no reason except for DC to show you how much they've screwed up over the past 70 years and that maybe you can hope they'll just kill them off in one fell swoop and promise to do better in the next 70. KER-SPLASH!
And let's not forget Composite Superman who only appeared in a two-part arc in June and July of 1964 before his recent return in Batman/Superman a couple of months ago (basically a Bizarro rip-off that is one-half Batman and one-half Superman). One of the worst concepts ever, but DC brought him back for a one-shot story. THWOCK!
I love the history of comics. I love where comics have come from to where they are today. I understand why the characters in the 60s, no matter what the medium, no matter the level of success or failure, are important. That is why I am so furious that it seems that DC feels the need to try to re-justify a time period long since past by re-introducing these characters and re-working them for modern audiences into a canon they no longer fit into. POW!
The Joker has lasted 70 years for a reason. Clayface wasn't an original villain, but he has proved to be one of the most popular even 50 years later. There are reasons why some characters fail and some succeed and these reasons usually translate over time so there is no reason to believe that a character that failed in the 50s and 60s will translate to today even with some re-tooling. When DC makes major plot decisions like this, all I see is the tarnishing of my memories of the 1960s Batman and the watering down of modern Batman stories. It is unnecessary and, as tacky and campy as the 1960s Batman was, moves like these are even more so.
-Ray Carsillo
The powers-that-be in this case happens to be DC Comics, which also happened to be the subject of my last semi-coherent comic book rant after they killed off Batman.
Even with the death of the Dark Knight well behind us and being about one-third of the way through the "Battle for the Cowl" story arc, DC still has several titles that deal with the Dark Knight by using the spin that these are simply excerpts from Batman's greatest case files (after all, Batman kept meticulous records). These titles are the Batman/Superman crossover and Batman: Confidential.
For the most part, I've enjoyed these titles as you see interesting spins on Batman's first team-up with Superman against Lex Luthor or a different take on the Joker's origin story. However, recently I've been noticing a trend becoming quite clear after the events of the recent 3-issue story arc in Batman: Confidential.
This trend is the integration of long-forgotten villains or villains introduced through non-comic book media into the comic canon.
The most recent example is the villain King Tut. For those who are not familiar with the many forms of Batman in the media through the years, King Tut is a villain who never appeared in the comics, but was a fabricated villain for Adam West's 1966 Batman series. Victor Goodman was an archeologist obsessed with the legends of King Tut. While moving part of his King Tut exhibit into the Gotham Museum of History, an Egyptian urn was dropped on his head and when he awakened, he imagined himself as the ancient Egyptian ruler (As was the motif for the show, the villain was always played by a celebrated actor or actress; in this case, the split personality archeologist Victor Goodman was played by Victor Buono). WHAM!The obviously bad idea that, 43 years after King Tut's appearance in the campy TV show, the brass at DC felt it was a good idea to bring this character into the comic storyline is a clear sign of desperation in terms of writing. It symbolizes a lack of confidence in their planned re-launch (when they bring the Dark Knight back sometime within the next six months) that they are adding campy 60s villains to one of the most celebrated rouges' galleries in comics. ZZZAP!
The next thing you know, we'll be seeing Vincent Price's "Egghead" character (a man with an egg-shaped head, pale complexion, and an obsession with poultry embryos) or Roddy McDowell's "Bookworm" (a really ticked-off librarian and a Riddler knockoff) with his "Book-Mobile" causing Batman and Robin about as much difficulty as they did in the 60s (also, both never in the comics). BONK!"What about characters that did appear in the comics and the TV show?" you ask. What? Like False-Face (master of disguise character), who only made one appearance in the comics (Batman #113, February, 1958; a bad year of villainy for the Dark Knight as it was also the year Calendar Man made his infamous debut) before people said he was nothing more than a toned-down Clayface? (False-Face would be re-imagined again when the animated series Batman Beyond used him as an international spy, but he failed there, too) He was used in the TV show only because
he was a jewel-thief and not a murderer which played better for 1966's primetime audiences and his costumes were easier to construct using the technology for the time (he was played by Malachi Thorne of Star Trek fame and nearly sued the producers of Batman for refusing to put his name in the credits in order to sell the illusion that False-Face could be ANYONE; in the end they settled on his name appearing in the end credits of the last part of his two-part arc). BAM!If Louie the Lilac (played by Milton Berle, a gangster obsessed with lilacs and the color purple; basically a cheap Joker knock-off because Berle refused to wear any heavy make-up for a different character) makes an appearance, I may have to swear off Batman comics like I did with Spider-Man after his most recent re-launch. OOF!
To prove my point, with the "Battle for the Cowl" re-launch effort underway, old one-shot villains are re-emerging for no reason whatsoever. Jane Doe, Adam Bomb, Anarchy...do any of these names ring a bell? No? Of course not! They are being dragged out of obscurity and into the limelight for no reason except for DC to show you how much they've screwed up over the past 70 years and that maybe you can hope they'll just kill them off in one fell swoop and promise to do better in the next 70. KER-SPLASH!
And let's not forget Composite Superman who only appeared in a two-part arc in June and July of 1964 before his recent return in Batman/Superman a couple of months ago (basically a Bizarro rip-off that is one-half Batman and one-half Superman). One of the worst concepts ever, but DC brought him back for a one-shot story. THWOCK!
I love the history of comics. I love where comics have come from to where they are today. I understand why the characters in the 60s, no matter what the medium, no matter the level of success or failure, are important. That is why I am so furious that it seems that DC feels the need to try to re-justify a time period long since past by re-introducing these characters and re-working them for modern audiences into a canon they no longer fit into. POW!
The Joker has lasted 70 years for a reason. Clayface wasn't an original villain, but he has proved to be one of the most popular even 50 years later. There are reasons why some characters fail and some succeed and these reasons usually translate over time so there is no reason to believe that a character that failed in the 50s and 60s will translate to today even with some re-tooling. When DC makes major plot decisions like this, all I see is the tarnishing of my memories of the 1960s Batman and the watering down of modern Batman stories. It is unnecessary and, as tacky and campy as the 1960s Batman was, moves like these are even more so.-Ray Carsillo
No comments:
Post a Comment