Catwoman - Sorry to spoil your big debut, newbie, but...

----------------------

Catwoman even shoves his eye catching face outside of view so her boobs can regain center of interest. You can see her boobs give his face a clear warning to get the hell out of there in panel 4. It's a brilliant script.

I know I'm in the minority but I really like the image that Chad posted of Dick and Damian especially in the context of the comic. Batman's been missing for months and Gordon is still lighting the signal, hoping for a sign and the new Batman and Robin make their debut in dramatic fashion, springing from the new 'flying' Batmobile down towards the rooftop to meet with Gordon with the batsignal in the background. I really like it.

As my little ones said, 'that looks cool' :)

The character was a joke character.  He was supposed to be an amateur idiot with sonic vibration gloves trying to become a big name villain, as you can tell from the dialogue.  He basically gets his butt handed to him...repeatedly...through the issue.

Well, if that's the case, what's the motivation behind building a story around a character created to be presented as a joke?  If it's true, it's no wonder that the execution is flawed because the concept was flawed at conception, and to me, it's suggestive of creators without pride in their chosen field of work.

And it raises the question: What's worse, a person who unintentionally creates bad characters, or a person who intentionally creates bad characters?  To me, the answer is obvious, and with the prevelence of the latter, how can anyone expect a reader to embrace a character if the people creating the stories refuse to embrace the same.  And this, I think, is expandable to a much larger question going on in a different thread. 

Now, as I asked before, please point out the specific dialog that indicates the character is intended to be a "joke".

Backgrounds would definitely help, but I can follow it.

--

Didn't say I couldn't follow it, I said it is flawed.

Which it is.

I think you forgot the most important selling point: Batgirl and Catwoman running around Buck Nekkid at an upscale sex club.

+++

Knut, that part of the book is what bugged me. The story was damn fine and that type of gratuity was not necessary. It seems like that was tacked on for fans of 'pin up booby girl art' for sales.

BUT:

Did you not like the Asylum scenes? Did you not like the battle of wits? And the main reason I posted this suggestion for fans:

Did you not LOVE the Grandeur and Gravitas when a certain Bat character was in the story? He was not some guy in a suit. He was the Raison d'etre for the OTHER characters to be.

Fantastic stuff.

No really...Quietly draws the worst Batman ever. I love Kelley Jones' Batman (I mean, I think it has merit) for the simple reason that Jones is investing something into the art. You can tell Jones, no matter how you fall on the issue of whether or not he "should" draw Batman the way he draws Batman, is an artist with a macabre sensibility. His Batman lurks and creeps about, harkening to his influences. Bill Seinkiewicz's Batman is just as freakish and weird and we attribute that to Bill S's artistic license...Kelley Jones runs along the same lines but I don't think the guy is so pretentiously viewed.

Quietly just stinks. His panels are mind-numbingly bland. As has been pointed out, bland for a SUPERHERO COMIC BOOK. I can imagine Quietly and Chris Weston and Geoff Darrow could knock me out with some poignant art on some kind of other project, but NOT on Batman.

I think people make the mistake, seriously, of assuming every artist is capable of drawing every book. That's a misconception. Stan Lee didn't hip to Jack Kirby drawing Spider-Man. It didn't work, it would never work. Kirby didn't go in for those skinny little superheroes scrabbling up walls...that just wasn't where Kirby was. Spider-Man, in Kirby's hands, didn't look like Spider-Man. Easily the worst part of this cover is, you guessed it, the one character Kirby didn't excell at:

Yet look at that Daredevil...he's the best thing on a classic cover. And it's not to say there's anything horrible about Spider-Man here, just something a little "off."

By the way, I think Kirby's DD works so well because he's a "man." Kirby must have been aware of Spider-Man being a "kid" body and tried to slim him down. But DD is a full-bodied Kirby beefcake, which falls within the acceptable standards of the character, much like Cap and Black Panther.

Now, with Frank Quietly, it doesn't matter to the higher-ups that his Batman sucks it. He's a name, and he's favored by the Morrison. Apparently, Quietly is favored by the "fans" as well. This is falling into the category of art that vexes me, art that seems purposely designed to suckle the life from the proceedings. I guess fans want that kind of art. They want pasty, lumpy human beings in costumes speaking in Morrison-cum-Burroughsesque mind-f*ck-eeze.

"Batmobile: hover." Oooo. That's sooo tough. And apparently the G-forces are crushing Robin's skull into a trapezoid. Meanwhile, a Batman action figure turns its immoble face to Robin: "Ready to test the paracapes?"

Spluuuurt! Everyone cum!

I'm sorry, folks. Quietly is awful. DC has brokered their future on the back of a bald Porsche salesman and his tribe of unethical also-rans (I hate to lump James Robinson into this group, but the man's earning his wings with the tripe he's doing with Superman titles and this JUSTICE LEAGUE thing). Really, really unbelievable.