JOKERS ASYLUM MAD HATTER #1
What did the
iFanboy
community think?
Pulls
Art by KEITH GIFFEN & BILL SIENKIEWICZ
Cover by BILL SIENKIEWICZ
Size: 32 pages
Price: 2.99
Okay someone needs to seriously be fired at DC for these solicitations. Once in a while I can understand if a mistake is made. But constantly, thanks to this site I might add, I seem to notice an error in the creative talent listing at least once for a DC book each week. In my dream world, I was hoping to see a beautiful issue fully done by Bill Sienkiewicz. Instead what do we get? Yet another artist doing the actual pencils while Sienkiewicz just does the finishes and/or inks….again.
Just look at that cover! Gorgeous! All done by Sienkiewicz no doubt. Inside though we get Keith Giffen doing the majority of the issue with the help of Sienkiewicz. So what we get inside is a mix of ugly looking pages with some hints of brilliance throughout. Sometimes it looks like Giffen did the pencils, the next it looks like Sienkiewicz did it all by himself. Just two styles, at least for me, don’t work together at all. There are some great moments sprinkled through out. Like the idea of having clips of images over certain objects/people is a good idea. The page with Hatter deciding he wants to be a ‘Mad Man’ is really good. Then it goes back to the ugliness.
The story itself is not so bad actually. Considering this Landry Walker is mainly a kid’s writer for comics, it’s interesting to see his more disturbed side. Mad Hatter is actually quite insane and frightening. Usually he’s played just for laughs but in this there are a few moments where I am seriously scared at what I’m reading. The moment at the very end really paints a very dark picture on the character. It’s actually like reading what Grant Morrison would do with the character. However, the whole romance angle just didn’t hit me too much. I feel like I’ve read it before and considering Mad Hatter can be a one trick pony, it’s hard to think of new ideas for him. If the whole issue was just him, inside his home, trying not to go insane; this story would’ve been a bit more enjoyable.
Just so disappointed about how Sienkiewicz didn’t do the entire issue. What’s here is pretty ugly to look at and good pages are hard to come by. The story can be quite disturbing but it gets fairly predictable towards the end. This might be the worst Joker Asylum story to come out so far. Although it still can’t top the incredibly horrible story that was the Joker’s own one-shot from last year. So it has that going for it.
Art: 2 - Average
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
In all fairness, we weren’t promised Sienkiewiczfor the entire issue. It’s pretty clear from the solicts that he’s going to assist Giffen with the art.
@comicbookchris: Actually no it was fully solicted as just Sienkiewicz for a while. Then someone on the site pointed it out that he wasn’t doing so. So…..at least I saw it was just going to be him for the whole issue.
@comicBOOKchris @TheNextChampion: iFanboy and Comixology both have ONLY Sienkiewicz listed for cover and art. Everything that I ever saw about this book only listed Sienkiewicz on art. It wasn’t until the preview on CBR yesterday that I ever saw Giffen’s name mentioned. I think we all got screwed. Not picking this up anymore. DC needs to get their facts straight and figure out their trade releases.
@TheNextChampion:
Sorry you were displeased with the romance aspect. Though I don’t know if I would call an obsessive compulsive disorder with stalker/serial killer overtones directed repeatedly at multiple strangers/victims a "romance".Well…it’s "romance" to the Hatter. Sort of. The multiple "Alices" are more like a projected totemic delusion under the guise of a one-sided romance.
Anyway… The Hatter is who the Hatter is, and I saw little reason (or room) to make sweeping alterations. Instead, I wanted to explore what makes him HIM while keeping the fundamental nature of the character intact… if that makes sense. Hats. Tea. Books. Alice. Wonderland. Escapism. Obsession.It’s meant to be a standard Hatter story, except that this time we see it through from the view of the Hatter.
That said, I went through and read all the Hatter appearances I could find, dating back to his first appearance in the 40’s, and picking up with his reappearance in the 80’s – and didn’t find any story that delved into this particular direction. One episode of the 90’s cartoon, yes. Though that was a fair bit different in execution. But perhaps I missed something in my research.
Anyway, thanks for the review. Sorry it wasn’t to your liking as much as you might have… liked. Or what not.
I must be digging into people’s skins. First it was Dustin Weaver last week, now it’s Walker!
@LWalker: Don’t go judging my review solely based on the scores, even if you didn’t hear me out. This wasn’t a bad comic in terms of writing. It was the art that basically made me state ‘worst issue so far’. Even so, this story is miles better then the majority of the Joker Asylum one-shots from last year. This comic is still creepy and I can definitely see you took the time to make this story work. The whole moment where he finally drinks his tea is really fantastic.
This issue sort of reminded me on how Grant Morrison treated the character in Arkham Asylum. He was only in it for a few panels but it was still the creepiest version I’ve seen for the character. I hope I didn’t offended you too greatly sir, as I still thought it was a good enough comic at the end of the day. I just wish you had better help in the art department because Giffen/Sinkienwicz did you no favors.
@TheNextChampion
For people in my position, the internet is both an awesome thing and a terrible curse. While I know some people who don’t even look at reviews, many others (my fragile self included) hunt for them. I mean, it’s certainly not the best reason to go into comics, but approval of ones peers is certainly a motivation. We’re all comics fans after all. So yeah… there’s that level of me exposed to the world. Ouch.
But no… I recognize that you stated alot of positive things. And I appreciate it – and your follow up post – very (very) much. Part of my drive to post was borne more out of a desire to talk about the book than suggest you were wrong for rating it as you did. You reaction is your reaction. Anyone who ever tells you that you’re "wrong" for reacting a certain way to something that is definitively subjective is wrong themselves. So to be clear… not really contesting the validity of your review. Just offering some insight.
That said, I can’t really agree with your reaction to the art. I’m very happy with it. I thought the elements Giffen contributed were brilliant. His understanding of character action… he added alot to the feel and emotion of the story. He followed my sequential direction wonderfully, while adding and contributing his own structure and language (the post-it notes and the "taped on" images as way of example). But as said, we’re speaking of subjective tastes at that point. You don’t care for it and I don’t think that you should just because I do. Even though I really do.
I’m not sure if I’m making any sense. I need some caffeine.