djtrudeau

Name: Dan Trudeau

Bio:


Reviews
djtrudeau's Recent Comments
June 21, 2012 4:36 pm I guess my aristocrats versus aristocrats thing is a bit off from what I was trying to communicate. I think it makes the themes in Batman resonate deeper if he's a victim of common crime instead of a big conspiracy. It connects him better to the common man he's sticking up for. It doesn't change him as a character or the motivation to do what he does. It's all thematic. It's also a preference on my part. I think they're steering clear of the conspiracy thing, as Lincoln/Thomas said. If it was a conspiracy, it doesn't ruin the character for me. I just prefer it the other way.
June 19, 2012 11:26 am It wouldn't change things in his mind but it would change the theme of Batman's story from an aristocrat coming down to our level to an aristocrat fighting other aristocrats. Unlike other children of privilege, Bruce has experienced the tragedy of street crime. A web of conspiracies blunts that theme. People talk about not being able to related to Superman all the time but I think Batman's weakness is if he's presented as a man of privilege trying to hold down normal people. It would be an easy mistake to make and several creators have crossed the line on it (Brother Eye anyone?).
June 19, 2012 11:21 am I don't think it ruins Batman if his parent's death aren't part of a big conspiracy but I enjoy it better as a random criminal act. If it's a random criminal act, it means Bruce was brought down from his aristocratic place in the world by the type of crime "normal people" are victims of. It gives his mission as Batman a little more meaning. If it's part of a conspiracy, it prevents Bruce from experiencing a common crime and keeps him aloof. Again, that wouldn't ruin the whole thing for me but the random crime angle has more dramatic weight and plays better into his mission, which is to make things better for the people of Gotham because unlike others in his station in life, he was shaped by the type of crime that hurts them.
June 1, 2012 12:03 pm It strikes me that this isn't a radical re-thinking of the character. Though Alan Scott has a history with women (Rose/Thorn and Harlequin), it's always been a side note, not an integral part of his character. One of those relationships was dysfunctional and the other seemed borderline platonic. In other words, it lines up with closeted gay men from his original era. It's almost something that could've been revealed in the pre-new52 and made sense.
April 12, 2012 10:30 am I respectfully disagree, Tony, with a few of the things you bring up. I think part of what you're responding to is Superman being stuck in his Silver Age incarnation. Remember, he was born out of the depression, created by kids who knew all to well the bad sides of life. He was created as a daydream fighting back against cynicism and corruption. When we went into the post-WWII period, the character became something else, as did Batman. I think the big difference is that Batman evolved in the mid-80s into a character more reflecting his times while one writer after another kept pulling Supes back into the Silver Age. Though I love Superman: The Motion Picture, I think it shares much of the blame for this. It presents us with the almost naive version of Superman that fit well with the post-Star Wars movie audience. No matter what Byrne tried to do in grounding the character, most people are still stuck on that version even in comics circles. The version of Batman that stuck with the audience at large, though, is the dark, brooding vigilante fighting crime in a corrupt city. The world hasn't become corrupt. It always has been. How we respond to it evolves over time. Batman is one way to look at it and Superman is another. Both characters are born out of optimism, though, not cynicism. Batman may stick to the shadows but he believes his city can be saved and is worth fighting for. I actually think the rebel Superman would resonate well with the public now, as he did in Morrison's Action Comics before he derailed the story, but I don't know if he'll be allowed to break out of his Silver Age prison (as evidenced by the Superman title).
April 11, 2012 5:25 pm Though some of the storytelling devices have aged (like thinking and speaking in plot synopsis), I still feel The Man of Steel by John Byrne is a take on Superman every fan should read. For all the talk about how "above it all" Superman is, I think this was the first successful attempt to humanize the character in modern times, though I just realized I referred to something almost 30 years old as modern (gah!).
March 20, 2012 11:18 am I'm very happy to see Man of Steel high on this list. I've heard a good deal of Byrne-bashing over the years but his take on the character is still "my" Superman. I also think Morrison's Action Comics take had the potential to make it on the list before he let the narrative get derailed under a ton of ideas (Morrison's Achilles heel).
March 12, 2012 7:53 pm I've been talking up Jack Cole's Plastic Man to anyone who will listen. Kyle Baker's run is the only take on the character since I consider worthy.
March 12, 2012 7:51 pm In terms of Sandman, you should really stick with it. Gaiman himself thinks the diner issue of Sandman was too intense, as he was trying too hard to create a horror book. By the time you get to the third book, Sandman begins to gravitate more towards modern fantasy. That's when it becomes the book everyone raves about. There's nothing in it in terms of "gruesome" that's any worse than the woman losing her baby in Y: The Last Man. That's an image that I've tried to get out of my head since I first came upon it.