Daredevil vs. Batman with a side of gibberish to go. Hold the mayo.

Bass

Nexus of the World
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
14,167
Location
Folkestone, UK
It sounds like you seem to think Bendis is everywhere in Marvel, when he is only writing two books (Avengers, New Avengers), and you're dismissing all of Marvel because of Bendis. What about all of the awesome books Marvel puts out? Incredible Hercules/Amadeus Cho: Prince of Power, Wolverine: Weapon X, Secret Avengers, Thunderbolts, Atlas, Amazing Spider-Man, Daredevil, Invincible Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The SHIELD, Secret Warriors and all of the cosmic books, hell even the Marvel Adventures line is good fun. As for DC, Secret Six is fantastic.

sopranospulledbackintd0.jpg


In all seriousness, I've not tried Hercules/Amadeus Cho and I've only heard good things. As for Wolverine: Weapon X and Secret Avengers, I haven't heard about it, but I don't care really. I tried Thunderbolts and it has never been good. Atlas, I dunno. Spider-Man is very hit and miss. Daredevil, I liked and haven't picked up in a while mainly because Daredevil is a crappy Batman (I wish it weren't so, but he is). Iron Man is a **** character, Thor is dull as hell (except for Ultimate Thor), as is Captain America. I didn't realise SHIELD was out and will give it a shot, and Secret Warriors I've skimmed and doesn't interest me. The cosmic books don't interest me either, and I don't know about Secret Six. Also, I thought Marvel Adventures is redrawn reprints, so I'm not interested.

My call to dump Marvel was more regarding the "event" titles, that is, titles linked to the big continuity-wide crossovers (Avengers and so forth) as it's just poopy.

But, I will give these a try, if I can. The thing is... right, these may be cool, but they are all mainstream superhero stuff, and that has a certain type of qualities to it that don't satiate me. I don't mean they suck, but it's like Scott McCloud said; "Superheroes are like cake. Who wants cake for every meal?" I'm really enjoying picking up titles like THE BELLYBUTTONS, a comedy about three teenage girls where each page is a different story, or PARKER, a terrific pulp comic. (That said, I'm really enjoying CRIMINAL which is Marvel too.)

I'll have to track down Terra Obscura though.

Just to clarify why it's awesome: It's not awesome because it is a huge spanning spectacle or what-have-you. It's awesome because it juggles dozens of characters who all have intricate backstories whilst giving them a 'end-of-the-world' scenario and is actually entertaining and readable. These characters, whom you have never heard of before walk onto the page fully-formed and completely understandable with the feeling that they existed in their own titles for years before and yet, you don't need to go back to read anything else to understand it. If you look at how it's written and how you read it cold, then imagine reading CIVIL WAR or FINAL CRISIS 'cold' (i.e. if you knew nothing about any of them) you realise just how lazy and shallow those comics are. TERRA OBSCURA is terrific because it's so... whole.

If Europe's comics spells words like "color" with a "u" than count me out.

*sniff* It's true. They do. It's why they can never be great. I... I kid myself, pretending they could be awesome but it's just lies!

Are you sure that's not spelled idiout?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

sopranospulledbackintd0.jpg


In all seriousness, I've not tried Hercules/Amadeus Cho and I've only heard good things. As for Wolverine: Weapon X and Secret Avengers, I haven't heard about it, but I don't care really. I tried Thunderbolts and it has never been good. Atlas, I dunno. Spider-Man is very hit and miss. Daredevil, I liked and haven't picked up in a while mainly because Daredevil is a crappy Batman (I wish it weren't so, but he is). Iron Man is a **** character, Thor is dull as hell (except for Ultimate Thor), as is Captain America. I didn't realise SHIELD was out and will give it a shot, and Secret Warriors I've skimmed and doesn't interest me. The cosmic books don't interest me either, and I don't know about Secret Six. Also, I thought Marvel Adventures is redrawn reprints, so I'm not interested.

My call to dump Marvel was more regarding the "event" titles, that is, titles linked to the big continuity-wide crossovers (Avengers and so forth) as it's just poopy.

Agreed.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I can see your points about Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America (though I vehemently disagree about Captain America and Iron Man), Marvel Adventures are stories set in their own continuity and are basically single issue and never have any major crossovers. Which Thunderbolts have you tried? Because the book's tone has shifted since post-Civil War and Dark Reign.

I tried it when it first came out and I tried it when Ellis was writing it and it is crap. The Thunderbolts had one idea; "What if, in the wake of all the major heroes disappearing, a bunch of villains pretended to be brand new heroes in order to take over the world?" And it played out in 12 issues. And it was okay, and fun. Now it is, "What if we have a superteam of supervillains doing superhero things?" and I can't begin to care. On the one hand, I feel like I should try it out, and maybe I will, and it might be wonderful, but I don't like the idea that one has to keep trying to see if tertiary characters from twenty years ago are "good now" when there's guys out there trying to get three people to pay attention to a samurai comic they just made.

Actually I think they're putting major crossovers to rest for now, any events are line contained (like World War Hulks in Hulk titles, Second Coming in the X-books, etc.)

The problem is I don't care about any of the stories. I just took a look online at the first issue of Incredible Hercules and it bored me. I'll give it a proper read, but my first impression is, "There is nothing interesting about this character." These guys blend together. Daredevil is a crappy Batman. Green Arrow is a crappy Captain America (seriously, he's the 'politically relevant one'). What's the difference between Flash and Spider-Man other than Flash is less interesting? This is why I'm so impressed with Hickman's FANTASTIC FOUR because Reed Richards is actually cool in it. I've not seen this guy before. Sometimes it works wonderfully and you get great characters (I have hope for Hercules), but most of the time its very standard stories with standard characters that can easily be interchanged. Was there anything in the Dark Reign stuff that would've been different if it had been Lex Luthor in charge of a Secret Society of Ra's Al Ghul, Black Adam, Joker, Sinestro, Vandal Savage, and Parallax? What I mean is; you could tell THE SIEGE and it would be identical with those characters in it. There is nothing intrinsic about most of these stories that require it to be the characters that are in them. Now maybe that's just what happens when you have a plethora of similar characters that've coexisted for decades, but all I know is, when I read most of these comics, I walk away wondering why I should care when the events and characters seem interchangeable without any effort.

That's a good point, though I'd argue that it's not necessarily cake for every meal but cake with every meal (well for me it is). Incidentally, have you ever tried The Goon?.

Yeah, I got the first volume. It was okay.

But most of those books also do nothing but tie into the main status quo then it's own story.

I think the first couple of Siege were really good and it got worse.

This is still leagues better then Civil War and Secret Invasion ever were.

I think it's just as poor. But that's just me.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I tried it when it first came out and I tried it when Ellis was writing it and it is crap. The Thunderbolts had one idea; "What if, in the wake of all the major heroes disappearing, a bunch of villains pretended to be brand new heroes in order to take over the world?" And it played out in 12 issues. And it was okay, and fun. Now it is, "What if we have a superteam of supervillains doing superhero things?" and I can't begin to care. On the one hand, I feel like I should try it out, and maybe I will, and it might be wonderful, but I don't like the idea that one has to keep trying to see if tertiary characters from twenty years ago are "good now" when there's guys out there trying to get three people to pay attention to a samurai comic they just made.

Personally I'm a sucker for redemption stories, so I really like the concept of villains trying to (or being forced to) reform. Plus the newest one has Man-Thing as the teams transportation, which is great.

The problem is I don't care about any of the stories. I just took a look online at the first issue of Incredible Hercules and it bored me. I'll give it a proper read, but my first impression is, "There is nothing interesting about this character." These guys blend together. Daredevil is a crappy Batman. Green Arrow is a crappy Captain America (seriously, he's the 'politically relevant one'). What's the difference between Flash and Spider-Man other than Flash is less interesting? This is why I'm so impressed with Hickman's FANTASTIC FOUR because Reed Richards is actually cool in it. I've not seen this guy before. Sometimes it works wonderfully and you get great characters (I have hope for Hercules), but most of the time its very standard stories with standard characters that can easily be interchanged. Was there anything in the Dark Reign stuff that would've been different if it had been Lex Luthor in charge of a Secret Society of Ra's Al Ghul, Black Adam, Joker, Sinestro, Vandal Savage, and Parallax? What I mean is; you could tell THE SIEGE and it would be identical with those characters in it. There is nothing intrinsic about most of these stories that require it to be the characters that are in them. Now maybe that's just what happens when you have a plethora of similar characters that've coexisted for decades, but all I know is, when I read most of these comics, I walk away wondering why I should care when the events and characters seem interchangeable without any effort.

That's a good point, the only thing I can really say to that is that the difference between Norman's Dark Reign and if it had been Luthor instead, is that Norman is not a power player. Throughout DR Norman is constantly overcompensating in order to show everyone, Dr. Doom, Loki, Iron Man, Spider-Man, etc. that he is a major threat, whereas Lex Luthor would not need to do that, everyone knows not to **** with Lex Luthor. Unlike Norman, no villains would snicker at him and very few would try to **** him over (seriously Luthor would have fed Zodiac his own ass), all the heroes wouldn't be going "Luthor's gonna slip up soon because he sucks.", they would be all "HOLY HELL, WE ARE SO DEAD!". And I just can't see Luthor being manipulated by Loki.
........I think I just went wildly off topic there.

For Hercules: The first arc was a Planet Hulk tie in, and can actually be skipped without too much problem. After that it's relatively smooth sailing.

Yeah, I got the first volume. It was okay.

It gets a lot better IMO.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Bass.... Dude... You're missing out. I read my fair share of indie comics too, and I'm a snob when it comes to superhero comics, but something rubs me the wrong way about how you single-handedly denounce characters as uninteresting. My general rule of thumb is to use writer's who's indie stuff I liked as a barometer as to whether I give their superhero stuff a spin. Superhero comics, of course, have stock parameters, as every genre does, but just the same as every genre, it all comes down to how creative teams subvert and interpret these tropes in interesting ways.

Iron Man is interesting because Fraction makes it a story of corporate politics and sabotage filtered through a superhero lens.
Secret Six is interesting because it has clever writing, clever characters, and a general dismissal of the "heroism" of men in capes stories. It's Thunderbolts without the redemption.
Atlas is unashamed pulpy goodness set in the modern day.
and Wolverine: Weapon X... Well... It's Jason Aaron. And despite being a Wolverine book, it does a pretty great job of jumping through different genres with each story.

I'm not an intellectual slouch. Hell, I'm kind of a literary snob. But there's nothing wrong with superhero comics, as long as they're told well. You don't have to eat cake every meal but, dude.... Dessert is awesome.
 
Last edited:
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

As for me, I only read comics written in France during the 1950s by bearded women.
 
Personally I'm a sucker for redemption stories, so I really like the concept of villains trying to (or being forced to) reform. Plus the newest one has Man-Thing as the teams transportation, which is great.

That's fair enough. I'm going to give all the comics you mentioned a shot when I have the time.

That's a good point, the only thing I can really say to that is that the difference between Norman's Dark Reign and if it had been Luthor instead, is that Norman is not a power player. Throughout DR Norman is constantly overcompensating in order to show everyone, Dr. Doom, Loki, Iron Man, Spider-Man, etc. that he is a major threat, whereas Lex Luthor would not need to do that, everyone knows not to **** with Lex Luthor. Unlike Norman, no villains would snicker at him and very few would try to **** him over (seriously Luthor would have fed Zodiac his own ass), all the heroes wouldn't be going "Luthor's gonna slip up soon because he sucks.", they would be all "HOLY HELL, WE ARE SO DEAD!". And I just can't see Luthor being manipulated by Loki.
........I think I just went wildly off topic there.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree, I don't think Luthor and Osborne are the same, and I don't think they'd run a cabal the same way. What I mean is that the way it was written has almost no intrinsic character elements. It is a sure bet that if they had been at DC with this idea, the Loki character (say, Joker) would've totally manipulated Luthor, and Ra's, Savage and the rest would all backstab him. I've seen it before. They're stock characters written in a stock way. Now, they can be written as unique, but it's generally rare, and this whole Cabal nonsense has nothing unique to it. As I say, the whole "Void" thing could easily be Parallax without any change except names.

Thinking about it, if I were going to do a Marvel "Secret Society" thing, Green Goblin wouldn't be in charge. He's too small-time, and why would he want to? All Green Goblin cares about is Spider-Man. You can have Osborne be a bigger bad, but then he's just Lex Luthor, so you lose originality. The difference between Lex and Osborne is that Osborne is insane and tragic. Lex, on the other hand, is completely amoral and meticulous. Osborne would round up five guys to hunt Spidey without a second thought, while Lex would consider just how to mess up the Justice League with a ten-year plan. Instead, this Cabal wouldn't work in the Marvel universe. Doom would refuse to work with anyone and he would take control of any Cabal. Doom's sheer arrogance would never let him serve under or alongside Loki, the White Queen, and Osborne. This guy says, "To hell with you" to the DEVIL. No one would ever trust Loki, nor would they respect the loner bastard son who created the Avengers. He's a God of Fools, an idiot who's more trouble than he's worth. The White Queen is completely unreliable, switching her allegiances on a daily basis. The same is true for Namor. Kang, Ultron, Red Skull, Baron Zemo... if you look at the Marvel universe, these villains all lead their own teams of loyal henchmen who can routinely 'almost' win, while each of these 'team leaders' is completely incapable of working with each other.

In the DC universe, where it's more of a solo villain with useless henchmen, and the only real teams are the Titans and the League, and you've got villains like Luthor, Vandal Savage, and Ra's Al Ghul, these villains with huge global resources who are routinely trumped by a single hero, they'd band together because they're practical. Osborne is not a practical man, nor is Doom. This is kinda what I mean; there seems no real effort to consider whether or not these characters would actually form a Cabal at all, let alone have one that could easily be replicated in the DCU.

That's kinda what I mean.

For Hercules: The first arc was a Planet Hulk tie in, and can actually be skipped without too much problem. After that it's relatively smooth sailing.

It gets a lot better IMO.

I'll try both Hercules and probably the Goon again, but the truth is: there are more comics out there than I can ever possibly read.

Bass.... Dude... You're missing out. I read my fair share of indie comics too, and I'm a snob when it comes to superhero comics, but something rubs me the wrong way about how you single-handedly denounce characters as uninteresting. My general rule of thumb is to use writer's who's indie stuff I liked as a barometer as to whether I give their superhero stuff a spin. Superhero comics, of course, have stock parameters, as every genre does, but just the same as every genre, it all comes down to how creative teams subvert and interpret these tropes in interesting ways.

Iron Man is interesting because Fraction makes it a story of corporate politics and sabotage filtered through a superhero lens.
Secret Six is interesting because it has clever writing, clever characters, and a general dismissal of the "heroism" of men in capes stories. It's Thunderbolts without the redemption.
Atlas is unashamed pulpy goodness set in the modern day.
and Wolverine: Weapon X... Well... It's Jason Aaron. And despite being a Wolverine book, it does a pretty great job of jumping through different genres with each story.

Me too. I like John Hickman's FANTASTIC FOUR, so I'm going to try SHIELD and SECRET WARRIORS. I used to like Bendis and Millar, but there it is. Morrison and Ellis are hit and miss for me, so I check it out. I'll try anything by Alan Moore.

The difference is; I've not read anything by Fraction or Aaron that I've liked. Now, I'm behind on the Max PUNISHER, but... I read Fraction's Iron Man (twice) and I really thought it was poor, and I read IRON FIST and it was so boring I returned it. I dislike Gail Simone's writing. I give them a fair chance, I do. I read stuff by the up and comers and always do, I did with Millar, Bendis, Geoff Johns, Greg Pak... currently, the only one who I'm really enjoying is Hickman's FANTASTIC FOUR, so I'm going to try to find more of his stuff.

I try not to be a snob at all: I love Millar's SUPERMAN ADVENTURES and his initial run on THE ULTIMATES. And I'll grab stuff at random and if it's good, it's good. I'll pick up anything. But if I do, and it's not good, I'm not going to keep giving it a 'chance' because it happens to be about a character that used to be good, or because it's the best turd sandwich in the bunch.

I'm not an intellectual slouch. Hell, I'm kind of a literary snob. But there's nothing wrong with superhero comics, as long as they're told well. You don't have to eat cake every meal but, dude.... Dessert is awesome.

I try hard not to sound like a literary or intellectual snob, because while it may sound that way, it's not true. The two comics I've loved the most in the recent years? THE BELLYBUTTONS and GREEN MANOR, and neither one is close to being considered "literary" or "intellectual". In fact, literary, intellectual titles turn me off. What I care about is quality; I read THE ULTIMATES. If I'm going to read an Avengers comic, if it isn't that good, I'm going to drop it. Why should I keep giving it a chance, when THE ULTIMATES worked out of the gate? If someone's doing an elseworlds tale, I'm going to compare it to KINGDOM COME or EARTH X and if it doesn't hold up, I'm dropping it. FANTASTIC FOUR is as entertaining as TOM STRONG for me, which I adore, so I'm loving it. But there's so many different comics out there, and I've read so many good superhero stories, I'm not going to sit there and read substandard ones just to get something new. I don't care. I recently bought IRON MAN: ENTER THE MANDARIN. I was told it was good, hard great art by Eric Canete (which does) and it's written by Joe Casey, who I've enjoyed. It was boring as hell.

I try these guys out all the time, and I love superheroes so damn much, but the vast majority of them are just plain bad, and the ones people claim are good are often just mediocre. At least, that's how I feel. :/

As for me, I only read comics written in France during the 1950s by bearded women.

You sir, are an inspiration.

You are so, so wrong.

So wrong.

Any Daredevil story could easily be a Batman story. All you have to do is change Bullseye for Joker and Bane or Ra's for Kingpin. And then you realise Joker is cooler than Bullseye and Bane and Ra's are cooler than Kingpin. Catwoman is better than Typhoid Mary and Talia is better than Elektra. Scarecrow is better than Mr Fear. Penguin is better than Owl. Killer Croc is more interesting than Gladiator. And Daredevil doesn't even have Riddler, nor Mad Hatter, nor Two-Face.

And that if you were to try it the other way, turn a Batman story into a Daredevil story, you couldn't because Daredevil isn't a detective.

Now, sure, Matt Murdock and Bruce Wayne are very different and you couldn't have the lawyer stuff, but you, know, Jim Gordon. And then Hell's Kitchen is a gothic city like Gotham.

Any Daredevil story can be a Batman story with virtually no change, but Daredevil can't take on Batman's stories.

And it shouldn't come as a surprise; Frank Miller re-invented Daredevil the same time he was writing BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and all Daredevil has been since then is that story repeated again and again.

Seriously. The original tale of Kingpin, Elektra, Bullseye? Imagine if it was Ra's, Joker, and Talia.

It plays the same and is more awesome.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I think that Bass is right, with the clause that it's modern Daredevil who's overly similar to Batman. As he said, this can be attributed to Frank Miller basically rewriting both incarnations into the same quasi-noir hero. The cheery, Swashbuckling 1960's Daredevil had more in common with Errol Flynn's Robin Hood than anyone else, and I don't think would be comparable to any popular version of Batman. Unfortunately, virtually every writer for the last thirty years has been desperately mimicking Frank Miller, so we haven't seen much diversity between the two.

I don't know what any of this has to do with Siege, though...
 
Last edited:
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

IT HAS ALL TO DO WITH SIEGE!

Also, yes, that is exactly what I mean. I should clarify, that Daredevil's stories (like the Frank Miller one) are actually good, I'm not saying they're bad at all. It's just that... he's Batman. But less so.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Any Daredevil story could easily be a Batman story. All you have to do is change Bullseye for Joker and Bane or Ra's for Kingpin. And then you realise Joker is cooler than Bullseye and Bane and Ra's are cooler than Kingpin. Catwoman is better than Typhoid Mary and Talia is better than Elektra. Scarecrow is better than Mr Fear. Penguin is better than Owl. Killer Croc is more interesting than Gladiator. And Daredevil doesn't even have Riddler, nor Mad Hatter, nor Two-Face.

And that if you were to try it the other way, turn a Batman story into a Daredevil story, you couldn't because Daredevil isn't a detective.

Now, sure, Matt Murdock and Bruce Wayne are very different and you couldn't have the lawyer stuff, but you, know, Jim Gordon. And then Hell's Kitchen is a gothic city like Gotham.

Any Daredevil story can be a Batman story with virtually no change, but Daredevil can't take on Batman's stories.

And it shouldn't come as a surprise; Frank Miller re-invented Daredevil the same time he was writing BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and all Daredevil has been since then is that story repeated again and again.

Seriously. The original tale of Kingpin, Elektra, Bullseye? Imagine if it was Ra's, Joker, and Talia.

It plays the same and is more awesome.

I agree that DD and Batman are about as close as two heroes from the differing sides of the big two can get (thanks to Frank Miller).

But I like DD SOOOO much better than Batman. Miller's run on DD are some of my favourite comics ever and I barely even like Batman Year One and I didn't like The Dark Knight Returns at all.

and King Pin is one of the coolest villains ever.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I think The Dark Knight Returns and Year One utilize Gotham City as a framing mechanism more effectively than any other comic I've read; it really adds an exciting atmosphere, one that very few Batman comics have. I think that the most remarkable parts of Frank Miller's Batman have more to do with his environment than the character himself. The Miller Batman is pretty one-note, all things considered. The constant narration is pretty dull, as well. Bass says that Batman is defined by his villains, but I think his city is just as influential. None of it matters if he's not characterized properly, regardless. Miller's notable Batman works are acclaimed because they have smidgens of brilliance, but it's undermined by Miller's characteristic failings as a writer.

Does Matt Murdock even have a personality beyond being Catholic, blind Batman? It's a genuine question, not a facetious mockery. I've read the Miller run, and most of Bendis and Brubaker's stuff on the title, and he's never appeared to have any unique or distinguishable traits. He's handsome, righteous and occasionally self destructive, but that essentially describes every superhero ever. When written properly, Bruce Wayne is a complex protagonist, and in tandem with his aforementioned surrounding elements, this can make for an excellent story. I don't really think that Matt Murdock has the same potential. Of course, a more knowledgeable Daredevil fan might be able to correct me.

And, uh, in conclusion...siege is awful.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Siege would have been better if Batman was in it.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Fair enough, Bass.

Have you picked up Fraction's Casanova? (Plug-plug-plug). It's awesome, and apparently it's going to be reprinted/continued by Marvel starting in the next few months.
 
Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Bass, you are being absurdly reductionist with your perception of Daredevil, and you're not interested in most of the characters you've listed because you're not invested in them. Reading ONE issue of a book then labeling a character as a poor mans blank or a crappy blank, I expected far better from you.

I await you're absurdly long post that will sound smart but really be very pretentious that I won't bother to read because I'm from the western world and have the attention span of a gnat.

I think he meant more of the characters being of the same archetypes, in this case orphan vigilante who dispenses rough street justice, Daredevil tends to come off as a wannabe Batman. I disagree with Bass, but I can see where he's coming from. One could also make the argument that it's the comic's job to make you interested in the character in every issue or, more realistically, in the first issue of that character's new series at least (Hellboy is a good example of this). However I think it's always a good idea to keep a sense of investment in the characters, because even if the first several issues of something don't do it for you, investment in the character will make you willing to comeback later if you hear that the stories are better (Ghost Rider's recent series and the Red Robin series are good examples of being crap at first but getting a lot more interesting later on).
 

Latest posts

Back
Top