The wildfire that is THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD can’t be contained. Don McPherson speaks up for the book’s many admirers:
One of DC’s mid-level super-hero titles has been the focus of a fair bit of discussion online as of late. Plummeting sales figures have prompted industry pundits to ponder the problem with The Brave and the Bold. It’s been a critical darling of many reviewers, and it was launched to a bit fanfare, especially given the involvement of two of comics’ stalwart talents: writer Mark Waid and artist George Perez. The series had a lot going for it. Seemingly separate from current DC continuity, it’s an accessible read, embracing a more traditional approach to super-hero storytelling. Comics readers tiring from endless events and crossovers could find relief in Waid’s words and Perez’s pencils. Those who thought the super-hero genre had grown too dark — especially DC’s take on the heroes, in light of its Identity Crisis series, with its incorporation of rape, betrayal and ethical breaches into the plot — were offered a kinder vision of the publisher’s iconic characters.
But then there’s John Jakala for the prosecution:
I still follow a number of superhero-focused blogs, and everyone and their mother seemed to be raving about this series, saying it was a return to more light-hearted and “fun” comics. I’m not the biggest fan of either Waid or Perez, but I used to love all those old superhero team-up series, including the original B&B, so I was intrigued enough to check this out. So when I read the book and didn’t care for it, all those reviews came back to mind and I felt like a grouch for not liking it. Still, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out my reasons for disliking the book (even if doing so reveals me as a definite grumbly, grumpy grouch), so here goes. [Editor’s note: This all seemed a lot more original when I started writing this review last week before it was revealed that comic book bloggers may be the only ones reading and enjoying this series.]
However, cartoonist/animator Mike Manley kicks it into a whole new orbit by bringing in the new BATMAN: THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD tv show, which he just happens to work on:
One of the things I enjoy about this new Batman cartoon is the fact we are going back to a kinder, friendlier Batman. A Dick Sprang version, which is the guiding design principle we are working from and there still is a slight echo of the BT styling, which is a nice break from the grim and gritty. Let’s face it, these cartoons are for children, young children 5-10,12 years old. Cereal eating, fruit rollup snacking, toy buying kids, not 30-something, 40-something bitter bee babymen who want these characters in adult situations. The message boards are already full of babymen angst about the show, how they hate the art, the idea of a kid friendly Batman and I have to just laugh at the rediculous comments.
That draws many comments, including one from a fellow named Bruce who suggests that adult audiences keep kids cartoons afloat:
That guys is a complete idiot, in my opinion. If all these shows are supposed to fail, because only the Babymen are watching it, what the hell does he have to say about, DCAU, Bruce Timm and his team started off back in 1992, and you know what MR. lead artist the series continued on all the way through 2006, and it wasn’t the kids who kept it going it was the true and loyal fan base of BABYMEN. Although those shows were intended for kid audiences it continued because those characters grew and evolved along with us fans (babymen) who saw the show as kids and are now adults.
Manley responds with a post called The Walled City of Babymania:
I don’t expect the babymen to ever see what I’m talking about, they can’t. But the fact is their taste is not the taste of a large pool of average readers, it’s the taste of the fetishist, the niche collector. They so resist change and want such a limited type of product that unless you have been following this stuff for years it’s really not something the average reader could even get into. Even back in the 80’s you had a big variety of comic, from Richie Rich, Archies, Conan, Rock, CarToons magazine, the Warren mags, Heavey Metal ( when it was good) Marvel, DC, Goldkey/Western all of which published a much wider selection of book. Now almost everything is superjocks, some kind of zombie and if it isn’t—it doesn’t sell worth a crap. And by sell I mean enough to make the creator a few grand minimum an issue, or a livable wage.
But the sad fact is since no new kids in any real number are coming into the hobby of comics and falling in love with them for a few years and since 90-95% of retailers are the worst kind of dumb businessman you can imagine, who don’t seek to build more customers, and definitely not kids, it’s a double whammy. There has been to my observation over a 10 year unraveling of the old idea of what the comic biz was always about driven faster to it’s doom and bust by the speculators.
While Mike’s view is spot-on in many ways — and is a veiw we have subscribed to ourselves — there are still many layers to be parsed here. As we pointed out in an earlier post, younger readers have been discovering comics. It’s my feeling — and it is only a feeling — that the Babymen are not necessarily the majority of comics readers any more. It’s our guess that there are more “traditionalists”, to use a less loaded term, running the retail end of comics right now, and that is where the tension comes from.
Here at SBM, we’re not very interested in superhero soap operas, and are more interested in other comics genres, so why all the interest in this paradigm? Superhero comics are still the predominant genre as far as making a living in the comics field go right now, and exert a huge influence over everything in the comics field. The “new traditionalists” will doubtless have much to say about the future of the comic book industry, and it seems worth a bit of time figuring out where they’re coming from.
I don’t know about Mike Manley’s “babyman” comments; I think I know where he’s coming from, but he seems to paint with a very broad brush. I sure don’t mind seeing the world of TV animation change and evolve. I do question if stepping back forty years in terms of a visual style is the way to do it. Take Kid’s WB!’s “The Batman.” I thought that the animation, itself, was terrific. I didn’t care for some of the character designs (the Joker, Rupert Thorne), but others were pretty sharp (the Riddler for instance–although some would disagree). My biggest problem with the show was the writing: Sloppy, even shoddy plotting and cardboard characters. What is wrong with wanting today’s kids to have a show that was as well written as “Batman: The Animated Series” and its subsequent follow ups? They were good enough for kids in the 1990s. Are 21st Century children unable to handle the same level of sophistication?
I just want “Batman: The Brave and the Bold” to be for today’s kids what “B:TAS” was for the previous generation. Btw, I go back at least a generation further (maybe two by TV standards). I grew up with the Adam West “Batman.” With “Jonny Quest,” “Space Ghost,” and “The Flintstones” as a prime-time series–complete with animated Winston Cigarette ads.
The problem is that readers like myself fall through the cracks. I could generally be described as a “Vertigo-style reader” but I do read the occasional superhero book if I like the writing (Dini’s run on Detective Comics, Gotham Central, Alias, New X-Men, etc.). I also avoid any and all crossovers and crossover related books like the plague, so yes, I am “tiring from endless events and crossovers.” But I’m also not pining for a “traditional approach” — whenever I hear a creator say that, it reminds me of the Silver Age, which seems to exhibit a similar pull to some comics readers that the mythical 1950s does for others, but holds no interest to me. All I want is good writing that doesn’t refer to twenty other titles for context.
As far as Manley goes, when he produces something as beloved to all ages as the Dini/Timm (and many others) DC animated universe — and when he expands his view of the comic world beyond “superjocks and zombies” — maybe I’ll take his comments more seriously. Until then, I’ll continue to happily show my nephew BTAS and enjoy the series all over again with him.
The problem is that if somebody tries to get into comics, they are met with ‘Babyman’ materials, convoluted insane stupid comics that nobody can read. And this attracts fewer normal readers and more babymen. Its a self perpetuating cycle.
I liked Batman: The Animated Series when it came out, but I think it and its subsequent spin-offs are very overrated. Frankly I’ll be glad when people stop discussing the “DCAU” in hushed, reverent tones as if Paul Dini and Bruce Timm were two wise men sent from on high.
“The problem is that if somebody tries to get into comics, they are met with ‘Babyman’ materials, convoluted insane stupid comics that nobody can read. And this attracts fewer normal readers and more babymen. Its a self perpetuating cycle.”
I don’t think anyone is asking for the shelves to be full of only Babyman comics — or even have more than a handful. But I do think that they should be out there. Are you going to dismiss every novel because it’s not Ulysses?
If someone really wants to get into comics, they’ll likely do it as one of three ways: 1) suggestion from a friend, 2) organically [ie, they stop in at a Borders, see Watchmen on the front table, pick it up, enjoy it], or 3) suggestion from someone in the know, either a critic or a clerk in the store. If this person wants something like when he read comics as a 12-year-old, I think Brave and the Bold would be a great suggestion. I read it, and it certainly takes me back 20 years, and not in a bad way.
“The problem is that if somebody tries to get into comics, they are met with ‘Babyman’ materials, convoluted insane stupid comics that nobody can read. And this attracts fewer normal readers and more babymen. Its a self perpetuating cycle.”
I think what you mean to say is “The problem is that if somebody tries to get into many Marvel and DC superhero comics, they are met with ‘Babyman’ materials… etc etc”
Because if you are talking about Comics in general…. well that’s just silly.
Let’s face it, these cartoons are for children, young children 5-10,12 years old. Cereal eating, fruit rollup snacking, toy buying kids..
The funniest part of this quote is that my taste for ‘grim and gritty’ comics developed when I was a young kid, and thought that those titles were edgy, mature and transgressive. Back when all my friends started reading comics (around the 2nd to 4th grade), we didn’t want ‘fun’ or silly books. I only started appreciating those kinds of titles (and stopped reading the ‘grim and gritty’ nonsense) when I actually matured.
Something that always gets lost in these discussions is that kids (8 and up) like violence and faux-darkness. They love Wolverine. They love violent video games. The idea that the primary audience for some of that stuff was always ‘babymen’ is faintly ridiculous. Hell, I remember that the older employees at the comic store I went to as a kid always rolled their eyes when I picked up stuff like X-force.
Judging by the trends so far this decade, the future of comics won’t lie in the maintenance of 45-70 year old franchises, so in a way this whole argument is kinda silly. As the direct market is way too overly invested in these franchises, the future of comics won’t be with them, either, unless they evolve/adapt to the new market. I grew up with these franchises, but, hey, the writing’s on the wall.
As a worker in the saltmines of TV animation, it amuses me when people expect kids’ cartoons to have adult appeal, or that there’s some kind of obligation to entertain anyone but the audience for which it’s intended.
“I also avoid any and all crossovers and crossover related books like the plague, so yes, I am “tiring from endless events and crossovers.” But I’m also not pining for a “traditional approach” — whenever I hear a creator say that, it reminds me of the Silver Age, which seems to exhibit a similar pull to some comics readers that the mythical 1950s does for others, but holds no interest to me.”
This has been my biggest complaint about DC for the past several years. They seem to be marching boldly backwards, to a time and a set of characters that were at their peak before I was born. Say what you will about the grim ‘n’ gritty style, at least things were changing in the books. It seems to me like the DC universe is striving to make it back to status quo with all the reverence and fervor of a bad sitcom in its last 7 minutes, except the creators feel that “status quo” means “pre-crisis.” As soon as multiple earths were rediscovered and all of Elseworlds (which were the comics I had grown up on) had to be shown to be Real True Places so that they could have their own inane inter-dimensional crossovers, I knew my days of reading DC were waning. When Hal Jordan came back, I threw up my arms and gave up. Between dodging the nostalgia for a time I don’t care about — and wasn’t even there for the first time around — and avoiding the masturbatory megacrossovers obsessed with esoteric continuity details, I’ve pretty much abandoned DC these days. Which makes me sad, because I actually like superheroes.
Even worse, “One More Day” suggests that Marvel may be following suit.
Dear editors,
If your audience is in their twenties, they probably are not as interested in the characters you read about 30 years ago. If they like old comics, as I do, then they’ve already read them, as I have. If they don’t like old comics, they’ll be even less interested.
OK, that’s another socko, right? I mean, right?
That sounds like the Skrull Matt Hawes to me.
I agree about the coloring. I was interested in the book but the coloring kept me from reading it in the store let alone buy it.
I agree about the coloring. I was interested in the book but the coloring kept me from reading it in the store let alone buy it.
Exactly how is a “babyman” distinct from a “fanboy?”
Sounds like neologism claim-jumping to me.
Mike Manley’s stuff amounts to “I don’t need you people so I’m gonna make myself really offensive.” One might question how mature THAT is.
” Let’s face it, these cartoons are for children, young children 5-10,12 years old. Cereal eating, fruit rollup snacking, toy buying kids, not 30-something, 40-something bitter bee babymen who want these characters in adult situations.”
Well I’m in my 20s and I think this cartoon design is trash. There is nothing wrong with giving kids mature and sometimes dark character. Certainly with Batman, that’s how he is. let’s not revert back to the 60s Sprang designs. Batman Begins and the Batman comics use the modern version, what makes this cartoon feel the need to be different?
Plus those cereal and rollups are loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Our kids are getting fat and getting diabetes from the crap we’re feeding them. This cartoon is no different. A unhealthy sugary mess.
No, pal. You’re the baby man. I think kids deserve a mature cartoon that they can watch along with their parents. You want to talk down to them and feed them sugar coated cereal.
Meanwhile, kids are reading comics and watching cartoons. Japanese ones. They maintain a constant look throughout their runs. They don’t have five cartoon versions of Batman in five years. They have one consistent version of Naruto or Bleach. They don’t have three competing versions of the same characters. We had a fight between JLU, The Batman, and Teen Titans. Now this. This is yet another failure from DC / AOL Time Warner at maintaining their characters.
Also… Let me point out that I love Sprang’s artwork. I love the old Adam West show too. Yet it doesn’t belong in a cartoon today. That time has passed. If I want that stuff, I’d go watch it. (Or I would if they had DVDs of the show and not just the movie.) This stuff has no business in a modern Batman and DCU cartoon. There are dozens and dozens of good modern artists to emulate, why go back to the 1950s?
It’s really too bad too. Seeing newcomer Jamie as the Blue Beetle meeting current versions of the characters would have been a brilliant show. Instead he’s somehow running into folks from the Silver Age and beyond.
It’s a shame Joe S. Walker and Xenos miss the point completely…Though Xenos’ rant made me laugh. Thanks for that!
Well, if you can stop laughing for a second, could you explain yourself? How did we “miss the point completely”? Manley labels people against his show’s designs as ‘babymen’. If anything, he’s the one aiming for being immature and not growing up.
I even said that I acknowledge that the show is for kids, but it’s a terrible thing to give to children. The design appears to be the typical sugar coated cartoon style that some people think are good for kids. Again, to use the cereal comparisons, that sugary stuff the marketing department is shoving at our kids today isn’t healthy for them.
I also bring up the argument that DC can’t keep its properties straight. In the past few years they had three competing and separate Batman related cartoons. Now they’re doing this unrelated one.
No. I must be a whiny baby. You should likely stick your fingers in your ears, ignore me, and call me a babyman. It seems some think that’s the mature thing to do.
I would respond in full but why bother to waste my time with someone who doesn’t use his real name and uses an alias. Xenos…please.
I would respond in full but why bother to waste my time with someone who doesn’t use his real name and uses an alias. Xenos…please. At least Joe Walker has balls.
Well I did post my blog link. Where’s yours? Why should I reply to someone who doesn’t post their website link? See, I can be randomly pretentious too.
Plus how do you know that Xenos isn’t my real name or at least part of it? Or even a pen name I’m trying to build? Or perhaps I’m trying to avoid having my true written down in a shinegami’s Death Note? (Heh. Just watched a certain episode.)
Just an outside take here… I am a 40 something comics fan. I came to the hobby pretty late in life, not really taking it up until my mid 30’s. I was introduced to the medium through the DCAU, and I still consider those series the gold standard. However, that being said, I think people tend to give the newer takes on the characters short shrift. When The Batmen began, I didn’t care for it. But I continued to watch it, and over time, I grew to appreciate it. I think in it’s final seasons, it really hit it’s stride. Teen Titans, whose anime style animation was quite off putting to an old curmudgeon like me, really grew on me, and I came to greatly appreciate the series. And now Brave and Bold hits the air, and the more I watch it, the more I like it. I watch it with my seven year old son, and strangely, I seem to get more enjoyment out of it than he does. It’s because I get the references to esoteric Silver Age characters and plot lines that go completely over my son’s head. I’ll find myself chuckling at some comment or situation, and my son will turn to me and ask what I am laughing at. The show may be aimed at children primarily, but those references are in there purposely, and they aren’t aimed at kids (who would be entirely unlikely to understand them). They are aimed squarely at old schooler’s like me.
There is plenty of room for all kinds of takes on the characters. This new show isn’t BTAS, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t any good.