New Comics: The Rogues hold court in Scott Snyder's Joker story, "Death of the Family" (SPOILERS)

[about_faces]

At the risk of invalidating my opinion right off the bat, I want to briefly discuss the use of the Bat-Rogues--especially Harvey--in Scott Snyder's current Joker event, Death of the Family.

Comments

[akselavshalom]

Okay, I'm gonna give up all attempts of serious commenting here because everything that needs to be said about this... this... thing has been said by other more well-phrased people than me. (Ditto the Joker-Penguin friendship and Pope!Penguin.)
The only thing I wish for here is for Riddler, Penguin and Two-Face to just stab Joker in the back and then stomp him to death. YOU HAVE FAILED WHEN YOU PROVOKE THIS REACTON, DC! I AM one of those punks who entered this franchie because of the Nolan films, and you've managed to repulse me!!!!
Oh, and one more thing:

[about_faces]

I'm genuinely surprised by the strong feelings from everyone here echoing you/Harvey. I know I was turned off of Faceless!Joker and what I've seen of him so far, but based on the great reviews I've been hearing so far, I would have thought this story (and this moment in particular) would have its staunch defenders. Then again, maybe that just says more about the sort of like-minded people this blog attracts, in which case, yay. :)

DC! I AM one of those punks who entered this franchie because of the Nolan films, and you've managed to repulse me!!!!

"Hey, remember when people loved that Nolan's Joker had facial scars? What if we did that with out Joker, but... wait for it... WITH HIS WHOLE FACE??? Brilliant!"

[akselavshalom]

Well, firstly, I've grown skeptical to almost anything that came out during/after Gotham Central, save for perhaps All-Star Superman, ditto Batgirl and the New 52. Plus, my interest with the rest of the DC universe, i.e. everything that isn't Batman, has grown significantly. Not to mention that my tastes has started to drag towards more old school comics.

Also, I can pretty safely say that my general sense of taste has matured a lot since I first started reading anything super-hero related. Hell, it has probably grown ridiculously much this last year alone! Suddenly I'm reading heavy, heavy books like Anna Karenina and starting to look actively for things like Arthur Conan Doyle and Dostoievsky and whatnot. And the best part: I whole-heartedly enjoy reading them! It's not just like: "Doh, it's a classic I must read classics for the sake of reading classics because I don't wanna look stupid!" I read because I love to read and what I read isn't just anything, either.

And speaking of classics: Guess who just got his hands on Eye of the

[akselavshalom]

Also, I've realized just how much emotion that is robbed from Joker by having him forcibly smile all the time. I wish they'd gone Gemini-killer on his ass in The Dark Knight instead of "you wanna know how I got these scars". (Haven't watched the movie, but from what I've seen so far thanks to you, I löööve me some Brad Dourif.)

Also also, if you ever do write that comparison between Anton Chigurh and Harvey, maybe this'll help you on the way: http://whatistechnoagain.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/business-and-pleasure/

[abqreviews]

I agree about comparing this to Dark Victory, but I can't decide if it's better or worse. On one hand, it's presented in a more coherent manner and isn't derailing any possible sympathetic moments for Two-Face, since (from what you've shown) it seems he's been depicted as being 100% bad throughout this story.

On the other, it compromises Two-Face himself as a character, since, as you've said, he's supposed to be an established rogue at this time. I do like the judge look though.

Also, holy crap there had better be some very good comedic timing involved whenever it reveals why Joker had that done to his face, because the only explanation I can think of that would be slightly in character at all would be having him say "I dunno, I just felt like it" or 'Seemed like a good idea at the time".

[about_faces]

Yeah, this feels like the second or third time that I've likened something to TLH and DV and have had the sneaking suspicious that Loeb did it better. I can't tell if I should feel dirty, or if these other stories are just THAT shitty that they make TLH/DV look great. Maybe my eventual reviews of TLH/DV will reflect this newfound perspective.

I do like the judge look though.

Me too, although I still far prefer the Arkham City comic version with the half-wig over the bald scarred side. Having Harvey's sides play judge and prosecutor? I want to say that it's kinda brilliant, but really, it's so basic and obvious it's amazing that no one's ever done it before.

Wasn't the face-skinning explained in Tony Daniel's Detective Comics? I haven't read it. Actually, considering this is Tony Daniel we're talking about here, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was no explanation, and that it was done for shock value with no real plan, and that it won't even come up here.

[akselavshalom]

From what I remember from DV, Two-Face brutally beat the Joker into submission beforehand. So when Joker stabbed him in the back and delivered his final lines in the story, you can bet your left bottock he wanted to retaliate on Two-Face, which seems like more, far more, than Joker did here. So I'd say 10 points to Loeb on this one. Even if his writing sucks.

[about_faces]

Also, is it just me, or was there a serious missed opportunity to be had in an interaction between Two-Face and a faceless Joker? I'm not sure what new insights the Joker might have gained from losing his face, but I feel like he could totally have used that experience as a way to taunt Harvey in some fashion.

[napoleoncheese]

My best guess for situations like 'Heads I shoot you in the head, tails I shoot you in the butt' is assuming the decision to 'go bad' already has been taken with a previous coin toss, so all it's left to decide with the coin is the method of execution. That's also what I go for in 'Almost Got 'Im' and the scene where Harvey has Batman tied to the giant coin. By overpowering and tying a man Harvey knows is good and upholds the law to a giant instrument of likely death, Harvey already has been bad, so I pressume he's already made an offscreen coin toss. You don't put people into deathtraps in the first place without being 'evil', even if you haven't actually activated the trap yet.

Regarding Snyder- I don't like his writing. I don't like how hard he tries to be ULTRA MEGA DAAAAAAAARK, how he desperately tries to be the second coming of Grant Morrison, how he seems to think he's so clever by changing and retconning everything that falls into his hands. It baffles me how everyone loves him so much.

[lego_joker]

Regarding Snyder- I don't like his writing. I don't like how hard he tries to be ULTRA MEGA DAAAAAAAARK, how he desperately tries to be the second coming of Grant Morrison, how he seems to think he's so clever by changing and retconning everything that falls into his hands. It baffles me how everyone loves him so much.

Marry me. Now.

Jokes aside, I really do agree with all of this. Is there any part of the DCnU Bat-verse that you haven't found mediocre at best and massively disappointing at worst? Save for Lil' Gotham, I certainly haven't.

BTW, will we be seeing references to this in "Unequally"? I've just read the latest chapter of Thirty-One Clown Princesses, and God DAMN, that was hilarious.

[martin_l_gore]

Wow, "desperately tries to be the second coming of Grant Morrison", really? I couldn't agree less. Morrison is the king of the weird, esoteric, fucked up storytelling and concept over character, while Snyder is probably the most meat and potatoes-writer on Batman since... I don't know, Dixon? Completely different, almost opposite, writers in my opinion. If anything I'd say Snyder has a lot more similarities with Paul Dini, only exchanging a penchant for a certain kind of humor with one for gore-filled horror.

[about_faces]

From what I've read of Snyder's Batman work (which is everything up to Night of the Owls, plus some bits and pieces here and there afterward), I can agree that his writing isn't exactly like Morrison's. For one thing, he's better which characters and relationships, although as I've noted before, he's far more successful with heroes and than villains

[martin_l_gore]

I've been liking Death of the Family up 'til now, but this issue pretty much took the story and threw everything over the shark as it were. I especially dislike the use of the classic rogues as doormats to underline how extreme and awesome the main threat in the story is, Snyder did it in Batman #1 as well and it's still a bad idea. Seeing Batman brush Freeze and Scarecrow aside without breaking a sweat might be a simple way to create "badass" moments or upping the stakes, but in the long run it just hurts their characters and makes Batman much less of and underdog and therefore less sympathetic, closing in on the point where I can't bring myself to root for him. I guess I ranted over this below your post about Batman #1 as well, but that's just how much it rubs me the wrong way. Also, I don't buy for a second that Penguin wouldn't have a plan in place to explain him being trapped in Arkham with Eddie and Harvey to the police, reaching out to Riddler and appeal to Joker's greed (yeah, good luck with that) has to have been some sort of

[about_faces]

I'm glad to know that this really was the shark-jumping moment for you, and now I have to wonder how many other fans of this storyline feel the same way. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, but you're right, the classic rogues really were made to be doormats both here and in #1.

... and appeal to Joker's greed (yeah, good luck with that)...

Now that you mention it, that moment really does ring incredibly false. Of all people, the Penguin HAS to know that the Joker doesn't care one bit about money. It would have been nice to have seen that it was all a stalling tactic on Ozzie's part, yeah, but Snyder's already shown that he doesn't have much interest in showing Pengers to be anything other than a pawn.

What we get instead is pretty damn weak.

It really is. It's like Harvey is just thrown in here as a kind of lip-service to his status as one of the greatest rogues, but only Eddie is treated by the writing as if he's really earned that status.

[mothy_van_cleer]

Jesus H. Christ, is this what Snyder's been up to these days? I was actually trying to collect these comics before I was hospitalized back in December so I could review and make fun of them, but... goddamn, it's just not worth it. Nobody's taking this grimdark horse-crap seriously, are they? I mean, are the sales figures going down

[psychopathicus]

There's also the issue of character development. I understand where people are coming from when they talk about getting 'back to basics' with a character - they want to get back to the essentials, to what made him/her tick in the first place - but here's the thing: these may be fictional people, but they're still people, and people change. Sure, comic book characters are generally stuck more or less in an ageless limbo, but that doesn't mean they don't change. People write them differently; different facets of their character are uncovered, they get character arcs, they get different priorities, they get saddled with new loves, hates, obsessions. Sure, the basics may remain the same, but they themselves are constantly growing and changing. That's why we like them; that's why comics fandom is such a fascinating realm to delve into

[mothy_van_cleer]

I'd say Golden Age Hugo Strange (who was, himself, described as having "the strength of a madman") qualifies as having as least some rudimentary form of mental illness, given that special narrative focus was given to his "brilliant but distorted" criminal brain and the odd, dented cranium that housed it. I assume Bob Kane was a phrenology buff or something in those days.

[psychopathicus]

Oh, I'm not saying there weren't any genuine lunatics amongst the group (although I would call that particular example a borderline one, as "brilliant but distorted" could just as easily be taken to mean 'smart but evil') - I'm just saying that they were commonly described as mad whether they were or not, so the lines of genuine insanity got blurred a bit.