Messages

I was reading through the Super Powers by Jack Kirby collection, and went down a rabbit hole to try to find all the stories that exist within the Super Powers universe.

The core is the comics. Originally, there were 23 pack-in comics, and 3 limited series' of comics. The second limited series specifically mentions the graphic novel The Hunger Dogs, so that's canon to the events of this universe.

Next, we have the TV shows. Super Friends: The Legendary Super Powers Show and The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians were direct tie-ins.

The first show indicates this is a spin-off of the Super Friends series, and there's a lot to that universe already (I'll have to do a deep dive later).

The Filmation series' for Superman, Batman, Superboy, and Aquaman were also reissued under the Power Powers name.

You'd think it would be a bigger deal. It was still from the classic era as a Stan Lee story, but it rarely gets brought up. Might be due to being an Annual issue, which have had weird placements in the timeline.

Trying my hand at my own edit to bring the digital version closer to the original colors

Here's a simulation for how it would look on newsprint

Yes, there is occasional censoring too.





Stryker makes reference to being executed in the unedited page but that dialogue balloon is removed in the second version.

Just for fun, I tried to edit an original scan very quickly:

Unfortunately, it's really low quality, so there was only so much I could do. I lost all the blues trying to bring out the black levels.

Both of the digital versions differ from each other and the original significantly. But the top version has closer line work for sure, the bottom is a poor tracing. It's also hard to argue against an entire word balloon being forgotten. An ellipsis is also missing in the bottom middle panel, which throws off the spacing of the text.

The colors are also more accurate on top, but that's high praise. Batman's gloves are properly colored purple, the light from outside Batman's house is red, and the smoke from Bruce's pipe is dark blue. Those digital gradients create a really awful look, but they were likely thrown in because it the backgrounds look blank when there's no dot matrix pattern on grittier newsprint.

I'll be fair, this is a tall order for anyone to attempt. You could put Alan Moore on this and it still wouldn't be anything short of embarrassing.

I'm curious how Harley can be one DC's most successful characters, yet they seem to have no direction for her. For a while they were pushing the sex appeal aspect (exemplified by Margot Robbie's skimpy outfit in Suicide Squad), but that's completely at odds with whatever this is.

I can understand throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, but do they not see the damage this does to the brand?

The script involving a decidedly less sympathetic Doc Ock, whom is responsible for the deaths of Peter's parents, certainly has shades of Batman 1989.

I'm sure the comparison would've been made, but who's to really say how that would have gone over with the fans? Since deviating from the comic source doesn't seem to get the amount of critique with the MCU, as it does with DC.

Could just be a Superman/Batman thing though.

I think the MCU gets a pass for some reason (though the Mandarin was a bridge too far), but I remember the first Raimi film got a lot of crap for the organic web shooters and the Green Goblin suit. As the third film got a lot of crap for... well, everything. The second film doesn't get a lot of flack for accuracy, but I think that's because it doesn't feature any significant deviations.

The wisdom I've gained over the years is that films shouldn't be a 1:1 adaptation of the comics because they're different mediums. What's most important is that you capture the spirit of the original stories.

You might be able to get away with altering Spider-Man's backstory when it comes to his parents; they weren't as engrained in his backstory as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, for example.

Continuing to read through the TPB, I'm surprised how tight the continuity was in early post-Crisis comics. Detective Comics #574 does a lot to bridge the old and the new. Specifically relating to this topic, I thought it was crazy that Bruce kept Joe Chill's gun from the crime scene in Year Two, but that was already explained in this issue that it was thrown through a fence.

Other tie-ins include references to Dick Grayson retiring from Robin after being shot (an issue that wouldn't come out until next month), and Jason's revised introduction as a street kid (months later). There's even a flashback to Bruce donning his first batsuit from Year One in here. It's actually a good tie-in to Year Two, as it goes into a good amount of detail of the Wayne's being killed (combining elements from a few different retellings), and focuses heavily on Leslie Thompkins' relationship with Bruce.

Though the one thing preventing it from being a direct sequel to Year Two is that the current timeline concludes a two-parter from when the Mad Hatter wounds Robin.

I'd need to read the story again but I don't like the way the ideas were presented. I can buy Batman deciding to use Venom in his early years to compensate for a lack of strength in saving people. I don't have a problem with Batman being more ferocious in combat, or simply defending himself and manslaughter happens as a result. But holstering a gun?

These both show Batman's response to being young and inexperienced. His stint with venom can be blamed on naiveté; his heart was in the right place, but he didn't think through the consequences of taking an experimental drug. Guns, on the other hand, are something that he already had a lot of time to think about.

Now that I think about it, there's no real revelation when it comes to guns. When Batman starts in Year One, he is vehemently anti-gun due to his past circumstances. When he ends Year Two, he's back to being anti-gun. There's no real drama that made you believe he was going to make a mistake that would carry serious weight. Writing a prequel is challenging in that respect.

Just read this one for the first time via the DC Finest line. It's always been one of those famous stories that's persisted over the years, but fallen short of indisputable classic. It's better regarded as a sequel than The Dark Knight Strikes Again, at least, but another case of the original story being so beloved that it's nearly impossible to follow up on.

To start on what works: Alan Davis' art is immaculate, and the cover to Detective Comics #575 is one that immediately ropes you in. Unfortunately, changing artists along the way hurts the experience, especially with this being another story intended to be read as a graphic novel. While I don't think McFarlane's style is particularly suited for Batman, this does offer a unique entry for the artist. I find Alfredo Alcala's inks help reign in the style back to Batman.

The story presents a lot of good ideas that aren't taken far enough. Another issue might have given the story some time to breathe. The main villain, The Reaper is a compelling one. It's a nice bit of world-building to know that he was briefly Gotham's first vigilante, even if it is already a trope that Batman comes into conflict with vigilantes that hunt the same criminals, but kill them.

The biggest issue is how out of character Batman acts. The excuse can be given that this is still early in his career, but he gets his ass kicked once and then picks up a gun? He never really uses it in any meaningful way, since he's still not committed to taking a life. And the times that he does use it, you could easily substitute it for a batarang. Teaming up with Joe Chill and allowing him to kill people along the way, seems like a mistake.

The love interest also very forgettable. It seemed like Bruce just flirting with every girl he meets, but apparently he's serious enough about this girl to dissuade her from becoming a nun?