Monthly (Comic) Book Club - September - Batman: Years One & Two19935
 COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Year Two is incredibly different from the get-go. Reading the introduction by Mike Barr I think goes some way to explaining the approach. Year Two wasn’t written so much as a direct continuation of Year One but as another revisitation of early Batman. He decided to take some cues from Batman 47, where Bill Finger and Bob Kane revisit. Atman’s origin an have him encounter Joe Chill. Not sure what elements exactly he’s planning to incorporate but it’s interesting to see what he’s gone back to. Barr also points out a distinct difference between his and Miller’s relationship with Batman. Miller, according to Barr, likes to strip away as much of the extra baggage from Batman as possible to see what makes him tick, whereas Barr loves all the extras that. Atman has built up over the years, be it the Bat Cave, Batmobile, etc. He also mentions a couple of important behind-the-scenes tidbits. The first being that Alan Davis’ cover for part one was changed without his knowledge, which lead him leaving the book and Todd McFarlane being brought in to finish the story. Next, Barr mentions that the fact that it was drawn by two different artists is what kept DC from collecting the story for so long. If anyone has any insight into this policy at DC, I’d love to learn more. Anyways, back to the story. The addition of the Reaper to Gotham’s past is an interesting bit of retconning. Batman is now no longer Gotham’s first vigilante, though he is different in that he does not kill and has allies in the police. This change doesn’t necessarily conflict with anything but it does give Batman a shadow he has to separate himself from. This addition to building up the foundation of the world that created Batman reminds me a little of how the Court of Owls was later added as a major foundation of Gotham’s underworld and of Gotham itself and so if Batman wanted to fight crime and make a better Gotham, he would have to separate the Court of Owls from Gotham. There are a slew of new (as in not part of Year One) characters we are introduced to in this issue. Dr Thompkins is not introduced here but in the spirit of Year One and Two was written into Bruce Wayne’s past as having comforted Bruce Wayne after the passing of his parents. I have to imagine this isn’t meant to pick up right where Year One left off as, in addition to Gordon already being promoted to commissioner, Doctor Thompkins is already aware of Batman’s secret identity. You’d imagine Batman wouldn’t reveal that to anyone so quickly. Next we have Rachel, who seems to be a love interest for Bruce and her father who, I believe is unnamed in this issue, if not the Raper now, is revealed to have been the reaper from 20 years ago. He seems ro have just come into town, seen how his once fancy streets have gone to hell and has decided to take up his Reaper persona once more. The Reaper’s encounter with the prostitute feels like it might be a callback to Bruce encountering one in Year One. Having Batman get beaten so handily I think is meant to suggest he is still inexperienced. Sure he can handle some street punks but costumed villains are still a level above and his inexperience leads him to underestimate the Reaper. I do feel the pacing might be a bit rushed, something Year One handled by irregularly calling out the date so that while much can happen in a single issue, in-universe they could be days or weeks apart. Here it feels like the father comes back, that same night kills some muggers. Next night Gordon tells Batman, batman finds the Reaper, and the one encounter shakes Bruce so much that he decides to resort to guns the next day. It just seems too fast. Personally, I would’ve built up the Reaper’s mystique a little longer and had Batman encounter him in the second issue, and only after failing to stop him in a second encounter would Batman resort to using a gun. Batman using a gun, I think, also deserves some discussion. It feels super weird given so many decades of Batman’s no guns rule, but if this is meant to be an early Batman adventure you figure that rule would have to come from somewhere. Additionally, Batman used a gun somewhat regularly in his early appearances so acknowledging that and revisiting, reinterpreting, and recontextualizing early Batman, which seems to be the meta theme connecting the two stories, seems to make sense. |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
Next Month! - October - Wytches by Scott Snyder Wytches #1-6 Week 1 (10/2-10/8): Wytches #1-2 Week 2 (10/9-10/15): Wytches #3-4 Week 3 (10/16-10/23): Wytches #5-6 |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
 If the viagra is working you should be well over a 9.8.
|
xkonk private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Wrapping up year two: The first panel in #577 has some prime McFarlane cape work. I wonder how easy it would be to get a bunch of pictures with capes and have people say McFarlane or not? Batman goes on a mission with Joe Chill. Batman has his gun but is only using it to disarm, and is avoiding killing people, but Chill is not. This is mostly an action issue, as the mission pays off pretty quickly and the Reaper goes after the hippies that Batman and Chill set up as bait. The police also find out and it turns into a big fight. Some people get killed but the Reaper gets away and Batman has to save Chill when the building blows up. I feel like this issue looks a bit more McFarlane-y beyond the capes. The art reminds me more of that 90s look in general. Otherwise I don't think there's much to it. |
||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
|
If the viagra is working you should be well over a 9.8.
|
xkonk private msg quote post Address this user | |
| #578 wraps the storyline. It seems conflicted, and wraps up too quickly. The Reaper gets an informant to tip off the police on a mob meeting, and uses their raid as cover to get in and attack the mobsters. Batman sees the commotion and joins in. There's another big fight and another explosion. Batman and Chill get away but Batman thinks that the Reaper died, so he goes for his final chat with Chill. He's threatening to kill Chill when the Reaper does instead, leading to a final battle. Batman comes out on top this time and tries to save the Reaper, revealed as Rachel's dad, but the Reaper lets himself fall off the building instead. Rachel decides to go back to the convent and Batman buries the gun in the new building dedicated to his father. I feel like this story needed an extra issue or two, but at the same time it was cliche enough that I'm not sure it would have gone well. Batman never kills anyone, and doesn't use his gun all that much in general, but the Reaper is happy enough to see him as a replacement and let himself die. A bad guy says that Batman was only working with the mob until the Reaper was captured and Gordon basically says all is forgiven. Bruce talks Rachel out of going to the convent, they get engaged, and then she goes back to the convent when she hears her father was the Reaper. It's all a lot and happens quickly, and some of it strains credulity. I gave Miller's work some grief earlier in the thread, but Year One is clearly better than Year Two as far as the story goes. |
||
| Post 29 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I felt part two was a bit messy. I do like McFarlane’s art but his happy Bruce Wayne is a little off-putting. The sequential action can be a little hard to follow, particularly in Batman’s battle with the Reaper. Batman’s facing off with the Reaper in one panel and suddenly there’s scythes coming through an airplane seat? The Reaper is being rushed by police inside the plane and there’s suddenly a furl tank for him to shoot? The scene of Batman dealing with the mob bosses feels very reminiscent of the Joker offering to kill Batman in the Dark Knight, though no pencil trick in this one. Rachel kissing Bruce doesn’t feel off to me. As you said, she’s about to become a nun. She’s not one yet so it makes sense that she wouldn’t bind herself to their rules and expectations quite yet. Speaking of Rachel, while she’s speaking with her dad we do get an origin of sorts for the Reaper. I’m sure it’s no coincidence that it is very similar to Batman’s. I do wonder what the mob bosses think Joe Chill will bring to the table alongside Batman, aside from being their eyes on Batman. It does take a bit of thinking to rationalize Joe Chill still being out free. Going after him could certainly have been an early project for Batman. Would there be any reason he wouldn’t. I suppose he could see stopping other criminals and saving others would be placed above his own personal vengeance. But Joe Chill has killed and could kill again so I can see it either way |
||
| Post 30 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think part three is one where using Year One’s date breaks would’ve helped quite a bit in the storytelling. Rachel and Bruce have become started a serious relationship to the point that Bruce is calling her the woman he’s loved the most in his life and Rachel changing her mind about becoming a nun. Plot-wise it makes sense but as readers they’ve only seen each other like three times. Setting dates and showing that this is something that has built up over the course of weeks or months would go a good way to conveying that this is not a flash-in the pan thing but a serious, established relationship. Joe Chill is shown as extremely capable. Quite a bit more than a random burglar. He keeps up with Batman leaping across buildings and storming enemy hideouts with Batman and taking down multiple enemies hand-to-hand There is one sequence that didn’t quite make sense to me. After Joe Chill scares Gordon off of Batman, Batman seems to pull a different gun off a dead SWAT officer (or McFarlane drew Batman’s gun WAY off model) and Batman just…shoots a wall? It’s not clear exactly what Batman was trying to accomplish by shooting the gun. It fires with a “foosh” instead of a “bang” so maybe it was like a smoke screen but you also don’t see the smoke or the impact used or useful against anything. The idea of Batman wanting to kill Joe Chill is understandable but I think Batman Begins handled it better by putting that temptation in front of Bruce Wayne BEFORE he becomes Batman. As Batman, you feel like he possesses, or should possess, a certain level of discipline. Again, I understand this is supposed to be early in Batman’s career but McFarlane’s art makes him look too cool, like he’s already super-heroic. In Year One, Mazuchelli’s designed made him fell more grounded and human and thus more prone to human faults and desires. |
||
| Post 31 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I agree that the final issue feels very rushed and anti-climactic. We never learn why the Reaper came out of retirement or when or why he would want Batman to replace him. Batman’s gun didn’t really get the focus it needed to make its inclusion worthwhile. Aside from the very brief moment with Chill at the end there was very little temptation to use it for its purpose. Beyond that, it didn’t really provide a lot of extra benefit or even assistance in stopping the Reaper to justify Batman using it. The story structure also doesn’t really justify being called “Year Two” as it just feels like another Batman adventure and not a formative year in the Batman’s career. You could’ve told me that this story took place over a week and it would’ve felt believable. On the bright side, Year Two did inspire a good piece of Batman media, Mask of the Phantasm. The Titular character being significantly inspired by the Reaper’s design.  In part because of the movie I was expecting some twists in Year Two that never came. I was actually expecting the Reaper to end up being Rachel as she went on a darker version of Batman’s crusade to avenge her mother. All the scenes of the father checking the costume would not have been to take them put or put them back but to check that it was still there and not being used to commit the new Reaper’s crimes. Where I’m going I guess is that I think there is a good story buried in the ideas of Year Two and Mask of the Phantasm gets far closer to it. The Phantasm has a mysterious objective but one that makes sense once its full scope is revealed. The Phantasm being Andrea’s father makes sense but when it turns out to be the love of Batman’s life makes the quest to defeat him becomes a significant trial for Batman. The Phantasm also becomes a mirror that shows us how Batman could easily cross that invisible line and how his heroism comes from doing what he does without crossing it. Batman’s relationship with Andrea is told in flashbacks and punctuated with sincere and significant shared character moments to give the sense of it happening over quite some time while Batman and Rachel just seem to get together after a few weeks and we don’t even see much in that relationship to suggest it was anything special for either of then. Even the ending with a newly alone Bruce Wayne recommitting himself to being Batman and swinging out into Gotham once again is repeated in the film So I guess in conclusion I’d have to say that there is a reason Year One, perfect though it is not, is considered a pillar in the development of Batman as a character while Year Two is rarely mentioned. Miller’s story is structured to hit satisfying story beats while delivering on the tone and themes it sets out to. Year Two on the other hand has a lot of ideas but fails to develop any of them in a satisfying way. It could’ve been a story about Batman confronting the person who killed his parents. It could’ve been a story about why Batman chooses not to use guns. It could’ve been a story about Batman coming out of the shadow of a previous vigilante and establishing his own identity. It could’ve been a story about Bruce Wayne’s true love and how he’s doomed by choice or by circumstance to be alone. |
||
| Post 32 • IP flag post | ||
This topic is archived. Start new topic?