I like Miller's Batman, Dini's Batman, and Lorenzo Semple Jr.,'s Batman. 'Nuff said.As not to derail the other thread, how do you feel about different tones for the various heroes?
I like Miller's Batman, Dini's Batman, and Lorenzo Semple Jr.,'s Batman. 'Nuff said.As not to derail the other thread, how do you feel about different tones for the various heroes?
I like Miller's Batman, Dini's Batman, and Lorenzo Semple Jr.,'s Batman. 'Nuff said.
But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too....for there to be different takes; for writers to be able to play against type, that type has to be established. There is so much territory to mine when you are deliberately subverting expectations (to use one example); however, if the only thing that is ever done is playing against type, eventually, there is no longer that "type" to play against.
But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too.
But that's OK, too. That's what happens to stories as time passes. Granted, superheroes are more modern than Greek or Arthurian heroes, or characters from fairytales, but eventually it gets to the point where there isn't a definitive version, and that's fine. It's not a problem which needs solving. Eventually that will happen to Batman and Superman too.
Does it have the sexy hat?View attachment 132835(I just watched Red Son, which is the "What if Super Man crashed in the Soviet Union?").
There no longer being a "type to play against" is a very good point. Sure, you can do alternates, spins, one-offs, etc. but when do they come to outnumber the source material? Sometimes, if you have a statement to make, then creating something of your own is the better way to go. You can see parallels to various properties in "The Boys" and "Watchmen", without directly calling out their source. The story is no less compelling. And if you really want to parody something, this is the route that I suggest. It worked for "Mystery Men" and "The Specials."I enjoy different takes on superheroes as well. This has a long and storied history, whether it's the "Bizarro" world versions, or different writers and artists taking the hero in a new direction, or even "one-shots" (the Killing Joke, for example) examining as aspect of the character. Heck, if you have HBO Max, there is a whole library of the DC Universe Animated Films with different versions of the main characters (I just watched Red Son, which is the "What if Super Man crashed in the Soviet Union?").
Here's the thing, though.
...for there to be different takes; for writers to be able to play against type, that type has to be established. There is so much territory to mine when you are deliberately subverting expectations (to use one example); however, if the only thing that is ever done is playing against type, eventually, there is no longer that "type" to play against.
Sure, and Batman's still a masked vigilante. We're just quibbling over words.Definitive version and definitive type are not the same. After thousands of years, Zeus is still a philanderer. That's type, not version.
Sure, and Batman's still a masked vigilante. We're just quibbling over words.