"Convergence" concluded and it was a massive waste of time

One of the reasons I enjoy DC more than Marvel is their scale, the more epic and mythical approach to super-heroes, usually nicely expressed via their "Crisis" cataclysmic events. Yet, after the boring but undoubtedly significant "Crisis on Infinite Earths", the enjoyable "Zero Hour", the genuinely good "Infinite Crisis" and the abysmal "Final Crisis", we recently got a new "Crisis" in the form of the Convergence crossover and, now that it's over, I can safely say that it was nothing. Air. Vapor. Invisible particles of cheap perfume in the air, that occasionally pleases the nose, but is utterly insignificant.

If you skipped the event, the base concept behind it was that Brainiac, the famed Superman villain that exists to gather information by bottling worlds and stealing their knowledge, decides to pit the worlds of the Multiverse (i.e. the collection of 52 parallel dimensions in the DC canon) against each other and force only one version to survive in the end.

[BOOKS] "Superman: Earth One" Vol1-3 (Complete) - Review

Comic books are a dying industry and have been for decades now. The properties do very well in other media (particularly film), but actual book sales fluctuate quite a bit. Super-hero companies do a lot to try and push higher sales. The big names, DC and Marvel, employ somewhat different methods, to varying results of success or failure.

DC's approach is usually (and often stupidly) trying to be "hip" and "cool". Before they relaunched their entire continuity again in 2011 ( a move that I have and will always defend), they sought to launch the "Earth One" books, a series of stories that reintroduce their biggest characters to a wider readership. These are the so-called "graphic novels", essentially glorified comic books without the stigma the medium carries and with a lot less restrictions in content or continuity, which aim at being easier to pick up and read by people who don't usually read comic books.

Reportedly a Wonder Woman series is in the works, but currently only Superman and Batman have been published. I reviewed the first (and currently only published) chapter of Batman: Earth One; for the most part, it's the same Batman from the comics with few deviations from the standard lore and the only thing that truly stands out is that it's mostly a Jim Gordon story starring Batman than it is a Bruce Wayne story.

Sadly with Superman things aren't that simple; the public already loves Batman. Batman is an easy character to sell. Superman is a timeless, but not necessarily loved figure in the pop culture psyche. I did review the first chapter of Superman: Earth One for another blog, way before I started this one; you can read that review here (but please, don't).

Looking back at that review, I may have obsessed over certain details I find important as a fan, but ultimately I missed the point. Having read all three books now, there are still some things that bother me in regards to both the portrayal of the character and the approach to the story and the lore. However, a reintroduction to a wider audience means shifting focus to different aspects of a character, not necessarily foreign or new concepts, just facets of a story that aren't as usually touched upon in the niche as much others.

[BOOK REVIEW] "Batman: Earth One"

You know what's funny? There was a time when Batman was almost unique in never getting any "proper" origin stories. Even when he was introduced his origin wasn't told until a few issues later and even then it was only briefly.

Now it seems you can't take two steps without someone taking a shot at it, however indirectly and though once upon a time it was that Bruce had moved on from that tragic event and kept leaping off rooftops for the betterment of Gotham City, all original stories will reference the origin at least once.

I guess it makes sense in the case of this book, though. The "Earth One" graphic novels are DC's effort to appeal to a more mainstream audience, with a more dramatic and humanistic approach to the iconic characters.

 

"Batman: Earth One" is penned by Geoff Jones, one of DC's top dogs and a talented writer, whose work though I was never a big fan of. Plus I still blame him for ruining Superman after Infinite Crisis, pushing the character back to the same Donnerverse and Silver Age aesthetic and universe he'd grown out of decades ago.

It's also drawn by Gary Frank, Johns' collaborator at the time and genuinely talented artist, whose illustrations I grew less fond of as he drew Superman in the likeness of the late Christopher Reeve; something that (surprisingly) became exceedingly creepy over time.

Johns takes a few liberties in this re-telling, but for the most part he draws from past Batman history and the pacing is roughly the same as all early Batman stories.

Dr. Thomas Wayne is running for mayor of Gotham City (with the monicker "Gotham's Knight"; cute). His wife Martha, also a prominent figure as someone who has dedicated a lot of time on the criminally insane, is running his campaign. Everything shows he's going to win.

They're having an early, unofficial party about the upcoming election's expected result, when they're visited by one of Thomas' old friends: Alfred Pennyworth, former British Special Service, who has seen tons of action alongside Thomas. Dr Wayne calls him on because he needs security with the death threats increasing at a rate diversely proportional to the days left until the election.

Despite Alfred's protests, the couple take their son, Bruce, to see a movie. When the lights at the movie theater suspiciously go out, Bruce throws a hissy-fit for not being able to see the film. Then the little shit runs out the back-alley, bumps on Joe Chill, eagerly tells him to fuck off as he's the richest kid in Gotham and promptly gets his parents killed.

Whoops.

Fast-forward years later, Alfred has trained Bruce to be able to defend himself, as Bruce is on the hunt to find his parent's killers, who he believes are tied to then-running-opponent of his dad's, Mayor Oswald Cobblepot. Yes, that Cobblepot.

Who dares (be a butler) wins.

In the meantime, Detective James Gordon, broken by the spirit of the city, is paired with newcomer Detective Harvey Bullock and together they end up hunting a little girls' serial killer (and rapist?) in the employee of the mayor.

There's a lot of good in the book, as well as a few things that make the read unexpectedly underwhelming. Alfred is probably the most noticeable departure from his classic depiction. Alfred's past as an agent/war veteran isn't new and it's been written into the character for a very long time, but it's the first time (in my recollection, at least) he's in full "mentor" mode, instead of overly English mild-mannered butler.

He's not really even the Waynes' butler and only poses as one after Thomas and Martha have been murdered and he becomes the child's legal guardian. He walks with a cane and he has a prosthetic leg. He's rough, has no sense of humour and prepares Bruce for a war.

It comes as a shocking, though not entirely-unexpected, twist at the end that he is the one that deals with Cobblepot: swiftly, brutally, with no remorse, he deals justice entirely antithetical to that of Batman's.

The other major character in the book outside of Batman is none other than James Gordon, still a detective. Gordon for most of this book is broken. His heart is in the right place, but he is terrified. After his wife's supposed accident, he tries to back away from enforcing the law. In fear of consequences that will harm his daughter, Barbara, he leaves criminals be and let's them rampage through the streets.

Likely the most interesting and well-rounded character in this first book is Harvey Bullock. Harvey is the well-meaning, but ultimate ill-mannered fat asshole of the GCPD; it's how we've known him for years. In "Batman: Earth One", he's a former celebrity, a TV cop running a reality cop show. After the show's cancelled, he's looking for his way back into fame by purposefully transferring to Gotham and tasking himself with solving the murders of the Waynes, believing it to be just the high-profile case he needs.

Even though his goals are less than noble, Harvey is never unlikable in the book. He cares about the Law and the people. He wants to do his job, prevent crime and help citizens. He's the driving force behind getting Gordon back on his feet as a cop. His portrayal makes his fall at the end all the more tragic, as he witnesses the true horror that lies in Gotham's underbelly, which ultimately breaks him as well.

Villains are very underplayed, including Cobblepot, who only gets vague references to his better-known Penguin persona and they all seem to exist purely to service the development of all the good guys.

The other character that feels somewhat underplayed is none other than the supposed protagonist, Batman. As this is practically his first adventure, Batman kinda sucks at being Batman still. So he is not stealthy, his gadgets originally don't work (not until he gets Lucius Fox to fix them for him), he has no Batmobile (he drives around in his personal car) and he gets his ass kicked. A lot.

DC's greatest thinker at work.

This is to be expected, but there are two things that don't work about this portrayal. A rookie Batman wouldn't be the Batgod his insufferable fanboys think he's ought to be all the time, but there are no cool moments for him in the entire book. His first public reveal, his appearance that makes Gotham aware of his existence, is an abject failure. Dude corners a guy that may be connected to his parents murder, then gets jumped by another guy. Then, he gets shot at repeatedly and rescued by Alfred.

As the story progresses, he gets his shit together, but he shares the panels with Gordon and Bullock and honestly, their arc in this story is just a hell of a lot more interesting. By that point, the stakes are high for Gordon (Barbara has been kidnapped) and it's a turning point for Bullock, but Batman's just there to stop the serial killer.

Afterwards he goes after Cobblepot, but he gets his ass kicked again. With an umbrella. It's Alfred that ultimately wins that battle and he does it contrary to everything Bruce has been crusading for.

It's not bad by any stretch of the imagination, it's just perplexing. It's not just the lack of the "Batman coolness factor", it's also the absence of what could have made that lack work: character development and exploration.

I can only imagine Johns purposefully left a lot of ends open to explore in later books, because there is far too much set up here, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. Young Bruce's spoiled-brat attitude got his parents killed. In all Batman origin stories, Bruce wonders at some point if it was all his fault, but in almost all of them none of Bruce's actions have any direct correlation to the outcome of that tragic night.

In Batman Begins he can only be blamed for dragging them out early, because the opera scared him and usually it's Thomas that insists cutting through that alley. They're just ambushed there.

Considering Johns purposefully dropped at least a fraction of responsibility onto Bruce in this story, there is a surprisingly little amount of Batman blaming himself or at least questioning his actions that night. Batman is on a journey of vengeance; nothing less nothing more. He elevates himself to more than that by the end of the book, but it feels like he does so because that's what's expected of the story.

I just can't get a handle on him in this story. The Waynes are written to be Gotham's most prolific family (something I really dislike and it's far too common in Batman stories these days). Martha, his mom, is now Martha Arkham-Wayne. Yes, Bruce is the descendant of Amadeus Arkham, the founder of the Asylum and he has mental health issues in his family medical history.

I'm also pretty sure that the manor where Martha grew up is supposed to become Arkham Asylum (which seems to not exist yet in this version).

When I saw that, I was intrigued. Perhaps we'll tap into Bruce's psyche, perhaps we'll debate how sane and well-adjusted he truly is considering both the trauma he has suffered and his family's history with insanity. After all, using all your money to make toys and running around in a bat costume is not exactly a healthy way to deal with loss.

But no, in the few moments Bruce actually is in the story, he's a kid; a spoiled kid, with far too much money that sets out to do what the cops can't for entirely selfish reasons. Again, this changes at the end, Batman is starting to become a legend and we see change sweeping across Gotham as well, which is always nice to see.

But it's a light-switch change. We guess it's because he learns the not-so-shocking truth behind the events that made him an orphan, but it's only there for seconds.

Put this next to "Batman Begins" that follows a similar path and Bruce has got over that "dead parents" thing earlier into the story. By the time he finishes his training and he returns to Gotham, he already seeks to help the helpless and clean up the city. He sets out to be a legend, to be a symbol and while he's also work-in-progress (ski-masks, being easily beaten by the Scarecrow in their first encounter), his presence leaves an impression.

In "Earth One", you can cut Batman out of this story entirely and you'll have lost very little. His supporting cast just leave a bigger impression and especially in Gordon's case, it seems like it's his story, his city, his pathos. In the end, he's the one who changes, the one truly redeemed. Bruce is just going through the motions.

I'll stop being critical at this point though, because I don't want to give off the wrong impression. "Batman: Earth One" is a very good read. It has good pacing, it has interesting characters, it has solid dialogue and the art is fantastic.

I can appreciate Frank's illustrations now that I don't need to look at a dead actor for the whole book and there are two things that make his work here great to look at: the first is the Batman costume, which is likely my favorite design of the Dark Knight's gear ever. It's simple, it keeps its colors muted by dropping the gold/yellow almost entirely, it drops the briefs and there are no excesses in terms of putting armor on him, or ridiculously large bat-ears or -god forbid- bat-nipples.

Undoubtedly my favorite Batman design, semi-plausible without sacrificing sleekness.

The other thing I always liked about Frank's art is that it doesn't look as ridiculously polished as a lot of the post '90s comic book artwork. There is a attention to detail, but nothing overdone and his illustrations carry a realistic depiction of people and places, without resorting to the photo-realistic art style of Alex Ross. His use of shading is masterful, his facial expressions carry the scene's emotional weight beautifully and whenever his characters move, you actually get the feeling of animation instead of the glorified posing that many other artists do.

For all my complaints, I really did enjoy reading through "Batman: Earth One". In the end, even those complaints aren't so much faults as they are decisions that merely baffle me. As this is meant to be a series, it's off to a pretty solid start in general and while far from the defining Batman story (origin or otherwise), I recommend the book in itself.

"Batman: Earth One" was published by DC Comics. Batman and all related names, logos etc. are property of Warner Bros/DC Comics.

Batman was created by BILL FINGER & Bob Kane.

FOLLOW me on Twitter

"LIKE" my Facebook Page 

[BOOK REVIEW] "Superman Returns": The Novelization

In 2006, Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" came out. The film was not terrible, but it recycled a lot of the plot from "Superman: The Movie", had a poor handle on the characters and it was just kind of boring.

As it's customary for big Hollywood blockbusters, a novelization was penned and published, this one from none other than Marv Wolfman: veteran comic book writer and author with decades in the medium, having worked for both DC and Marvel and being one of the masterminds that orchestrated the 1986 Superman reboot following "Crisis on Infinite Earths" a year earlier.

Sadly, good as a writer as Wolfman may be, he still had to follow the film's script as closely as possible and thus condemn his work to the same issues that plagued the movie.

Not actually from the book. Obviously.

To his credit, when he has the leg-space to expand on the material, the book shines. Using his extensive knowledge of Superman lore and adding original bits, he paints a lively and grandiose picture of Krypton in Jor-El and Lara's younger life, then juxtaposes it to the utter destruction of the "Return to Krypton" sequence.


*** The "Return to Krypton" sequence was the scene showing Superman's visit on the ruins of his home-planet. A significant portion of the budget went into making it, but Singer decided to keep it out of the film anyway, because he felt it didn't flow with the rest of the story. The sequence itself is visually impressive, but I always found it underwhelming, as there are no emotional connections established toward the planet, its inhabitants or even the celebrated super-hero at this point in the movie. 


Thanks to his descriptive narrative regarding Krypton's society, customs, history and even topography/geography, the haunted ruins of that once great people resonate with the reader. Combined with several flashbacks from Smallville and Metropolis that tangle in the exhausted Superman's mind, the character's pain over his home-world's destruction makes his pathos tangible and easy to connect to.

Which is far more important than it sounds, because once Superman returns to Earth and the film's story gets under-way, the narrative starts crumbling.

It's not Wolfman's fault; he does the best he can considering what he has to work with. The biggest problem with Superman Returns, though, was never the plot. It was the characters and especially Superman and Lois Lane.

Superman's loneliness rings hollow and actually kind of dishonest. The efforts to show his closest people moving forward are forced and his brooding is severely overplayed, considering he is welcomed back on Earth by everyone, he gets his job back and even though Lois has moved on and has a family (painful, I am certain), he gets his life back almost intact.

Honestly, the whole Lois thing never worked in this story. Superman leaves without telling her and he's surprised to come back and see her having a life? Sorry dude, but no matter how you try to rationalize it, if you left her without a word she really couldn't have meant that much to you.

Unless you take your love-advice from Twilight and Dawson's Creek.

Having said that, Wolfman does manage to redeem him, at least in part. Thanks to the strong groundwork he lays during the Krypton chapters, it becomes clear that Superman is suffering from a light form of PTSD over seeing Krypton's ruins. His alienation from humanity is because he saw his people's floating carcasses in deep space and came close to death up there himself.

Even so, by the time the book hits its second chapter, all of Clark's inner monologue regarding his pathos comes off as padding.

The other, even bigger, crime of that original story was Lois Lane. In one of the worst interpretations of the character, Lois isn't her own person but rather Superman's own plot device. She smacks you right in the face with her "sassiness" to the point of just being a bitch and the rest of the time she's only there to make Superman sad and stuff.

Strong, independent "girl reporter" she is not. She uses and manipulates and throws hissy-fits like a teenager. The worst thing about her in the movie was that she clearly seemed to not care about her fiance, Richard, all that much and he was just convenient. It doesn't help that Richard was probably the nicest, most sympathetic character in that entire film.

While Wolfman can't salvage that wreck, he does contribute to her redemption as well, again thanks to the all-too-important inner monologue. Unlike the film, in the book Lois concludes early on that she likes her life. She loves Richard and she's happy. That's the life she wants to have, not one with an alien demigod.

In the book, there is no love triangle. It's mostly about Lois and Superman dealing with the consequences of their actions and realizing nothing stands still and they have to move on, rather than open the possibility of getting back together.

Lois still lacks the agency and depth she needs to be a good character, but at least this makes her just a tad more sympathetic.

But fret not, because there is an exception amidst the mediocrity: Lex Luthor. In the movie, Lex was insignificant. Spacey played him considerably more menacing than Hackman had, but he still had the same sense of humour and had the same real-estate obsession that just doesn't make good material for a super-hero story.

It is perhaps because Wolfman knows Luthor well considering his contribution to the character in 1986, but he does wonders with him. He expands with original details on his family history and his own background (adding in even both a LexCrop and a Luthorcorp reference) and details his desires, motives or even his simplest likes and dislikes. Some of the most interesting parts of the book are those that study him, both as an individual, but also through his relationship with Kitty.

Where Kitty was mostly a bit-character in the movie, in the book she is vital in understanding Lex, looking at him through the eyes of someone who is infatuated by him, even though she's not blind to his insanity.

Lex Luthor is the best thing about the entire book and the chapters that focus on him turn the novelization into a great read; fitting, too, since Wolfman manages to completely detach Lex from Kevin Spacey's portrayal and deliver the character we know and love from the comic books; complex, intriguing, charming and menacing.

The supporting cast doesn't get much in terms of focus, even though what little is there is good enough. Especially in Jimmy Olsen's case, who has been in a bit of a rut and falling into depression in Superman's absence.

Also of note is the fact that all hints that Jason is Superman's son have been removed from the story. This was likely done to avoid spoilers, as novelizations usually come out before the films they're based on and Singer was -for some reason- banking a lot on that revelation that everybody had already discovered as soon as the plot synopsis hit the web.

I know many fans -myself included- hated the addition of Jason in the story, but his relative exclusion in the book doesn't work as well as one might have hoped. Considering the rest of the story remains intact, some bits just don't make sense anymore.

Particularly the ending, when Superman visits the White-Lane homestead and leaves apparently having now found a place to belong, even though nothing has really changed. Before that, Jason's heavy involvement in the third act/part of the story feels forced, since he no longer serves the plot and can only be excused if seen as Richard, Lois and Jason are a unit, just another family saved by Superman-- a new dynamic in his relationship with the Daily Planet ace reporter and their previously romanticised rescue encounters.

In the end, I enjoyed "Superman Returns: The Novelization". I've always held the opinion that the film was gorgeous and as such some of the more visually-demanding scenes don't work as well in the book (the train-set sequence or the plane rescue for example), but Wolfman's efforts to expand on the material and his great handle on Lex Luthor give the novelization a certain edge.

If there is something that this book really did for me, however, was to finally and definitively reveal to me the real problem with Singer's original story. Like most detractors of the movie, I was hung-up on the logical inconsistencies of the story, or the lazy plot, or the characters or details like continuing off from the Chris Reeve series (I wanted an original look and feel) or things like the super-stalking.

The real issue, it seems, is a far larger one; mainly that the story has meat and it could have been done a lot better.

This is a particularly sore point from where I'm standing, because Singer had full-reign over it. This wasn't a studio mandate with a struggling crew trying to make the best of someone else's story. Singer came up with it and loaded it with subtext that came directly from his heart. It was his story through-and-through and it was one he really wanted to tell (the screenwriters have gone on record saying they'd have done it differently). Remember; HE jumped ship from X-Men and went to Warner with this story.

So when I came to the realization that the concept had meat and Singer butchered it, I had to wonder how that was even possible! Thanks to Wolfman's contribution, it's clear that there are several better directions this same story could've taken.

One of those directions would be to tell the story through the eyes of the supporting cast and show how much the world was affected by Superman's absence (something only barely touched in the original script). Jimmy Olsen in the book is the perfect example of this, having lost practically all hope during that time.

Alternatively, the story should've been more consistent in its approach to the theme of alienation and looking for a home. Singer shoe-horning the child in it greatly distracts from the subtext, which is otherwise very well-plotted.

In the movie there is a great line that's sadly missing from the book: during the beat-down sequence on New Krypton, when Superman affected by the Kryptonite on the continent and he's being brutalized by Lex and his men, the last son of Krypton screams "I am still Superman".

Many cringe at that line, but honestly it's fantastic. At that point, Lex has stolen the last remnants of his home-planet, has turned them into a weapon and has stolen his powers as well. Between this and Superman's detachment from humanity with Lois and his mom moving on and away from him, he is left with literally nothing to connect to. That line is a man's desperate cry to hold on to something he can call his own. It presents a bigger challenge and threat to his character arc, than the actual violence and the physical effects of the Kryptonite.

If the story was better-plotted to signify those bits and themes more, the film would've received better reception. But as it is, the story is slow and doesn't flow well, while it's extremely busy and ultimately burdened with far too many unneeded subplots, all the while it comes off as extremely indulgent.

Most of these problems plague the book as well. However, Wolfman's efforts aren't wasted, as his expertise on the mythos and his descriptive narrative are enough to draw the reader in and shower them with an enjoyable, albeit flawed and fairly anti-climactic, classic super-hero story.

Follow me on Twitter

Like my Facebook Page