Report what comic books you have read today--and tell us a little something about it while you're here!

Views: 52713

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


I finally found the time to read Fantastic Four #1. I was curious about the volume number but couldn't find any indicia information in the book.

 photo spoiler-1.gif
.

.

.

.
.
.
I'm sure it appeared elsewhere, but the four-page tribute to Steve Ditko in the front on the book was very much appreciated.

The depiction of Ben Grimm inside, as opposed to the cover illustration, was fine as far as I am concerned. He is ugly without being terrifying and he does have a brow ridge. I enjoyed his saying "Oy, Alicia." I was happy to see him propose to her, apparenttly for the first time(?), and was also happy to see him acknowledging Johnny as his brother.

I really liked the way Sara Pichelli portrayed Johnny when aflame. It's nice to see expressions on his face in this form.

People's Republic of Latveria? The robots running the place were Marxists? It was interesting to see Doctor Doom wearing his mask, cape and a kind of loincloth. Has he been depicted like this before?

The last page's Impossible Man cartoon was a kick, addressing the fact that they aren't all back together in issue #1 (the elephant in the room). I wouldn't mind at all if this was a regular feature in the book.

I am looking forward to seeing more in issues 2 and onward.

Captain Comics said:

Batman #53: Didn't much care for this. Bruce Wayne is on a jury where he convinces everyone to let Mr. Freeze go because Batman made a mistake. Turns out he bribed his way onto that jury, so he could do just that, because he felt guilty about his mistake. Um ... no. Batman's mistake doesn't mitigate Freeze's crime, and he needs to be off the streets before he kills again. 

I haven't read that story, but it reminds me of that one-shot, Devil's Advocate, where The Joker is tried for murder and convicted -- there was no allowance for him being too insane to stand trial in this tale -- and Batman discerns that someone else committed the murder and races against time to prevent The Joker from being executed.

The logic seems to be, it's wrong for someone to be convicted and sentenced for a crime they didn't commit. Nice that Batman wants to uphold that principle. But if he's so principled, why is he bribing his way onto a jury? 

I am not a lawyer*, but it seems to me Batman could legally have accomplished the goal by aiding the defense in some way. Although, as a party to Mr. Freeze's capture, he's got a conflict of interest. Where's Bob Ingersoll when you need him?

I gather your position, Cap, is that in both of these cases, Mr. Freeze and The Joker have committed plenty of other crimes, so what does it hurt if they convicted for this one, even if they didn't do it? 

My short answer is: Because the one who really committed this crime is still out there. But my short answer to that is: Then Batman should go catch him.

* Nor do I play one on TV.

As I understand it, being acquitted because of insanity (temporary or otherwise) is extremely rare in the real world. I think the standard is whether or not the defendant understands the charges.

Bob Ingersoll is still out there pitching, at:

https://www.comicmix.com//author/bob-ingersoll/

Maybe he'll take up the question of Bruce Wayne's conduct. 

Richard Willis said:

As I understand it, being acquitted because of insanity (temporary or otherwise) is extremely rare in the real world. I think the standard is whether or not the defendant understands the charges.

Bob Ingersoll is still out there pitching, at:

https://www.comicmix.com//author/bob-ingersoll/

Maybe he'll take up the question of Bruce Wayne's conduct. 

Again, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but it's my understanding that in court, to be bound over for trial, there is a two-part test:

  • Is the defendant able to discern right from wrong?
  • And does the defendant understand that his actions are wrong?

The whole point of Devil's Advocate was that The Joker was found to pass both parts of the test -- he knew right from wrong and knew his actions were wrong -- just so they could put him on trial, just so he could get convicted, just so Batman would figure he was not guilty of that particular crime and move heaven and Earth to save him from an unjust execution, because it didn't sit right with him that an innocent would suffer.

I can't find our previous discussion about that story, but I recall that Captain Comics wasn't pleased with it, particularly the notion that Batman would and should go out of his way to save The Joker.

There has been plenty of discussion about whether Batman should or should have killed The Joker, and the Captain and I both firmly come down on the side that he should not. But should Batman save him? Nah.

(On Earth ClarkKent_DC, Batman moved heaven and Earth to find the real killer, which he should do, and then produced him about 20 minutes or so after The Joker got executed.)

As for the Mr. Freeze story, I think Batman should have stayed out it and trusted that the jury system would consider Batman's mistake and acquit Mr. Freeze. If Freeze was convicted, then give his lawyers whatever proof he needed for a successful appeal. But Batman bribing his way onto a jury just to throw the case? Good grief, no! 

I'd have to re-read the book, but I'm pretty sure that Mr. Freeze was, in fact, guilty of the crime. But Batman was too brutal or something in the capture, and Wayne felt guilty, or something. Again, I'd have to re-read it, but I didn't get the impression that Mr. Freeze was innocent of the charge.

Captain Comics said:

I'd have to re-read the book, but I'm pretty sure that Mr. Freeze was, in fact, guilty of the crime. But Batman was too brutal or something in the capture, and Wayne felt guilty, or something. Again, I'd have to re-read it, but I didn't get the impression that Mr. Freeze was innocent of the charge.

Oh, if that's all it was, then Wayne should be helping Mr. Freeze's lawyers get a lighter sentence for their client, not get him off the hook entirely.

What's wrong with this guy? Has he lost his marbles or something?

I think that's the point: that Catwoman jilting him has left him unbalanced or, at least, making the wrong choices. And bribing to be on Mister Freeze's jury, in his current state of mind, is the quickest way to rectify his bad judgement.

Philip Portelli said:

I think that's the point: that Catwoman jilting him has left him unbalanced or, at least, making the wrong choices. And bribing to be on Mister Freeze's jury, in his current state of mind, is the quickest way to rectify his bad judgement.

Seems to me he ought to take a long vacation and get his mind right. He's a billionaire; he can do that. 


Alexandra Kitty said:

So, PIS, in other words.

Wha-- ? I'm not familiar with that term, but a jaunt to the Urban Dictionary tells me it's "Plot Induced Stupidity."

ClarkKent_DC said:

Oh, if that's all it was, then Wayne should be helping Mr. Freeze's lawyers get a lighter sentence for their client, not get him off the hook entirely.

What's wrong with this guy? Has he lost his marbles or something?

Alexandra Kitty said:

I think his marbles got lost when he thought it was a good idea to take vulnerable underage orphans and enlist them in a career in vigilantism. He is the opposite of snowflake; kind of like cult-militia loon with whack logic. These days, the soccer parents would just have meltdowns on social media if art was true to life. Somehow, this era isn't his anymore.

That is the very reason I inflate my disbelief with helium so that it is suspended very far away from me so I do not think too hard. I try to seek entertainment with nudge and wink humour. Jimmy Olsen and Blue Beetle always make me happy, and I love reading it because even when it has plot holes, it is part of the charm.

I try not to overthink, or else I am at risk of hate-reading, and that's quite a life-sink. Campy Batman is fun, and he could do whatever zany thing he wants; it's fun and fiction-y with a surrealist bent.

When it is grim and gritty, I get caught up in the grim and grittiness, and then every plot defect taunts me. Batman has long ago jumped the shark for me, while I still cherish Silver Age Superman who would wink at the readers letting us know the wild silliness was unrealistic, but we are here to have an escapade with him.


Amen, sister. Amen.   photo beer.gif

...BATMAN GOTHAM ADVENTURES #21
GHOSTLY TALED #98 (Charlton)
This was yesterday.

"Plot Induced Stupidity."

How many words have I wasted in my life describing this phenomenon, when there's an actual term for it? SMH

The Question #4: The 2005 version. I think this is the perfect continuation of the O'Neil/Cowan version of the character. It's not the same, but it's the natural progression. Written by Rick Veitch and drawn by Tommy Lee Edwards, this edition is a bit more metaphysical and shaman than the other edition, but not too much. I'm not sure why John Workman's lettering looks extra-cool with the large word balloons, but it does.

Batman/Huntress: Cry for Blood #1-4: This was better than I remember it being when it came out about twenty years ago. Rick Burchett's work has never been my favorite, but it's not so bad that it throws me out of the story. I still have a couple more issues, but Greg Rucka turned in a pretty decent story about Helena's ties to the mob, and the Question (you all know I'm on a kick right now), and a little bit of Batman--just enough to put "Batman" in the title and sell a bunch more copies.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2020   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service