| |
|
I’ve read it twice now, and here are some stray thoughts:
(Oh, and: SPOILERS, unsurprisingly)
Both the art and the storytelling suffer in comparison to DKR, in my opinion, due to the absence of Klaus Janson and the use of the sixteen-panel grid. The combined effects of these is to make things look generally looser and less rigid, and combined with the art style that Miller’s developed since the original series, things look more like Batman in Sin City, but that’s kind of an inevitability.
On the other hand, in a way, that could almost be interpreted as (contrary to what people have said, comparing it with the Authority and other more recent titles) a modernisation, as instead of things being propelled along under some kind of enforced narrative structure, there’s a bit more of a sense that Miller’s allowing himself room to play and enjoy certain sequences (such as the Atom’s imprisonment). This is something I’ve seen debated on the WEF a lot – the idea that OGNs are better than ‘pamphlets’/’Singles’ as they mean a story isn’t compressed to fit a certain number of pages – but you could equally argue that it allows creators to pad things out… but I think it would nonetheless suggest that Miller’s not as out-of-touch as people claim he is.
The story’s not as surprising and fresh-seeming, inevitably (how exciting are the Matrix sequels going to seem compared with the original ? Not as, I fear – a large amount of the intrigue and interest stems from gradually coming to understand the world the story takes place in). However, there’s a good sense of utter contempt for Superman and his order-following ilk, and the media speculation about terrorist attacks etc is interesting to see in the light of recent events. The comments I’ve seen on this board that Miller is a B-movie hack and things like that seem unfair to me; a review at the time Watchmen and Dark Knight were new releases said that Moore writes for the head, Miller writes for the gut, and I think that’s the case again here – it’s punchy writing, and (on the whole) effective as such. Though I think the introduction of other characters, especially the Question, into the tale may not be as new-reader-friendly as DKR was, which gave us a quick rundown on characters such as Two-Face; no such recaps here.
And I don’t think the cover was particularly ugly, to be honest – not the best cover I’ve ever seen, nor the worst. And it serves the all-important function that, if someone heard there was a sequel to ‘that Batman story from years ago’ and went into a store looking for it, the fairly distinctive layout and striking image should make itself readily apparent to most eyeballs…
Colouring was a bit patchy, I’d agree; I gather it’s Lynn Varley’s first use of computer colouring ? Perhaps unfortunate that it’s on such a high-profile project, really… but I’ve seen worse (I think issue 7 of Rising Stars is probably the worst – the whole book seemed to be coloured in grey). And IIRC, the colours on DKR got more compex as the series went on, so that could change.
Lettering ? It’s Todd Klein, so who’s going to complain ? Though I kind of wonder why John Costanza wasn’t asked back – anyone know anything on this ?
Anyway, it was all right. I’ve spent worse £5.75s in my life (less than a trip to the cinema in central London), and I’m interested enough to come back for more. And it is, at the end of the day, an 80-page comic, so there was little chance that it was going to be the world-changing event that it was pushed as being. And it’s worth remembering that the original Dark Knight series was something of a sleeper, hardly pushed at all by DC, and only when people read it and responded to it did it get attention and publicity, so it pretty much surpassed limited expectations (both in the audience and - arguably – DC as well). As opposed to this time round, where the expectations are – let’s face it – probably ludicrously high, and more than partly so because of DC’s publicity push.
DBC |
|
|
) paid dollars for this book yet? 
