The Batman Newspaper Comic Strip (1989-1990)

[BatmAngelus]

One of my favorite comic bloggers, about_faces, covered the 1989-1990 comic strip series that featured the talents of Max Allan Collins and Marshall Rogers for its first story before it got followed up by William Messner-Loebs, Carmine Infantino, and John Nyberg.

Here it is, split into parts with commentary:

Part 1- Catwoman: http://about-faces.livejournal.com/32340.html
Part 2- Penguin: http://about-faces.livejournal.com/32636.html
Part 3- The Red Hood- http://about-faces.livejournal.com/33257.html
Part 4- Trial of the Joker http://about-faces.livejournal.com/33524.html
Part 5- Two-Face- http://about-faces.livejournal.com/34404.html
Part 6- Robin- http://about-faces.livejournal.com/34651.html
Part 7- The Riddler- http://about-faces.livejournal.com/34927.html
Part 8- The Mad Hatter & Finale, containing an ending that about_faces dubs "should have been the ending to The Dark Knight"- http://about-faces.livejournal.com/35096.html

There are some fascinating things to note about this series. 

Part 1 is presented like a loose sequel to the 1989 film, with Vicki Vale commenting on Batman's fight with the Joker, though in this version, Joker's fall landed him in Gotham Bay where he disappeared (an ending that perhaps many fans would have preferred). 
It's quite appropriate for this part to have been illustrated by Marshall Rogers, since his run with Steve Englehart was so influential on the film.

Catwoman is more of a murderous vigilante along the lines of the Phantasm from the animated movie. 
Robin's origin story starts off conventional, but then becomes quite an interesting take in which the future sidekick proves his worth by protecting a wounded Batman throughout. 
The Mad Hatter is actually the Impostor Hatter from the Silver Age and takes over Arkham Asylum in the final arc.

But the biggest topic of discussion is on Harvey Dent/Two-Face.  As noted by about_faces, this may have been the first time that Harvey was portrayed as a friend of Bruce Wayne's and could have been a big influence on B:TAS.  Also, much like The Dark Knight film, he arguably has the biggest arc out of all the other characters.  It's also one of the few instances where Harvey's wife (named Alice here) has a major role throughout.

The origin of Two-Face is covered in the Trial of the Joker arc.  While you may expect to find the Joker scarring Harvey with his acid flower (an idea that was proposed by David Goyer after Batman Begins), something quite different happens. 

SPOILERS:
A frustrated Gothamite hurls a bottle of acid- not at Dent, but at the Joker, seemingly in revenge for the madman's acts against the city!  Batman swoops in to save Joker, but the acid ends up hitting Harvey Dent instead.

While this is a big change from the comic canon (and kind of complicates the origin a bit), I think there's something fascinating about this version.  Dent becomes Two-Face, not due to a mobster vendetta, but due to Batman's actions and his moral code. 

In a way, this may actually make more sense as a reason for Dent to snap and turn against Batman.  After all, as the District Attorney, Dent was well aware of risks involved in battling organized crime.  (Just look at how he handles the assassination attempt in the beginning of The Dark Knight).  Getting disfigured and nearly killed by a mobster is certainly traumatic, but would it have really caused Dent to snap?

Here, though, Dent is portrayed as a man frustrated by the fact that the law might not be enough.  He knows he has to work with Batman, but he also resents having to turn to a vigilante for help.  This trial against the Joker is his chance to prove that he (and the law) can still win.
And yet, what does he get for his trouble?  A bottle of acid to the face.  Because Batman couldn't let a mass murderer get hit.  Is this true justice?  Is this what he gets after helping Batman for this long?  From this perspective, you can understand how Dent could turn against his old ally, reject Batman and Gordon's moral ground, and begin to believe that true justice can only be achieved by capital punishment.

[Paul (ral)]

Are these strips available to buy in a collected edition anywhere?

[BatmAngelus]

Unfortunately, no.  From what I've seen, the only way to check them out these days is either the about_faces blog or, without commentary, at: http://batman-daily.tumblr.com/ (which is hosted by about_faces).

[The Laughing Fish]

The links to those newspaper comics strips have been blocked off by a login screen and I can't find any of the scans on that about_faces blog site. But I did find Marshall Rogers' Catwoman story on another webpage, and it's available for everyone to read.

https://www.metropolisplus.com/Rogers/Index.html

I was inspired to read this Catwoman-centric story after The Joker shared a post about the various Burtonverse timelines in one of The Flash threads. As you can see in the graphic shared below, The Batman Newspaper Comic Strip is mentioned as a variant timeline that takes place after B89.

Saw this on X, and thought it was worth posting since it deals with the many multiverse and timelines that encompasses the Burton/Schumacher films.

Now after reading the 1989 Rogers Catwoman story, this newspaper comic shouldn't be considered as an alternate timeline to B89 because the continuity is broken multiple times. As it's already mentioned in this thread, it's more faithful to the mainstream comics continuity at the time, particularly with the costumes and the characters' obvious lack of resemblance to the actors.

As you can read for yourselves, the Catwoman story has references to B89, but there are significant continuity changes from the film. Vicki is seemingly unaware that Bruce and Batman are one and the same (although you can tell she is extremely jealous when Batman is shown kissing Catwoman in the end), Joker's fate was changed, and Batman's use of lethal force in B89 has been completely ignored while he objects to Catwoman killing drug dealers. The Batsignal that was shining at the end of B89 was suddenly shut off because Harvey Dent was worried Gotham City could be put in legal jeopardy if it were to support Batman's acts of vigilantism.

Nevertheless, as a story itself, I'm rather mixed. I like this version of Catwoman much better than what Sam Hamm had in mind for his Batman II script and the Batman '89 comics years later, and had Batman not been a killer himself in B89, the theme of inspiring deadly costumed vigilantes against his own noble intentions would've worked well. Plus, Gordon defying Dent to meet Batman for the first time and beginning to work together closely is a nice touch. Putting aside the continuity changes from the film I already mentioned, I think my biggest criticisms are Selina Kyle known as a former drug-addicted street gang member who makes cat-themed art for a living was too obvious and Batman letting the gang members go at the end of the story was rather out-of-character. But perhaps there's no point in criticising a newspaper strip that wasn't meant to be taken too seriously or have a major impact. I love Marshall Rogers' art here, but the Englehart run remains his best.

This newspaper strip should be lumped in the same category as the Birds of Prey TV show and the COIE Easter eggs. They're all adjacent at best.

[Slash Man]

It might be too forward to assume it's intended to be a direct continuation of the first movie, if you have to make so many exceptions to make it work. BTAS and the comics borrowed elements from the movie, but they're still separate entities.

[The Laughing Fish]

It might be too forward to assume it's intended to be a direct continuation of the first movie, if you have to make so many exceptions to make it work. BTAS and the comics borrowed elements from the movie, but they're still separate entities.

It's obvious this newspaper comic strip was never intended to be a real continuation of B89. I'm simply dismissing that fan-made timeline map for having it directly following the events of the first film. As I said, it belongs in the miscellaneous timeline at best. I can see events of this newspaper strip, for example, easily tie into Alexander Knox cameo in COIE, when we see him reading a newspaper headline saying "BATMAN CAPTURES JOKER".

[thecolorsblend]

This thread has crystallized something for me. I'm starting to think Burton's version of Batman is the most put upon incarnation of the character since Adam West.

There's never been a true continuation. Every single thing that's ever claimed to be a follow up isn't. Not really. There's always some egregious bit of discontinuity (at the bare minimum) that prevents it from being a true continuation.

Whether it's the COIE Arrowverse thing, the horrid B89 comic or even The Flash that could be interpreted as wiping the Burtonverse out entirely, I'm starting to think someone high up the food chain (besides Gunn) has it in for the Burtonverse.

[The Laughing Fish]

This thread has crystallized something for me. I'm starting to think Burton's version of Batman is the most put upon incarnation of the character since Adam West.

There's never been a true continuation. Every single thing that's ever claimed to be a follow up isn't. Not really. There's always some egregious bit of discontinuity (at the bare minimum) that prevents it from being a true continuation.

Whether it's the COIE Arrowverse thing, the horrid B89 comic or even The Flash that could be interpreted as wiping the Burtonverse out entirely, I'm starting to think someone high up the food chain (besides Gunn) has it in for the Burtonverse.

I noticed a long time ago that despite there being an appreciation for Burton's iconography, there is this dismissive attitude towards his continuity. Even Daniel Waters was interviewed saying he hated B89. When he couldn't get Knox killed in BR, I guess he wanted to convince Burton to keep the Vicki Vale references in the script so he could point out his distaste for Alfred letting her into the Batcave. When you have pettiness among the writers who worked on the films, it does the whole universe a huge disservice. I didn't notice any bitterness from Sam Hamm when he wrote Catwoman as a completely different character in his comics, but it certainly made me question why she was even in the story.

The sad truth is, and as you already know, there was never a real vision to continue the Burtonverse post-Returns. Yes, Burton himself had to be convinced to do the sequel, otherwise we might've gotten Hamm's Batman II, but it's still frustrating that nobody in the industry had any real vision to expand this Batman's universe. Instead, they relied on Keaton's name, shallow fan service, and using him to replace another Batman in a shared universe. If you're not interested in expanding the Burtonverse then it should've been left alone.

By the way, nothing I said here is really criticism of the Marshall Rogers newspaper comic strip I read. It's okay for what it is, it just happens to be your standard Batman story instead of Burton Batman story.