Through The Past, Dorkily

When I was a kid, I was so into comics, that I made my own. Most of them are pretty sad recreations of Spider-Man stories I'd read and, clearly, really enjoyed.

As one would expect, the art was crude and the story was primitive, limited and just plain...bad. It's interesting to see these efforts now (yes, I managed to save them all - are all comic book fans packrats?). Interesting and totally embarrasing at the same time.

However, I did have a more focused burst of creativity during high school in which I took one of the aforementioned "comics" from my past and inserted current (current = the 80s) events and current pop culture. It grew a life of its own from there, spawning multiple issues from me and even inspiring comics in the same vein which were written and drawn by my friends.

The result is, for me, laugh-out loud funny. The art is a bit better, but the writing, if I say so myself, is brilliant. The story is totally stream-of-consciousness, but it does, oddly, kind of flow. All the wonderful things about the 80s are there.

Rambo. Hulk Hogan and the Hulkamaniacs. Jacko (the Energizer guy). MTV and heavy metal.

I was on a roll. Well, perhaps. It's a very esoteric roll, but it's a roll.

After a while, it seemed only logical to start to insert the previously-referenced friends into the stories. And amazingly, I think the comics got better. I started to take on comic book conventions like panel layouts, standard writing methods and established speech patterns and cliches and motifs commonly found in comic books. And there was even a semblance of a plot.

Mostly, it was just reflections of a time. A slice of life, if you will. Maybe someday I'll post some scans and you can tell me it's utter crap, or if, heaven forbid, you'd want to see more. Of course, this would also mean that I think someone other than me is actually reading articles on this blog.

Anyway, I thought these comics were funny as hell. But maybe you had to be there.

Finally Finished Spider-Man 3

Last year, I received Spider-Man 3, Batman Begins and Superman Returns for Christmas. This was from my brother, who couldn't believe that I hadn't already seen any of these films.

Then they sat, unwatched for a few months. I started watching Spider-Man 3, and wound up finishing it after a few months. I'd watched it in, maybe, 3 40-minute intervals.

I'd heard a lot of things about it. That it was too busy and that there was too much going on.

Now that I've seen it, I see that this opinion has definite validity. Green Goblin. Venom. Sandman. All in the same movie? Plus Curtis Connors, the man who would be the Lizard?

Sheesh. There was a lot going on. Some of it was cool and interesting. But mostly, I thought that this movie didn't have the same type of heart that the first two Spidey movies had. It just seemed like they were making it and then...moving on.

The fight scene at the end was pretty cool, but I was again turned off by Spider-Man being in a situation where he was having the snot beaten out of him. I'm not sure why Marvel seems to like this. Venom alone is an overmatch for him. Sandman is a tough foe foe him to handle. Together, it seems sensible to assume they'd finally win.

Enter the moping, misguided Harry Osborn. Finally the truth comes out. I remember in the comics, when Norman Osborn died, Spider-Man didn't remove Osborn's Green Goblin costume. Harry did. Spider-Man didn't care if the world - or Harry - knew what a monster Norman Osborn was. I liked that better.

I didn't like the stupid Harry hates Spider-Man undercurrent that started early in Spider-Man 2. It got boring pretty quick. It was a nice solution when they had the butler set Harry straight. But that reckoning was long overdue.

Then Harry further redeemed his mopey-ass self by flying into action and helping Spider-Man defeat Sandman and Venom. Of course, just like Terminator 2, it would have been cool if this scene had been approached from the vantage point that you didn't know Harry/Arnie was going to be a good guy in that particular scene.

You can imagine Peter's reaction when - as Venom restrains him, he's getting pummeled by the Sandman - and then Harry flies into view, with pumpkin bomb at the ready. And then...wow! He blows up Sandman and Peter and Harry fight side-by-side.

It's too bad Harry died at the end. I actually liked that version of Harry and would have liked to have seen him in Spider-Man 4.

So, overall, while I thought the film was too busy and used up too many cool villains in one shot, I liked it. It wasn't great - certainly not compared to the first Spider-Man movie - but it was good. Better than Daredevil. Better than Batman Returns.

And I am now eager to see what Spider-Man 4 will bring. What more can a comic book fan ask for?

Enough of Grim & Gritty Batman

It's all Alan Moore and Frank Miller's fault. Ever since they wrote their Joker tales - The Killing Joke and Dark Knight Returns - The "grim and gritty" Batman was born and the Joker has taken on a life of his own.

The character took center stage in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie, representing - in my mind - the pinnacle of Jokermania. While Jack Nicholson did a serviceable job in the role, I don't think he captured the essence of the Moore/Miller version of the character.

And this is not to say that these two gentlemen were the first to write the Joker as a homicidal madman. Bob Kane started that, and the trend was carried down the line.

Frank Robbins was instrumental in jump starting the serious tone Batman would take on in the late 60s. Most people will say it was Denny O'Neil that did this, but it really was both of them. Robbins wrote just as many memorable and classic Batman stories as O'Neil did. Both worked with Neal Adams and both are writers whose work any and all Batman fans should seek out.

So - back to grim and gritty.

The latest entrant in this contest is The Joker by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo. I've read some of Azzarello's work and I liked Bermejo's art in the hardly-ever-mentioned-but-highly-entertaining Superman/Gen 13 crossover book. Another title I recommend.

I read the Azzarello/Bermejo work and got exactly what I expected. A competent story and very good art. Unfortunately, like so many Joker tales before this, I didn't get anything new.

Joker's insane. Got it. He's been released from Arkham. Released. Ooookay....got it. He hooks up with some low level crook who becomes his right hand man. Then with Killer Croc.

Okay, fine. Not my cup of tea, but...fine. Then there's the whole Harvey Dent/Two Face thing and the Joker's interactions with the Penguin. Throw in an obligatory Riddler appearance and viola! - instant Batman rogues gallery. No Catwoman, though. Surprising.

It ends on a bridge with the crook getting himself killed and uttering something pithy along the lines of "there's no cure for the Joker. Only Batman." So Batman's just as crazy as the Joker, but he keeps the murder impulse in check. This is pretty much all I've managed to gather from this tome and all the other Joker tales that preceeded it.

Please - Batman writers. Please. Stop the grim and gritty. I'd like to see more Batman tales like the ones that Robbins and O'Neil wrote. Like the ones that Doug Moench wrote in the early-to-mid 80s and again in the early-to-mid 90s. Even in recent years, Judd Winick, Ed Brubaker, Greg Rucka and Grant Morrison have given me some of my most enjoyable Batman moments. I'd like more.

I don't want to read any more Joker tales. No more grim and gritty Batman tales.

And not to pick on Azzarello and The Joker (this should be more directed at the editor), but why did the Joker refer to the Penguin as Abner? More than once. Unless I am mistaken, he's always been Oswald Cobblepot.

Maybe Oswald wasn't grim and gritty enough.