Comments on: Review: Batman/Doc Savage Special #1

By: lifeisaglitch

lifeisaglitch — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:14:11 +0000

If “on” is disregarded—cut me some slack..2nd language…

By: lifeisaglitch

lifeisaglitch — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:11:35 +0000

I agree with Matthew, the timeframe did not concern me even though i have great respect for the characters and their history..And i do hate when they screw up regarding that kind (Colour TV) of stuff in period pieces. BUT when it is intentional, it is allowed to dub an era: “Pulpy-noir-Sc!ence Time”..For that is awesome much like Astronauts riding on dinosaurs.

BTW that is TOTALLY the greatest name for a band EVER!

By: Aerspyder

Aerspyder — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:26:55 +0000

And I keep forgetting to say “first time, long time . . .”

By: davek

davek — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:26:35 +0000

Stephen, why are you a hater?

By: Aerspyder

Aerspyder — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:22:59 +0000

Alright, on a second reading I see that I mistook passion for hatred. I’m sorry.

By: Matthew Peterson

Matthew Peterson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:04:22 +0000

Strangely, my situation with this book was less complicated, and didn’t have the hangups about the time-frame.

I propose that we look at this book (and, probably ALL of First Wave) as “Earth 1942,” a very noir-pulp world where sometimes things will seem anachronistic, like the Spirit series DC has been putting out. In an early issue, Denny Colt has an adventure where he does all his usual 1942 schtick, but the plot hinges on a cellular phone.

I liked the Doc here (although I’m troubled by some of the situations and character hooks Azarello puts in the Who’s Who section in back, specifically as regards The Avenger, Monk and Renny) and I am interested in seeing how this imprint is going to work.

Would it be more palatable if we were treat is as “What If” in the vein of the Marvel Noir books?

By: Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:20:50 +0000

That’s one of the stumbling block scenes that caused me to have to read everything multiple times to understand. If Gordon is drunk, then it makes more sense if there are errors.

By: ComicsontheBrain

ComicsontheBrain — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:16:23 +0000

I was actually quite bothered by the color TV, but I attributed that to a colorist not thinking things through. That and the very modern “network bug” they used to identify Vicki Vale on the TV.

I also spotted a few typos, which seems rare for a DC comic. During the Jim Gordon segue … should have read “WE have to deal with the political bull …” I remember spotting another, but now I can’t find it. :(

By: Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:37:11 +0000

Update: In regards to the information presented in Escape from Loki – Clark Savage was 16 when he entered World War I in 1918. As pointed out in the sketchbook section of the book, Doc is in his mid-thirties when the story takes place, using the number 35 as the mid-point, that would put 1937 as the year this story could take place, still two full years before Batman’s debut in 1939. Of course one could argue that 37 could still be considered mid-thirties, but that still doesn’t explain color television, clothing, and so on, and REALLy doesn’t explain the timeline regarding DAT tape, cars, blah, blah, blah.

Again, don’t get me wrong, the story in this issue works. It isn’t great but it works. The art is wonderful and out of this world, but the timeline throws everything off. And when you are pulled out of the story, something is wrong. If “someone” really wants a breakdown of the rating 5 Stars for Art, 2 Stars for writing = 3.5 Stars in the final review.

By: Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:27:16 +0000

In the original Doc Savage timeline, Doc and his crew did fight in World War I. However, in this issue, it can’t be The Great War due to the clothing people are wearing, which are clearly 50s and 60s influenced, the cars people are driving (modern), color television (60s), and the myriad of other historical concerns pointed out in the timeline at the beginning of the review. I have no idea what the creative team was thinking in terms of time, but it seems – from my perspective – that they took a look at the Bantam Books reprinting dates, and used that as the new Year One.

By: ComicsontheBrain

ComicsontheBrain — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:12:22 +0000

Regarding the timeline, I think they were referring to WWI as “The War.”

By: Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:07:56 +0000

Where do I say I hate it, again?

By: CMonocle (Eric)

CMonocle (Eric) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:05:58 +0000

I just want to know why you hated it so much, Stephen.

By: Stephen Schleicher

Stephen Schleicher — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:00:32 +0000

No, go back and read what I wrote. I never said I hated the book. I said it was a good book with some wonderful moments, that had flaws in the execution from the writing stand-point. Also, I never said I hated the art, I said the inclusion of modern technology in a story set in the past was a distraction, but the art is wonderful.

You say you expect more from me, but since you’ve never posted a comment on the site before, and since you really don’t know me, it is hard for someone to say you expect better from ME. It’s kind of like saying, “As a reader, I expected more from you”, and since I’m not that kind of ass, I’ll just leave you with this thought, “As always, your mileage will vary…”

By: Aerspyder

Aerspyder — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:49:36 +0000

So, you hated the book but loved it? Also, you hated the art but loved it? Are you just gushing over a Bat/Doc team-up so much that despite its flaws you are giving it a pass? I expected better from you.