Batman #690

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FORWARD: I'd like to let the ifanbase know that I'm a recent Batman fan convert. Animated series, and films aside I was never interested in the actual flagship title Batman, Detective Comics, Confidential etc. Until I noticed my kind of artists popping up and drawing them (Mark Bagley, JH Williams). After a trade paperback here, some Paul Dini stuff there, I stretched my wallet for Batstuff. I still know little to nothing about the batverse so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I. PRESENTATION:

(Cover, Colors)

• COVER: At first glance it's you're typical cookie cut protagonist pose while battling a monster in mid air. Nothing really new there.

Even more importantly; however: does it grab me?

Not particularly.
In Fact: The Batman Confidential covers in the recent past have been doing a much better job of getting a casual DC reader to read the series than the main flagship Batman title.

Disappointed? You bet I am. But I bet it took hard work to produce this so I cut Tony Daniel slack.
Oooh but before I do that I have to ask, does that even look like Clayface to you? You could've fooled me.

The coloring on the cover is nothing short of spectacular; however, the inking on Clayface is severely overdone. Perhaps he was going for a Skywald horror effect. If so, it's working Clayface looks even more uglier than usual and it's all thanks to the inks.

• COLORS: Honestly? Hit and miss. Different pages really did it for me. Pages 2-4? Fantastic. Everything on those first pages were clearly thought through. Pages 7-8? Pretty rushed. Why is half the teleporter's face disfigured on page 7 panel 5? It wasn't like that on page 6 at all, so you KNOW it wasn't intentional that's for sure. The fickle changes in the color throw me out of the story only to sorely make notes like this that I'd rather don't. All in all it's a half and half situation with the colors. There were appropriate design choices like the red background during the fight scene with Blanco and Clayface but scribbles like in the dark with Black Mask.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The coloring on the cover is nothing short of spectacular; however, the inking on Clayface is severely overdone. Perhaps he was going for a Skywald horror effect. If so, it's working Clayface looks even more uglier than usual and it's all thanks to the inks.

• COLORS: Honestly? Hit and miss. Different pages really did it for me. Pages 2-4? Fantastic. Everything on those first pages were clearly thought through. Pages 7-8? Pretty rushed. Why is half the teleporter's face disfigured on page 7 panel 5? It wasn't like that on page 6 at all, so you KNOW it wasn't intentional that's for sure. The fickle changes in the color throw me out of the story only to sorely make notes like this that I'd rather don't. All in all it's a half and half situation with the colors. There were appropriate design choices like the red background during the fight scene with Blanco and Clayface but scribbles like in the dark with Black Mask.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

II. STORY:

(Concepts, Continuity & Plot-holes?)

(Concepts, Continuity & Plot-holes?)

• CONCEPTS: There are various to choose from in this issue but I'm just going to highlight some of the more prestigious aspects.

- Bat Cave Invasion/Teleporter: Why hasn't this been done before? It's almost as simple as Geoff John's Emotional Spectrum and yet I've never heard of someone actually using a batgadget to find Batman's location. I feel like now we're headed for a DC renasance where all ideas are revolutionary.

- The Soldier: This makes alot of sense. In the past alot of the villains the Caped Crusader encountered were pretty much larger than life, menacing and unstoppable bastards. And for the most part the Dark Knight prevailed (in some arcs without a real sweat or challenge). Now Dick encounters a slightly bigger fellow like Blanco and all of a sudden the Dark Knight's having issues. This is probably the best use of Dick's role as the caped crusader. He's someone who's just adjusting to carrying the mantle meaning Wayne's burden of arch enemies as well as his own. Straining Dick during the fight with Blanco was as real as it could really get. He's a bigger guy with marine training so he should be hard to take down both physically and strategically. The level of depth Winick puts into this aspect of realism easily explains why some die-hard fans coin him right up there with the greats like Paul Dini.

- Penny Reveal: Fantastic! That word says it all, it really does. Now that this is in continuity it very well maybe a problem for future writers of any in-continuity Batman story.

Bat-Journal Theme:

Quote: "carelessness is born of complacency or out of cockiness."

That certainly isn't the case with Winick's writing structure. He revolve's Dick's thoughts on these parameters of survival much like how his late predecesscor did once-upon-a-time. From start to finish he brings back the theme fulll circle as Dick makes mistakes on the first few pages of #690 and the end making this incarnation of Batman more human (and inexperience) than ever before. And I think that's what people want to see in Batman issues: a hero who's inept, unsure, and learning but is still willing to stand between Gotham's spychos and their victims, even at the cost of his life. This theme revitalizes Winik's run on Batman and holds me well to wait next week. Recession or not.

• CONTINUITY: (see Penny Reveal above).

• PLOT-HOLES: I just have a question about the last page.
Just how did Two-Face get this costume? Was this from a previous issue? I'm totally at a loss here. I've only seen it on some cover I can't even recall on Diamond's list a while back, perhaps "Battle of the Cowl" (please feel free to correct me).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

III. DESIGN:

(Pencils, Panel Art, & Lettering)

• PENCIL'S: Now I know what some of you are thinking: "Gush-fest here we come" and you know what? You're absolutely correct. I'm sorry but I suppose for now I play devil's advocate by falling under the stereotype of reviewing this with Bagley fan Bias. And why shouldn't I? The pencil's are tight and dynamic. It probably took him a day to draw, the characters are realistically proportionate to what they would probably look like in real life. And you hardly think you were "reading" this comic as opposed to simply looking at the pictures. That's what it felt like to me, a little art book. This is by far one of the only comics that I've had the pleasure of reading where not much happens but at the same time rewarded for rereading, how many flagship titles can do that (aside from stuff JH Williams drew)? It's such a shame the Inking kind of spoiled it (read "Inking" fore more)

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

Bat-Journal Theme:

Quote: "carelessness is born of complacency or out of cockiness."

That certainly isn't the case with Winick's writing structure. He revolve's Dick's thoughts on these parameters of survival much like how his late predecesscor did once-upon-a-time. From start to finish he brings back the theme fulll circle as Dick makes mistakes on the first few pages of #690 and the end making this incarnation of Batman more human (and inexperience) than ever before. And I think that's what people want to see in Batman issues: a hero who's inept, unsure, and learning but is still willing to stand between Gotham's spychos and their victims, even at the cost of his life. This theme revitalizes Winik's run on Batman and holds me well to wait next week. Recession or not.

• CONTINUITY: (see Penny Reveal above).

• PLOT-HOLES: I just have a question about the last page.
Just how did Two-Face get this costume? Was this from a previous issue? I'm totally at a loss here. I've only seen it on some cover I can't even recall on Diamond's list a while back, perhaps "Battle of the Cowl" (please feel free to correct me).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

III. DESIGN:

(Pencils, Panel Art, & Lettering)

• PENCIL'S: Now I know what some of you are thinking: "Gush-fest here we come" and you know what? You're absolutely correct. I'm sorry but I suppose for now I play devil's advocate by falling under the stereotype of reviewing this with Bagley fan Bias. And why shouldn't I? The pencil's are tight and dynamic. It probably took him a day to draw, the characters are realistically proportionate to what they would probably look like in real life. And you hardly think you were "reading" this comic as opposed to simply looking at the pictures. That's what it felt like to me, a little art book. This is by far one of the only comics that I've had the pleasure of reading where not much happens but at the same time rewarded for rereading, how many flagship titles can do that (aside from stuff JH Williams drew)? It's such a shame the Inking kind of spoiled it (read "Inking" fore more)

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

(Pencils, Panel Art, & Lettering)

• PENCIL'S: Now I know what some of you are thinking: "Gush-fest here we come" and you know what? You're absolutely correct. I'm sorry but I suppose for now I play devil's advocate by falling under the stereotype of reviewing this with Bagley fan Bias. And why shouldn't I? The pencil's are tight and dynamic. It probably took him a day to draw, the characters are realistically proportionate to what they would probably look like in real life. And you hardly think you were "reading" this comic as opposed to simply looking at the pictures. That's what it felt like to me, a little art book. This is by far one of the only comics that I've had the pleasure of reading where not much happens but at the same time rewarded for rereading, how many flagship titles can do that (aside from stuff JH Williams drew)? It's such a shame the Inking kind of spoiled it (read "Inking" fore more)

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

• PANEL ART: There's nothing really extraordinary about it, necessarily. It's Bagley mainly doing what he does best: Drawing good comics. Nothing too notable save for the nostalgic Ultimate Spider-mannish style art of his. It get's me everytime, it really does. His convential panel style is tight and never leaves empty space out unnecessarily. A good example can be shown around the center of the issue where Two-Face holds the batarang infront of a teleporter on a black background alluding to secrecy and perhaps suspense. Safe to say Bagley does nothing here needlessly.

• LETTERING: Jared K. Fletcher is someone I've never heard before but that's obviously because of me reading more Marvel than DC. From what I can tell he's got caption boxes down. Dialogue bubbles were exceptionally normal but I was disappointed by the unenthusiastic Sound FX on page 18 panel 4. Booom? Really? That's totally cut and paste man. C'mon Fletcher you could do better than that right? Call it a nitpick but I just think a professional can put a better effort than that. I'm not looking for Batman & Robin par FX lettering but something to get me saying "Oh.... damn. Sucks to be Dick."

(Production, Inks, & Weekly Minutia)

• PRODUCTION: Let's be real: not all comics look great in a bag and board. Batman Confidential #33 for example does not. That's not the case here. The cover has no smears and isn't smearable from what I can tell. The inks (regardless of how badly done) work well with clashing with my white board but that's besides the point. The bottom line is, the quality here on the flagship title is decent and is up to par when it comes to actual finger durability. I'm not going to use a damn rubber glove and I shouldn't have to either!

• INKS:Finally something to nitpick. In short it's often scratchy and apparantly rushed with overuse of diagonal lines. It's almost as bad as the ink usage on the front cover but that's beside the point. I feel urgency coming from not only the inker but the colorist as well.

• WEEKLY MINUTIA -> DIALOGUE: The Journal Dialogue's contents on page 2 and 3 really should have been rephrased. The way it reads is not unlike a cheesy 1980s c-class action film. Critiguing Winnick's choice here is rather difficult as I do not know if this was intentional since it's Dick under the cowl. Is Dick being witty in his Batjournal? I don't know. It's too subtle for me to tell. I'd like a little clarity here but at the moment I can only assume he's being overly serious in this issue unlike the previous one.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NOTE* I refer to pages instead of scenes (minus the ads).
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •