BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

Planetary / Batman: Night On Earth (SPOILERS)

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Jack Fear
17:04 / 25.06.03
After a ludicrous absence, PLANETARY is back. Kind of. The regular title resumes publication in August—but for now, there's this gorgeous prestige-format book to both hold us over and whet our appetites.

And I liked it a lot. It's good, geeky fun.

The central conceit—reconciling the different versions and takes of Batman over the years—is the bit that's going to get the most attention: but my favorite aspects were all Planetary-related: the character bits, the teasing banter, and oh, the one-liners:

"Tell me you're single."

"Who are you? Sherlock Holmes?"

"You like him, don't you? He's your special Bat-Friend."

All this and the Drummer humping a TV set.

I liked the implications of a Gotham City without the Batman, too—the prostitution, the omnipresent garbage and porn, the vision of Dick Grayson and "Jasper" as wan, lost figures, with no principle around which to organize their lives.

Things I didn't like: the villain was a touch colorless. Was he supposed to be someone we knew? His outfit suggested some sort of cut-rate supervillain, but I didn't catch the reference. And "John Black" was such an Ellis-by-numbers name.

And did we really need yet another peek into the Batman's tortured psyche and motivations? The middle-section romp through his various iterations was great—I laughed aloud—but the touchy-feely stuff made me groan, just a little.

Still and all—if I weren't already eager for the return of PLANETARY, this would be enough to set me to fiending.

Anyone else have thoughts?
 
 
PatrickMM
17:45 / 25.06.03
I thought it was a lot of fun, and nicely walked the line between being a tribute to Batman, and making fun of him.

The best part was the appearance of the many Batman incarnations. 60's Batman was hilarious, "Bat-apologies," and Bat-Evil-Female-Villain-Repellant were great. The "special bat-friend" line was great too.

Just the idea of all the multi-verse Batmans appearing was great, and it worked quite well. This was more about the jokes, so it wasn't the best of Planetary stories, but I don't have any complaints. And it's a much better sign for the rest of the book than Planetary/JLA.
 
 
Jack Fear
17:51 / 25.06.03
Well, it's significant who gets the top billing: the previous was JLA / PLANETARY, while this was PLANETARY / BATMAN.

So this is a full-fledged Planetary story with Batman in it, while the other was a JLA story, and played out like one—which was why I found it less than satisfying, frankly. Seeing Planetary as villains was kind of fun, but in the end that project was just another JLA Elseworlds.
 
 
LDones
23:28 / 25.06.03
I thought JLA/Planetary was piss-poor. This, I enjoyed - fun, and I agree on the huggy bits/entertaining bits issue. I never really buy into the conceit that Planetary is exploring the archaeology of comics history, but this issue felt a bit more like it - though perhaps as more of a really amusing microcosmic deconstruction of the Batman 'thing', with the villain thrown in as an excuse for it.

But yeah, I thought Ellis' scorecard went up a point on this one. Nice read.
 
 
PatrickMM
00:09 / 26.06.03
So this is a full-fledged Planetary story with Batman in it, while the other was a JLA story, and played out like one—which was why I found it less than satisfying, frankly. Seeing Planetary as villains was kind of fun, but in the end that project was just another JLA Elseworlds

That, and the Cassaday art made a lot of difference. He's one of the best people working in comics today, and owns the characters in the book. Even though the delay is annoying, I'm really glad they didn't get someone else, because even Phil Jiminez (on Planetary/Authority) couldn't come close to what Cassaday does on the book.
 
 
_Boboss
11:02 / 26.06.03
john black wasn't the villain, he was the victim. it's hardly batman if there's no one to save

this filled me full of glee and no mistake [except perhaps the jasper having green hair. maybe after his wife died he just threw himself in a vat of chemicals anyway. nasty.] which version of batman was the final one? was he the 'inspired by alex ross' one, or one of the others i may have missed? he had a feel of p craig russell if y'ask me[hardly a definitive batartist], and ross' influence could have been in the presentation of fat sixties batman.

i loved the way there was no distinction made in the Real between regular continuity batman [albeit from decades past], tv show batman [who remains the overriding yardstick of batman outside the comics subcult], or miller's elseworld batman. just all batman.

and don't you love all of him? i still love bruce even over logan-san, he's just the coolest hero ever

and the feelgood stuff at the end made me feel good, no apologies, as well i think as providing a reasonable explanation for the big 'why does he do it?' question, which other generally better writers than ellis have struggled with.

woah get yr geek on

basically this issue makes me want to get a batman suit from the costume shop and crouch atop a lamppost all night till i see someone doing crimes (smoking a joint prolly knowing what folk are like round here], then beat them up and do them with teargas until they see the error of their ways. rocken
 
 
FinderWolf
13:41 / 26.06.03
I think the final Batman was the real-life-guy dressed up as Batman from the bad 1950's Batman movie serials.

Also, anyone notice that there were TWO Frank Miller Batmans - first Bats from THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and second from THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES BACK? Look carefully. I don't think I'm off my rocker on this one. I could ask Cassaday, though, for clarification.

This was really a lot of fun.

"It's a problem for you."

"I totally beat you up, you know that, don't you?"

Great Bats/Jakita dialogue.

Cassaday's art was fantastic as always. Although the whole multiple Batmen thing reminds me of an old issue of SUPERMAN: MAN OF STEEL in which Louise Simsonson and Jon Bogdanove did the same thing, and they did it first (it was during DC's ZERO HOUR crossover thingie).
 
 
the Fool
01:36 / 27.06.03
I think possibly John Black was the Bruce Wayne of the Planetary world, thwarted by the 4 like the wonder woman, green (blue) lantern and superman. It would explain Bats non existence in the world of planetary.
 
 
CameronStewart
04:41 / 27.06.03
>>> which version of batman was the final one? was he the 'inspired by alex ross' one, or one of the others i may have missed?<<<

The Alex Ross Batman is the first one - compare with Ross' oversize Batman kids' book thing.
 
 
_Boboss
08:09 / 27.06.03
right i remember that now. bruce in a corset regretting the double helping of profiterroles at the charity banquet: 'i am batman as drawn by alex ross. my parents died and all wit was drained from my stout, realistically rendered form'.

where does the second 'couldn't cut the mustard! never had the guts!!' miller batman come in? i just can't see it, there's no shift between the intro of the first miller bats and the adams one, then kane and then future or movie batman (not quite sure on that last one still).

there's more at stake here than your moral whateveritis
no there isn't

and the anti-NRA disclaimer at the front of the book cheered me too.
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:48 / 27.06.03
It struck me also that John Black was actually Bruce Wayne. It reinforced how/why he would also end up at Crime Ally. That recognition was possibly also what allowed Batman to let that one go.

Art ROCKING!!! That Last Batman looked verymuch like an Amalgam of Movie & future/Elseworlds Batman.

Loved the...Partial Multiverse collapse in 1986.

And "call me Mr Freeze"
 
 
houdini
17:38 / 27.06.03

The plot was totally stupid. They even had Batman using a gun (!) at one point.

Dude, it's like... has Warren Ellis never read 'Year Two'...?

Dude.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:05 / 27.06.03
Can't figure out if you're being serious or not... you do know that for a while in 1938-39, the comics had Batman carrying a gun?

"Year Two" was an attempt to explain that away "in continuity," while Ellis was essentially saying, Screw continuity—every era gets the Batman it deserves.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:46 / 27.06.03
Good god. "Night On Earth" is a truly awful title.

Does every era get the horrible graphic novel title it deserves too, Jack?
 
 
Jack Fear
18:48 / 27.06.03
I liked it, actually. I dug the Jim Jarmusch reference.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:49 / 27.06.03
(and like "God Loves, Man Kills" was a title for the ages?)
 
 
fluid_state
21:42 / 27.06.03
If that's true, I'm waiting for someone to unearth the late 90's classic "X-Treme X-Men: God Loves, Man Rocks". Apologies for the threadrot. I'll buy this bats/planetary comic as penance.
 
 
sleazenation
10:34 / 28.06.03
Two things that I noticed that no-one seems to have mentioned yet...

1. 1986 - Dimensional instability occured in the year Watchmen was published and resulted in some deaths similar to those that occured at the end of Watchmen when some false extradimensional alien is teleported into NYC. Also the Watchmen themselves can be seen as the product of an alternative universe being as they are based on the Charlton comics characters...

2. Batman When Planetary return to their own reality at the end of the story Batman disappears, which suggests that There is no batman equivelent and that the Midnighter is not the Batman of the Wildstorm universe as he is often described...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:12 / 28.06.03
Sleaze: Well, Midnighter isn't Batman in the sense that he's not Bruce Wayne, and he is a superhuman. That doesn't mean that Midnighter isn't the Wildstorm Universe's Batman-equivalent.

Grant Morrison made an equivalence between Grifter and Batman in one of his JLA stories, which I thought was interesting: both human, both skills-based, very different styles.

But Midnighter, like Batman, has gone through rather a lot of incarnations - in a short space of time. Ellis' original was a tactical genius. He was more dangerous than Apollo, and not because he was strong and fast, but because you simply couldn't out-think him. In that respect, he was very much like Batman (at least, many of the Batman versions). More recently, Midnighter (like the rest of the Authority) has been significantly dumbed down - but then, Batman's gone through phases where he needed a Bat-paperknife to get out of a paper bag. (Yes, I loved the Bat-Female-Villain-Repellant, too.)

I didn't spot the Bruce Wayne / John Black equivalence - but given what happened to his parents, I can see why you might make the link. On the other hand, Bruce Wayne is hardly the only orphan in the world.

Whose Batman version was the rather godlike one? He was a bit wordy.

Another thought - good to see that one way and another, Batman and Planetary both managed to come through the encounter looking good. Too often, in these crossovers, one side gets made into a dumbass so the other side can look cool - except that doesn't work, of course: heros are defined by the quality of their opposition.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
20:18 / 28.06.03
Ugh. I really really love Cassaday. really. Because without him, I would not have read this. I've been reading Ellis for ages and I really cannot think of why anymore. The man is a terrible writer.This story in particulat has that familiar tendency to fall down a black hole of purposelessness (why is any of this happening??), then he tries to retrieve it at the last minute with his heartfelt meaning bit... which feels rushed.

I can hear Ellis' disdain for Batman and for super heroes in general with every page. And it stinks. I mean, why do a Batman story if you're just going to present Dick Grayson as an idiot and the Joker as his assistant? Why not even give an explanation for that? If you are going to use Batman, why just toss a salad of versions of him in the air and have him fight Jakita? THAT'S a story??!!

The whole concept of John Black jumping from reality to reality only made things worse. If you take the Batman out of this story, you have a tale of the Planetary crew chasing a reality hopping John Black. Without John Black, you have Jakita fighting Batman and aren't Batman characters silly and stupid (see depiction of Grayson and 'Jaspers').

But Batman does not add to the John Black story and Black does not add to the Batman story.

So why does this comic exist? The only reason I ask is because it makes no sense. It doesn't radiate the energy of the early Planetary issues about nationalism, the sanctity of life and the power of imagination... or Godzilla, ghost Hong Kong cops and Morrison's bruised feelings on the Matrix.

If Ellis wanted to tell a tale of how Batman is this 'all present avenger,' I'm not buying it. I've seen Ellis quoted as saying that he doesn't care for Batman. The interviewer cautioned a guess that since Batman has no powers, maybe Ellis would like him in some way. Ellis said he still viewed Batman as part of the problem with comics. The way he presents Batman here is basically seen in the last couple of pages. But why waste all those other pages with John Black if you were telling a Batman story? I think Ellis is just doing this for the money... or I hope so. If he really finds work of this caliber rewarding that's a bad sign.

Cassaday, on the other hand loves Batman. His introduction was the hard to find Batman from the 30's to the 70's and you can tell. He really captures the vitality of the character, even givingus his own 'uber Batman' at the end which incorporates certain elements of other versions but mainly allows Cassaday to draw his own design.

Which is the only reason this comic is worth getting, in my opinion. The art is stupendous, energized and sharp. You can even see Cassaday growing with this issue.

But the story is tried, strained and I know I'm in the minority here, but not funny. The 'Tell me you're single' bit was the closest it got to humor for me, but mainly the joke ruined a great fighting panel.

So... I'm definitely on the fence about buying this comic anymore. I really enjoy the previous tales and the most recent ones actually began to go in a direction (shock shock!) rather than give us 'Man... some weird shit went down here... you shoulda seen it... now I'm gonna reference some amazing comic books from thirty years ago no one remembers...' which can be good though derivative. Steal from the best, that's fine, but DO SOMETHING WITH IT, Warren!!

Loved JLA/Planetary, though. Art was great. Ordway is the man. Characters were strong. No wasted time. Got it for fifty cents.

(Also, I believe the 1986 event is Crisis on Multiple Earths)
 
 
Ganesh
20:39 / 28.06.03
Yep, I assumed it was 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' rather than 'Watchmen'.
 
 
Jack Fear
22:43 / 28.06.03
...why do a Batman story if you're just going to present Dick Grayson as an idiot and the Joker as his assistant? Why not even give an explanation for that?

(A) It's not a Batman story: it's a Planetary story. And the Planetary concept is all about examining pop-cultural artifacts and archetypes from a variety of different angles, and teasing something interesting out of them. That's what Planetary does. that's what this tory does. No more, no less.

(B) What kind of "explanation" did you need? Isn't it obvious why Dick Grayson ended up the way he did? There's no Batman in the Wildstorm universe: and without Batman, what chance did the poor kid have at growing up a functional human being?
 
 
sleazenation
23:53 / 28.06.03
Did crisis on infinite earths come out in 1986 too? Not being such a DCU fan I didn't make that (in retrospect seemingly obvious) connection, but having said that I think there is still a little of watchmen about it - it is after all one of the big three graphic novels released that year that changed the face of (comics) popular culture.

Also - I don't read Planetary as much more than essays on (20th century) pop culture in comic form. As such they work, for me at least, they certainly have been more successful. Hell there is probably a whole thread in the problems and weakness of various writers, comics and otherwise, but for all Ellis faults as a writer, I think Planetary is one of his more successful books.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
01:10 / 29.06.03
sleazenation, I agree, this is his better work.

Jack, I like your view of the comic better than what I read.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:14 / 29.06.03
I doubt it's terribly useful, but it occurs to me that the villain in some of Alan Moore's 'Captain Britian' was the nefarious Jasper (or was it 'Jaspers'?) - I'd assumed the '86 thing was an Infinite Earths reference - at least in so far as I'm cognisant of the whole Infinite Earths thing - but that might be relevant, too.

I'd be intrigued to see more of 'Jasper' in Planetary, actually. Imagine a Joker rendered brilliant, violent, and curiously powerful by the actions of the Four instead of by Batman - he'd become, for example, William Leather's nemesis. And he'd make a lovely Fourth Man. Although maybe it's a one trick pony.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:30 / 29.06.03
That was Jaspers - Mad Jim Jaspers, to be exact.

As for this - well, the "lots of Batmen" thing had already been done, and done better, by Evan Dorkin in "World's Funniest" a year or so ago, but I thought this was fun. A fun *comic*. Why exactly it got a stiff cover and a $5.95 price tag I'm not so sure of. It seems odd that people who like Warren Ellis are now being financially penalised by having to pay extra to celebrate the fact that he has actually written something...
 
 
Ganesh
15:50 / 29.06.03
Sleaze: Yeah, 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' ran over 1985 and '86.
 
 
Sax
20:56 / 29.06.03
Not a bad little diversion, this. Planetary is such a comic geek's comic, though, isn't it? You wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of understanding it unless you had 40-odd years of continuity locked away in your head where normal boys kept the team-sheets for Charlton Athletic. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing, though; self-referential smugness always worth investing in.

One gripe: A six-page fight scene between Batman and Jakita? Without dialogue? Unnecessary and typical Ellis flab.

I definitely read the '86 reference as Crisis and as for the Joker... the "Jasper" reference rings a bell. Wasn't that his secret identity at one point or something?
 
 
Warewullf
22:18 / 29.06.03
Zooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm.............

I forgot how quickly Planetary comics fly by.

Still, I liked it. Not much to it, mind. Certainly didn't advance the Planetary characters/story much, aside from establishing that Gotham City exists in the Wildstorm Universe.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:45 / 30.06.03
Read it again. In any sane world, this would just be a moderate issue of 'Planetary'. Because we live in a world where Planetary comes out annually, this was exciting. But you're right, it's incredibly thin, and I just feel I've caught up on a filler episode I missed, which didn't tell Elijah anything more about his memory lapses or the Four.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:51 / 30.06.03
The first phrase of the above being 'I have read it again', not 'Read it again, foolish mortal, or I shall smite you with my Omniversal Blatterod until you cry "Mastrex"!'.
 
 
The Falcon
09:08 / 30.06.03
Everyone who's experienced one 'iteration' of Batman would understand the idea of the facets contained in this comic.

I think Superman, Batman and Spider-Man have made their origins fairly widely known. Or rather their franchising has.

So, yes, Sax - the more oblique lines like 'multiversal collapse', and especially mentions of Chase and City Zero, are easter eggs for superhero afficionadoes like everyone posting here. But, as Jack (and most here) says, it's fun. Kinda like those Batman: Black and White compendiums, but given an overarching narrative. And colour, obviously.

Nice art.

The origin useage is interesting: it's the only innate, beside the costume + symbol and fighting crime, element to all the Batmans.

Best Ellis thing for a long while, too.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:02 / 30.06.03
I think the first Dark Knight/Miller Batman is from THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and the second appearance (on the pages right after the 1986 DK Bats) is Cassaday drawing Batman more the way Miller drew him in the sort-of-lame sequel THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN. Look at the way Cassaday draws the head, the degree of black on his cowl and gloves, even the gloves themselves are slightly different. The Bat-symbol on his chest in the second appearance is also more the way Miller did it in DK2. I don't think I'm imagining this, but it's certainly possible that I am.
 
 
rakehell
05:07 / 01.07.03
John Cassaday has posted some thoughts about this on his website.
 
 
_Boboss
07:18 / 01.07.03
see what your saying wolfie but i just don't buy it. on his site cassady refer's to miller's bats in the singular. and 'sort of lame sequel'? you're due a re-read sun, that was one of the best comics dc has put out for years.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply