This is from last week’s batch of “New 52s,” but none of this week’s new series appealed to me. Except for Superman (week four), all of the series I’m interested in are top-loaded into week one, even the ones I passed on initially. Looking ahead, I don’t see anything which interests me next week, either. I might be tempted to try some the JLA member’s solo titles (Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc.), but now that I’ve almost weaned myself off periodicals, I’m reluctant to start several new $3 a month habits. But enough of that. This thread is supposed to be about the new Batgirl series.
The Barbara Gordon Batgirl is one of my favorite characters. I’ve enjoyed nearly all of her post-Killing Joke flashback appearances and series, and was looking forward to her return as a costumed hero… at least I thought I was. This isn’t the old character who went away and I missed; this is a new “realistically-costumes” armored Batgirl. (I’m trying to look past the costume.) I’m not certain whether of not her time as Oracle is still in continuity. I get the feeling it is not, but who knows? The Killing Joke is placed “three years ago” in continuity, and the regained use of her legs was attributed to a “miracle.” If I rated the new Justice League “C” for average, then Batgirl rates a good solid “B” for above average.
My wife hasn’t read this issue yet, and I’ll leave it up to her whether or not we continue to buy this series. If she votes “yes” (and I’m guessing she will), I will continue to read it as well.
Views: 365
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
I need more answers about the return of Batgirl and she seems to have lost some of the fire and passion that she had as Oracle, if she was still Oracle!
I thought this comic was alright, but not worth going back to next month. If it blows everyone away in the next few months, I might pick up the trade, but for now, I think I'm bowing off.
I'll stick with it for a bit, but I'm a bit irritated that DC is doing the same thing with this set of relaunches that it did with Crisis On Infinite Earths -- rebooting the DC Universe, except for the oh-so-precious Batman. By hanging on to The Killing Joke as part of her history, they're daring us to be blown away by the explanation for how she's up and moving after steadfastly refusing to do so the past 25 years. It better be good.
On a little minor note: that detective who wanted to arrest Batgirl at the end was carrying a revolver. How long ago is this story set? Cops stopped carrying revolvers in the '80s.
...( Okay , spoilers . ) I sort of interpret the book's description of the status quo in Gotham as:
( Oh , and I guess she's back to being Gordon's biological offspring , with both sporting crimson/ginger dos ??????? There , I'm filling the space in the New Suff column...)
She remembers the crippling accident as being done by the Joker , it was - a more routine " home invasion " , by presumably non-super crooks - , to everybody else??
Possiblt no-one remembers that Batgirl was ever the Bat-Femme of Gotham?? Though she does .
I'd like to see a sixtyish healthy Vietnam Vet Jason Bard introduced , who regards this Batgirl with a certain fascination , as if - to quote a Rogers & Hart song - " but who knows where or when " , even he is not sure .
I haven't read the new Detective Comics #1, but I remember someone saying that that story (and the Joker's new "facial") occurred early in the Batman's career. Is that right...? Yet the "Killing Joke" flashback took place three years ago (and JLA five years ago), and the Joker was his usual clown-faced self.
That probably means the Joker shot her early in his career.
By the way, I don't think DC#1 is a flashback of any sort. I think we're being told that while Batman and the Joker have a history, they've maybe clashed a couple of handful of times rather than on every Tuesday like they have been for the past couple of decades.
Jeff of Earth-J said:
I haven't read the new Detective Comics #1, but I remember someone saying that that story (and the Joker's new "facial") occurred early in the Batman's career. Is that right...? Yet the "Killing Joke" flashback took place three years ago (and JLA five years ago), and the Joker was his usual clown-faced self.
On a little minor note: that detective who wanted to arrest Batgirl at the end was carrying a revolver. How long ago is this story set? Cops stopped carrying revolvers in the '80s.
I'm pretty sure that's a sign of poor research on the artist's part, not that the story takes place in the past. (I'm also pretty sure your question was rhetorical, but there ya go.)
On a little minor note: that detective who wanted to arrest Batgirl at the end was carrying a revolver. How long ago is this story set? Cops stopped carrying revolvers in the '80s.
I'm pretty sure that's a sign of poor research on the artist's part, not that the story takes place in the past. (I'm also pretty sure your question was rhetorical, but there ya go.)
Actually it wasn't, so thanks for commenting! I realize that comics artists have to believably convey a whole world, which means being able to draw all sorts of things and being judicious in what to include and what not to include -- which is why I marvel at Eduardo Risso of 100 Bullets and José Luis García-López, who do it well and beautifully ... but in conveying the "real" world, so to speak, that's the kind of little mistake than can yank me out of the story.
I'm no gun expert, but it didn't help that, a while back, I read a nice article in the New York Times about the NYPD's switch to Glocks: "Old-School Officers Swear by the Vanishing .38". Anyone who had a revolver could keep it until he retired, so carrying one is the mark of an old-timer -- like on Law & Order, where the young, with-it detective Ed Green had a Glock, but partner Lenny Briscoe had a tried-and-true six-shot revolver.
ISSUE #2 reiterates that "The Killing Joke" took place "three years ago." A timeline for DCnU is emerging, but for my part, I'm more interested in how Barbara Gordon regained the use of her legs. My wife (she for whom I bought this series) has not yet deigned to read it. I'm sticking around (possibly, depending on how long that takes)\) until the end of the first story. If the answer has not yet been revealed at that time (or if Tracy has not yet read it and voted "yea"), I'm dropping it.
Interesting point in the title, Barbara refers to the shooting as happening 3 years ago, but on the next page says "And I am woefully out of practice, having just gotten back into the superhero biz after a several year absence." Since I can't believe that Gail would make this kind of mistake I suspect that Barbara wasn't Batgirl for a few years before she was shot.
Other than that I did like the issue. This is the kind of villain I'd like to see Barbara fighting.
Replies
I'll stick with it for a bit, but I'm a bit irritated that DC is doing the same thing with this set of relaunches that it did with Crisis On Infinite Earths -- rebooting the DC Universe, except for the oh-so-precious Batman. By hanging on to The Killing Joke as part of her history, they're daring us to be blown away by the explanation for how she's up and moving after steadfastly refusing to do so the past 25 years. It better be good.
On a little minor note: that detective who wanted to arrest Batgirl at the end was carrying a revolver. How long ago is this story set? Cops stopped carrying revolvers in the '80s.
...( Okay , spoilers . ) I sort of interpret the book's description of the status quo in Gotham as:
( Oh , and I guess she's back to being Gordon's biological offspring , with both sporting crimson/ginger dos ??????? There , I'm filling the space in the New Suff column...)
She remembers the crippling accident as being done by the Joker , it was - a more routine " home invasion " , by presumably non-super crooks - , to everybody else??
Possiblt no-one remembers that Batgirl was ever the Bat-Femme of Gotham?? Though she does .
I'd like to see a sixtyish healthy Vietnam Vet Jason Bard introduced , who regards this Batgirl with a certain fascination , as if - to quote a Rogers & Hart song - " but who knows where or when " , even he is not sure .
By the way, I don't think DC#1 is a flashback of any sort. I think we're being told that while Batman and the Joker have a history, they've maybe clashed a couple of handful of times rather than on every Tuesday like they have been for the past couple of decades.
Jeff of Earth-J said:
ClarkKent_DC said:
I'm pretty sure that's a sign of poor research on the artist's part, not that the story takes place in the past. (I'm also pretty sure your question was rhetorical, but there ya go.)
Actually it wasn't, so thanks for commenting! I realize that comics artists have to believably convey a whole world, which means being able to draw all sorts of things and being judicious in what to include and what not to include -- which is why I marvel at Eduardo Risso of 100 Bullets and José Luis García-López, who do it well and beautifully ... but in conveying the "real" world, so to speak, that's the kind of little mistake than can yank me out of the story.
I'm no gun expert, but it didn't help that, a while back, I read a nice article in the New York Times about the NYPD's switch to Glocks: "Old-School Officers Swear by the Vanishing .38". Anyone who had a revolver could keep it until he retired, so carrying one is the mark of an old-timer -- like on Law & Order, where the young, with-it detective Ed Green had a Glock, but partner Lenny Briscoe had a tried-and-true six-shot revolver.
Three years would qualify as "several years."
Mark S. Ogilvie said:
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next