Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

Unfortunately, I don't think much of Newton's work is collected. There is a Tales of the Batman collected edition (http://www.dccomics.com/graphic-novels/tales-of-the-batman-don-newton-vol-1), but I think it's only available in hardcover.

I found some nice Shazam and Batman pages of his:

I'm a big Don Newton fan too!

I don't have much to add to this thread other than my Flash: The Silver Age Volume 2 Omnibus arrived in the mail and it looks gorgeous! Now I just need them to reprint Volume 1 to match this trade dress and then I can buy that one too and finally read these stories!

I've pre-ordered the Legion Omnibus Volume 1 and am looking forward to receiving that.

I was thinking of buying the Justice League: The Silver Age Omnibus' Volumes 1 & 2 but have discovered that they have reprinted the team's guest appearance in Mystery in Space #75 in around the #30s area (in Volume 2) rather than after issue #3 (in Volume 1) where it belongs. Am I the only one who gets extremely bugged by things like that?

YAY! Glad to learn you really like Don Newton's art, too, Blacula.

A I get equally as bugged as you about stories reprinted out of sequence in the Omnibuses. Walt Simonson was quite vocal a couple years ago with his displeasure at the way the Omnibus collected his entire Orion run from the early 2000s lumped together all the backup stories towards the end of the volume.

Lardy, I (belatedly ) checked my DPS trade. It's actually the 7th printing. So you were right all along.

And, yes, it was a life-changer for me as well.

I mentioned this before in the Re-Reads thread, but I used to have the Fantastic Four: Trial of Galactus trade, with its equally-high-quality production values. One of my biggest regrets as a collector is having given away that trade, along with all my Byrne FF back issues, years ago when I was going through what was, in hindsight, a childish and shallow "Anti-Byrne" stage. I actually feel I owe you a lot of credit for helping me get to a point where I've re-evaluated a lot of Byrne classics from the 80s. Thanks, Lardy.

I forgot to post when, a few weeks back, Walt himself announced that his Thor Omnibus will indeed be getting a new printing around the time of the new Thor movie this Fall!!!

FUCK YEAH!!!

Walt Simonson's Thor is one of my favorite 80s runs from ANY publisher!

Thanks for the good news, Lardy.

I didn't know if this was appropriate for its own topic or for the Batman thread, so I figured, "why not here?"

So...the new Batman book from Azzarello and Bermejo called Batman: Damned features (in the print version, anyway); The Bat-Penis! (Here's the link to the Bleeding Cool article. The article itself is censored, but there are links to the full monty.)

Anyhow, this book is the debut title under DC's new Black Label banner, which is intended for mature audiences. The art isn't super-detailed, but it's more detailed than, say, the Dr.Manhattan's junk.

So....is this thoroughly inappropriate? Is it kinda funny? About time?

Whaddayathink?!?

LMFAO

"Holy Iggy Osterberg, Bruce! Have you lost *all* sense of shame?"

Personally, I blame Morrison. He may not have "gone there," but he probably would have if he could have, and the precedent he set is, IMHO, definitely what took the Bat-Franchise into the realm of Just Plain Stupid.

On a less cynical note, I really hope Black Label is successful enough for DC to spin off an all-ages equivalent. If they don't wanna call it "Elseworlds," how about "Blue Ribbon?"

So...I take it you...disapprove?

Moi? Perish the thought!

Another thing about Morrison's Batman -- I believe there is no small irony in the way that Morrison understands Superman so well, yet he's only been able to write Kal solo in dribs and drabs over the course of his career. And yet, I also think *no one* understands Batman LESS WELL than Morrison, and it's Bruce whom he got to have not only a long stint on the franchise, but also previously redefine in JLA -- not for better and for worse, IMO, but for worse and for *even worse.*

Back to "Brian Brazenly Parades Bruce's Banana" -- I think it's just pitiful how DC would sink this low. It's like, *we get it already, Batman's not an all-ages character anymore.* But as long as people keep buying this crap, we're gonna see it get even more extreme. What's next -- "bedroom outtakes" from Tom King's recent Bat and Cat bad romance? SHEESH!

I’m just like LOL. I do find it funny that the article pointed out that Batman is clearly circumcised.

It’s not super detailed anyway, so I’m like meh.

Peter Allen David chimes in:

https://wp.me/ppuUu-3dp

I've never watched "Young Sheldon," nor "The Big Bang Theory," but that scene PAD described sounds like just the thing that would make me LMAO.

Still not sure how this is somehow Grant Morrison's fault...?

It's interesting how the digital version was censored and how any reprints or collections will also be censored.

I understand that artists are often commissioned to do nude shots of popular characters and that fans with artistic skills have done same. I suppose it's different when a publisher decides to do it themselves and put out something that is "canon".

I think it's a potentially interesting conversation, anyway. I mean, we've seen both Wolverine's and Hulk's naked butts in recent movies. We see Batman's here in addition to some detail on his front parts. In some way it seems fair that a male superhero (and a preeminent one at that) has been sexualized when so many female characters have been, at least in the way they are costumed and idealized in their proportions, if not with "canon" nudity.

"QUICK, ROBIN! TO THE BATPOLE!!"

Seth Myers had some jokes on his show about the Bat-peen controversy and my favorite was;

"Good thing his parents aren't alive to see this!"

That's a super good point, Lardy! And besides, if the straight men and lesbians can have their eye candy, why can't straight women and gay men too?

It's times like this I really miss Lash, because I *know* he would've had something to say about the batpenis.

Before Morrison came along with his take on Bruce in the late-90s JLA, there had always been a line (or several lines) that should not be crossed with Batman -- he wasn't infallible in his deductions, he wasn't always one step ahead of everybody, and he wasn't socially maladjusted to the point where some of his teammates only tolerated him for his skills. Morrison, probably thinking he was being "punk rock" (yeah, right,) broke all those rules, and, I for one, hated the results, and hated it even more when these attitudes started seeping into the Bat-Franchise proper. But the real point of no return was Morrison's 6 or 7 or however many consecutive years writing for the franchise -- suddenly, there was all this overheated mumbo-jumbo about the Wayne family's shady past, and Gotham City's even-shadier past, and supernatural this and cosmic that (with Morrison's tendency to throw in cheap shocks (there's that phony punk rock attitude again) adding insult to injury.) Since Morrison left, the subsequent writers (and I *have* read several recent Batman trades, as much out of morbid curiosity as because they feature contributions from some talented creators) seem to be either compelled of their own will, or pressured by editorial, to take Batman and his corner of the DCU *even further over the top* than Morrison already had. The Bat-bollocks are just the latest manifestation, and, sadly, they won't be the last.



I agree in theory, Lardy. However, I also think there is a line between tasteful, healthy sexualization and crass exploitation. As far as I'm concerned, this is a case of the latter, and it does no favors to characters from anywhere in the gender spectrum, nor to the whole idea of making superheroes more adult, which I have come to firmly believe is just a self-defeating proposition.

Bruce: Dick!
Alfred: Yes Sir, and clearly it's colder that we thought in the Batcave.
Bruce:. No...would you call Dick and tell him we're ready for the mission...>glare<




The Bat-bollocks help with the steering of the new Penis-Plane.

I still think it's a bit of stretch (no pun intended?) to blame Morrison, even indirectly, for Bat-penis.

Playing Devil's advocate for Morrison's Batman in the JLA (keeping in mind that I have been critical of Morrison in general and some of his Batman stuff in particular), I think his portrayal was a way to make it more apparent why the only non-powered member among those seven belonged among their number and, perhaps, was actually foremost among them. While we may not love it, it was undeniably a popular take on the character among general fandom.

It seems like you may be dancing around Tom King's Batman as being on of those that continue in the Morrison vein. While he clearly acknowledges that portrayal and those qualities Morrison built, I think Tom King has taken more of a humanistic take on the character. There's a lot more Bruce under the cowl in King's stories and a lot more vulnerability even in his first arc. I'm not saying it's definitely what everyone wants to see in a Batman book, but I don't see it as just the latest Morrison Batman recycling at all.

Some recent discussions among Lardy, Thoth, and myself over in the X-Factor thread have provided me with the necessary impetus to post about something I've been thinking about a lot lately: Give or take a few months, it is now about 30 years on since a dramatic shift took place within Marvel's X-Men franchise. It would lead to some shocking behind-the-scenes events, and a move away from the floundering, comfortably numb tangle of plot threads which had come to characterize the mutant books...towards...well, a hyper-active, in-your-face tangle of plot threads. Which was better? Which was worse? Or were they equally bad, overrated self-parodies of the jewel in Marvel's crown which the X-Men had once been during the first half of the 80s?

One thing I'm certain about: The shift was more gradual than it must have seemed at the time. Let's start with the pivotal 1987 event "The Fall of the Mutants" -- a very mixed bag, in my opinion. Consider: I still think the X-Factor tie-ins, written by Weezie Simonson and drawn by Walt Simonson, are magnificent; I'd even argue that those issues were the peak of Mr & Mrs Simonson's contributions to the ongoing mutant mythos -- I mean, my Gods, they even end on a *hopeful* note, with X-Factor redeemed in the eyes of the general public after saving New York City from Apocalypse and his Horsemen! But the New Mutants tie-ins? Not so good. Weezie had just replaced Chris Claremont on NM, and her awkward start was compounded by the...um...polarizing artwork by Bret Blevins, another new arrival to NM. Let's face it, the one thing everybody remembers from these issues is the death of Douglas "Cypher" Ramsey, and this general feeling of over-the-top pessimism and negativity which was taking over NM. And finally, there's the flagship mutant book, Uncanny X-Men, with Claremont now having been writing the book for more than 10 years -- in my opinion, UXM had already been on a slow, steady decline since even before issue 200, which many fans consider the beginning of the end. But there were still enough decent moments to keep the book afloat for a while, even as late as issue 223 (beautifully guest-penciled by Kerry Gammill.) But the X-Men's battle against the Adversary in UXM's FotM tie-ins -- 225-227 -- are what I consider THE point of no return for Claremont; even if Marc Silvestri's artwork wasn't so ugly, the story would still be a dud; the X-Men's new status quo of "Dead/Not Dead" is bad enough, but what really burns me is the way the Adversary is defeated -- he *just happens* to have the *same vulnerability to metal* as Proteus did, way back in UXM 127, which means that once again, metal-man Colossus clobbers the villain, who fades away. That, to me, is the worst kind of lazy writing on Claremont's part, and a clear sign that he had overstayed his welcome and that the mutant books were selling on momentum alone. Even when Claremont immediately did a 180 degree turn and wrote a beautiful epitaph-of-sorts in the form of the Alan Davis-drawn Excalibur "pilot episode" special, that only reaffirmed to me that he should have gracefully exited the franchise right then and there!

Instead, we got the X-Men's "Australia Era." There's not much I have to say about those UXM issues in and of themselves, except that I think Claremont continued to plod along lazily, and that Alison Blaire could never, ever sing "Proud Mary" better than Tina Turner.

Far more interesting, I think, was what was going on behind-the-scenes: Ann Nocenti, who had been helming the majority of the X-Franchise since mid-1984, and had midwifed some of my favorite mutant stories (though, tellingly, most of them happened in New Mutants rather than in UXM,) now found herself in an...interesting position. The controversial Editor-In-Chief Jim Shooter had just recently been railroaded out of Marvel amidst a change in the publisher's ownership, and Nocenti was one of the staffers who, despite acknowledging that Shooter could sometimes be unpleasant to work for, was sorry to see him go. However she really felt about being a staff editor at the Post-Shooter Marvel, the decline in quality across the X-Books was what I consider the proof that her heart wasn't in it anymore. It wasn't all bad for Nocenti, though, because her writing career was rocketing into the stratosphere -- after a learning-curve 18 months on Daredevil, she was blossoming dramatically (thanks also to finally getting a steady artist for DD, John Romita Junior, whose DD work I consider maybe the best of his career), and the lure of the freelancer life must have been very much on her mind. Within a few months, she had made the change, and UXM and NM were in need of a new editor.

Enter Bob Harras.

Whatever else may be said of him, he did not come into the mutant franchise cold. He had been editing X-Factor since practically the first issue, and while the Simonsons would go on to clash with Harras in years to come, I think his own creative talent for larger-than-life, quintessentially Marvel-style drama (I am an unapologetic fan of his first 3 dozen issues as Avengers writer, most of them drawn by Steve Epting) was one of the things that had helped X-Factor soar while UXM and NM fell. That couldn't have been lost on Harras' superiors, nor the fact that he had been one of Shooter's biggest detractors and was willing to take the books he edited to places they'd never have gone under Shooter's watch, especially in terms of the artwork.

Ah, yes, the artwork -- while I've never considered myself a big fan of Marc Silvestri, he did seem somewhat liberated once Harras took over the X-Franchise, producing work which was bolder and splashier. And that was only the tip of the iceberg -- waiting in the wings were: Former Alpha Flight penciler Jim Lee, who had done an impressively dynamic job on a backup story from X-Men Classic, and who did equally well spelling Silverstri for one issue of UXM; Lee's friend Whilce Portacio, who'd paid his dues with various inking assignments while developing a penciling style similar (if arguably inferior) to Lee's; and, of course, the comics industry's eternal problem child, one Rob Liefeld, whose artistic chops were questionable but whose ability to promote himself via multi-media synergy rivalled Madonna's!

The upshot was that the $ sales $ of the X-Books began climbing and climbing, and Harras must have been asking himself, "Tenure or no tenure, is Claremont *really* worth all this aggravation he's giving me with his diva behavior and his refusal to bring the franchise back to basics? Or is It really me and the artists doing all the heavy lifting while Claremont phones it in and takes all the credit?"

So it was that a coup was struck and King Claremont dethroned. By the end of 1990, he was already bitter (and, it must be said, unprofessional) enough that he walked off UXM 278 in the middle of scripting it! He was eventually lured back to script the first three issues of the heavily hyped, Lee-drawn X-Men Volume 2 (doubtlessly the potential royalties were the main incentive.)

In conclusion, I have come to believe there were no heroes and no villains where the Claremont vs Harras battle was concerned. Comics is, first and foremost, a business. And human beings are, each and every one, fallible. Life went on, the comics industry went on, and, of course, the X-Men went on. Whether or not the X-Franchise was ever good again (and I think that, for a few blessed months between 1992 and 1993, it was better than good, it was great) is beside the point, at least in my opinion.

I definitely felt, as a then-current reader, that UXM/Claremont was losing it in the 3-4 years prior to his official exit. I did feel, though, that it was picking up with Jim Lee's arrival. I don't know if it was just the quality of the art, Claremont being inspired or perhaps Lee having more creative control. I would have to re-read that era to have a more objective opinion. However, I can say that adjectiveless X-Men fell pretty flat for me after Claremont left, even before Lee left. I was a super-loyal X-Men fan but had finally had enough somewhere around adjectiveless #30. (Honestly, that move on my part would signify my maturing as a comics fan, and after that, I became gradually less likely to stick with a book just out of sheer loyalty.)

(I will say that our erstwhile fellow poster Cobie said a few years ago that the Romita Jr. and Silvestri eras read much better than he expected them to when he re-read them around that time. I respect his opinion, so we;ll see what I think when I eventually get back to them.)

Fair enough. And I'd also add that I think *both* Lee *and* Harras had considerable story input on those issues.



Again, fair enough. And it brings up what I consider a key factor -- you had been following the mutant books for years (IIRC, since the Paul Smith era?), while I was just coming aboard the train with the launch of Adjectiveless. Also, FWIW, I wearied of the mutants far, far sooner than you, and stopped following the books regularly right around the same time as you. In my case, the things that I remember burning me at the time were:

- Fatal Attractions. Not only one of the worst X-Events of all time, but also one of Xavier's worst showings (let's not deny it, he telepathically *lobotomized Magneto.* Plain and simple. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not heroic at all. PLUS, it came only *six months* after X-Cutioner's Song (which I still love unapologetically.) AND Fatal Attractions was the main reason Peter David left X-Factor; he hadn't been a happy camper on XCS, and to have to go through that event rigmarole again so soon was more than he could abide. (PAD did, long after the fact, sardonically joke that if he hadn't left, then the royalties from the X-Factor tie-in would have put his daughters through college.)

- Nicieza dropping the ball after XCS. The Soul Skinner Saga? Oy! At least Andy Kubert's dynamic art made it palatable to me (he drew one hell of an Omega Red.) But the Psylocke/Revanche fiasco? At first, I was elated, so much so that I wrote my first X-Men fan letter; then, as the story dragged on and on and ended on a damp squib of a live-and-let-live compromise, I became enraged (and, to add insult to injury, Revanche would soon die of the Legacy Virus.)

- Romita Junior taking over the art on UXM. Jeez Louise, was that uuuug-leeeee. Thankfully, the associate editor had enough balls to call JR on how bad his work was, causing JR to walk away after a short time.

- Alan Davis leaving Excalibur (apparently, there was pressure on Harras from above to assimilate the series into the X-Verse proper, which understandably displeased Davis and led to his departure.)

- Greg Capullo leaving X-Force (which Nicieza was doing a *much better job* on than Adjectiveless) AND Cable returning from the timestream just six months after he got lost there at the end of XCS.

- Blood Ties. In hindsight, trying to do a 30th Anniversary Avengers/X-Men team up was too much of a tall order. The final nail in the coffin was for the plot to be just another punch-up in Genosha, rather than...oh, I dunno, a sequel to Operation Galactic Storm, with the X-Men caught in the crossfire between the Shi'ar and the Avengers?