Bronze Age Batman: Underrated

[Brannon]

I realize that "Bronze Age" has a non-specific start date, but I've always equated Bronze Age Batman beginning with Denny' O'Neil and Neal Adams work on the character.

That said, I find the idea that Batman "got his balls back" with Frank Miller to be little much and down right inaccurate. I love Franks Dark Night Returns and Year One, as well as most of this work--particularly Daredevil, but for me the essential Batman is a combination of the Neal Adams and Jim Aparo versions. Aparo's Brave and the Bold was awesome as was his Batman.

I've long detected a "Pre-Crisis Block" that some fans seem to have regarding Batman. It leads them to believe that Batman was never cool until 1986. This is wrong. If anything, Batman was a more complete character after O'Neil and Adams crystallized everything cool and interesting about the character, yet this was before Batman became a somewhat absurd fan-boy wet-dream ninja.

Oh and Batman is NOT anymore crazy than Spider-Man is. Anyone else sick of this pseudo-psychology crap?

[doctrinedee]

Know it's an old post, but I totally agree. O'Neil and Adams gave us a far more cerebral, and thus fascinating, Batman.

But then Miller gets far too much credit for everything he does. As much as I enjoyed The Dark Knight Returns, it really doesn't deserve to be placed alongside Watchmen in terms of literary importance, as it often is.

[WorstThingUS]

How can it be underrated when the O'Neil/Adams is heralded as one of the greatest runs of Batman ever? And Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers is right behind.

I thought you were going to try and defend Len Wein or Gerry Conway. And how about some love for longtime artist Irv Novick (who actually did one or two of those classic stories everyone thinks Neal Adams did)? And there was Dick Giordano's work and how can we not talk about the man who rivaled Adams for best Batman artist ever: Jim Aparo? I've personally got a soft spot in my heart for the days when Ernie Chan was drawing Detective comics. The problem is they were doing Batman as a superhero, not some tortured vigilante or creature of the night and apparently that's just not cool. That's why you never hear anyone talk about that great Jim Starlin story in Detective Comics because it involved a man with his brain in gorilla's body. Not to keep playing cranky old man (though I do it well), but you kids missed a great time when Detective Comics became a double-sized monthly with the whole Batfamily in it:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/detective-comics/484-13.jpg

Let's step up for something that's not reprinted monthly in some form or another. There were good Batman comics between 1972 and 1984.

[Brannon]

I'm a big fan of Len Wein and Ernie Chan, but my experience with them is based manly on their great Incredible Hulk years. I believe the only Wein (though I've read most of his Marvel work) Batman that I have is Untold Tales with Byrne and Aparo. Good stuff.

I feel that DC has grossly underrepresented 1970's to mid 80's Batman in trades and the like. I know there are a ton of younger fans who have fallen in love with Walt Simonson's Thor and Byrne's FF through the many reprintings, for instance, and I think DC should put a little more focus on that era with regards to Batman.

I like what you pointed when you talked about that era's creators writing Batman as what he is, a superhero. Sure, he's a noir superhero with a detective/mystery bent, but a superhero nonetheless.

[Libaax]

O'Neil/Adams are so much rated that two collections of theirs is the ONLY Batman books in the library in our town.

Sure FM Batman is my favorite but O'Neil/Adams is pure golden to me too.

I have only read Tales of Demon collection too. Are there even complete collections of the rest of their run ? 70s Batman i must read more.

[Brannon]

Well, Adams did Brave and the Bold, then Detective and then Batman.I have all the individual issues of his runs and they are broken up in places. He did a surprisingly few issues given his legacy.

There is the Batman Illustrated hardcovers that Neal Adams had a hand in recently. While it was nice to have a collection of his stuff (including his covers) I didn't care for some of the recoloring and "Lucas-like" tampering with the past.

[Jared]

Oh and Batman is NOT anymore crazy than Spider-Man is. Anyone else sick of this pseudo-psychology crap?

Personally, no not at all. Batman is a billionaire with no powers who dresses like a Bat to terrify and beat up criminals. He damn well should be half-crazy, at least. He doesn't need to be full-crazy every couple years, however.

But then, I'm exactly the generation targeted by the Noir Ninja version of Batman. The Burton movie, then the darker comics of the late 80s, then the 90s toon, all formed my impression of what a serious Batman should be. I watched reruns of the Adam West show as a kid, and enjoyed them, but always saw it as a separate thing, a parody of Batman even before I fully understood what parody was.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt. I'll get off your lawn now. :smile:

[jgiannantoni05]

I don't know what exactly to call the 70's (bronze age or late silver age?)

But I love Batman from 1970-1985. Definitely do not have Pre-Crisis block.

That said, pre-Miller Batman was saying "old chum" and was still a little hokey, despite O'Neil. So I do think Frank Miller brought in a balancing dose of seriousness and pulp grit to Batman, that I feel fits with the earliest Kane/Finger strips.

So, while I love O'Neil Batman and Bronze Age Batman, I do think early Post-Crisis Batman (probably best exemplified by Alan Grant's Batman, who was compassionate, human, and gritty tough) was a faithful balancing for Batman. BTAS Batman was also a great version of Batman, and he was of the Post-Miller-influenced variety.

It was the later 90's/2000's and certain writers poorly aping Miller and other good early Post-Crisis writers (one of which was O'Neil) where Batman started to swing inappropriately to "batjerk" (no friends, not nice, no women, no humor, etc).

Anyone else sick of this pseudo-psychology crap?
I got to say "no" as well. What I love about actually is that you can really get into psychology and abnormal psychology with Batman and his villains. I don't think Batman is crazy (neither does Matt Wagner), but I like that stories play with the idea. Psychology is a grey area, so there is so many interesting ideas to play with and make you ponder. Allows for a variety of interesting interpretations, interesting stories.
________
XT600 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XT600)

[nepenthes]

These are classic batman comics of course and true they portray a darker batman who is also essentially humanistic, compassionate, driven yet level headed. He's the ultimate "super sane" batman as have others have mentioned before.

Yet when people praise this version over the modern "pop psychology" takes I think they;re looking at the run outside of context a little. The classic batman of the 70's would just seem a little shallow if you didn't at least raise the *question* that he might be a little iffy in the head. and obviously the comic medium as well as the characters have progressed far beyond what they were then. I have to wonder whether if O'Neil were revamping Batman today, for a contemporary comic audience, whether he might created doubt towards Bruce's mental state as well. We take it for granted now, and can talk about the 70's alternative because we have two broad camps of the portrayal to look at. But without the Miller injected arsehole batman to weigh it against we'd definitely be lacking, stuck with a somewhat more one-dimensional bat mythology. I really think a straight-laced batman is just pointless now, you can try to write it sure, but I don't think it would be very interesting on the levels that comics are capable of achieving nowadays.

Even the most revered PAUL DINI, whose work is very close to the spirit of the O'Neil Adams run I guess, still chooses to insert a little screwball batman into the mix now and then. I dunno but yearning for the old straitlaced batman of the 70's again just seems like pointless romanticizing of times gone past. They were and ARE still great comics, but they're also a product of their time just like anything else.

I've posted about Batman Ego a few times, but on this topic I think it's a great reconciliation of the demented pyscho Batman and the upright and super sane Batman of the 70's. a very under-rated short story.


I feel that DC has grossly underrepresented 1970's to mid 80's Batman in trades and the like.

Absolutely. and good point with the Simonson Thor contrast that's exactly what DC should be doing.

Give us the...
Peter Milligan issues (including Dark City)
Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle
GENE COLAN & DOUG MOENCH
Mike Barr & Alan Davis
Doug Moench and Kelley Jones

all they need to do is print them! these are classic batman runs! what the hell DC. especially Milligan the guy just gets screwed when it comes to trades. isn't there some hassle between Breyfogle and DC?



O'Neil/Adams are so much rated that two collections of theirs is the ONLY Batman books in the library in our town.

heh. which ones?

There are also the Neil Adams Batman hardcovers which are for the most part Denny O'Neil scripts in volumes 2 & 3. They're fantastic collections but, as I've posted before, i find them nigh unreadable due to the 'modern' coloring that craps all over his pencils. it's so unfortunate especially because it's Adams own effort, maybe he didn't realize it's not as easy as it looks even with computers. modern coloring is a very developed craft you don't just go into lightly, no matter how good a penciller you are. I wish they'd release these in soft cover with the originals, it almost defies the point of showcasing his art in collected editions in the first place :frown:

[Captain Jim]

That said, pre-Miller Batman was saying "old chum" and was still a little hokey, despite O'Neil.

Please substantiate this comment; it doesn't ring true to me.

[Captain Jim]

Even though I thought most everything else he wrote was pretty mediocre, I greatly enjoyed Gerry Conway on Batman too.

[Captain Jim]

Three volumes of Showcase presents Batman have been published, collecting material beginning at 1964. Fans of the 1970's material should watch for volume 5 (which will probably be out sometime in the next year), as that should begin reprinting the 1970's material (O'Neil, Robbins, Novick, Brown, Adams).

[jgiannantoni05]

Please substantiate this comment; it doesn't ring true to me.

Batman did say "(old) chum" a lot b/w 70 and 85. Check out Tales of the Demon (a story where rose-colored glasses makes people forget some of the hokey dialogue and such (not that I'm saying I still don't love it).....though I more preferred O'Neil's rewrite for BTAS The Demon's Quest).

Would take me forever to flip thru and name and cite pages of all the issues where Batman or whoever says "chum" or "old chum" or there is some other hokey dialogue.

"Chum" was used some by Batman in Moore's "For the Man Who Has Everything."
________
HERBAL HEALTH (http://herbalhealthshop.com)

[RubberLotus]

O' Neil and Adams brought what I consider to be the first story with Modern Age Joker. So what if New Earth didn't come into being until a decade later? It was probably the first Joker since the early fifties to be portrayed as a straight-up homicidal maniac, and damn it, they portrayed him better than almost any other Joker I've known.

[WorstThingUS]

One of my favorite stories of the "Forgotten Period" was Batman #300 which was 10-15 years into the future where everything...has worked out. All the villains have been reformed (except the Joker who just disappeared), no horrible deaths or cripplings, James Gordon is retired and writing his memoirs, Dick is married with children and still Robin to an active, non-bitter Batman.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/0/00/Batman_Vol_1_300.jpg/300px-Batman_Vol_1_300.jpg

[earl]

While there are some stories do carry over well, I think you have to look at 'bronze' age as different to now as 'silver age' comics to now. It was still a different audience and they put stories together way different, as it was more the exception than the rule for multipart story lines.

The yellow circle Batman of the 70s and 80s was as different a character as the one from the 50s as the one from say post 'Death in the Family'. The thing that is cool reading 70s or 80s Batman is how different he is when he is not in costume. The dude is relaxed, he flies coach, he goes to parties, he hooks up with women and I think seems to enjoy being the Batman. The dude is nowhere near as neurotic as the current Batman, whose creators seem to like to revel in watching him screw up and squirm.

They both work as comic characters, but the guy from the 70s-80s was a heck of alot more cool and in control than the modern version, who seems to be making a career of flying off the rail, even if he can take out Darkseid. The Bronze Age Batman was much more of your traditional detective, the dude wasn't always just staring into a computer monitor waiting for a eureka moment. The 70s Bruce Wayne also didn't play himself up quite as much of a clueless dolt as the modern version.

They both work for making good comics, but I do think that the older version is a bit under-rated and has some charms that might be good to bring back to the character. I don't know, if it was me, I'd play it more that Bruce Wayne was a good businessman and secretly a shark of industry.

[Brannon]

Personally, no not at all. Batman is a billionaire with no powers who dresses like a Bat to terrify and beat up criminals. He damn well should be half-crazy, at least. He doesn't need to be full-crazy every couple years, however.


But wouldn't any character that decides to wear a costume and fight crime have to be classified as "half-crazy" then? I think this is a slippery slope. In the end, it's all fantasy and it's hard to apply our standards of behavior to a world where dressing in symbolic costumes and having superhuman abilities is fairly common. I've always found this logic faulty.


But then, I'm exactly the generation targeted by the Noir Ninja version of Batman. The Burton movie, then the darker comics of the late 80s, then the 90s toon, all formed my impression of what a serious Batman should be. I watched reruns of the Adam West show as a kid, and enjoyed them, but always saw it as a separate thing, a parody of Batman even before I fully understood what parody was.


I'm 31, so I grew up with several different versions of Batman. I find the Adam West Batman far too goofy to take seriously (even as a kid, though the satire is damn funny now) but the brooding Batman of today is just dull as hell to me. This is why early 70's to not long after Crisis Batman will always appeals to me more.

[Brannon]

These are classic batman comics of course and true they portray a darker batman who is also essentially humanistic, compassionate, driven yet level headed. He's the ultimate "super sane" batman as have others have mentioned before.

Yet when people praise this version over the modern "pop psychology" takes I think they;re looking at the run outside of context a little. The classic batman of the 70's would just seem a little shallow if you didn't at least raise the *question* that he might be a little iffy in the head. and obviously the comic medium as well as the characters have progressed far beyond what they were then. I have to wonder whether if O'Neil were revamping Batman today, for a contemporary comic audience, whether he might created doubt towards Bruce's mental state as well. We take it for granted now, and can talk about the 70's alternative because we have two broad camps of the portrayal to look at. But without the Miller injected arsehole batman to weigh it against we'd definitely be lacking, stuck with a somewhat more one-dimensional bat mythology. I really think a straight-laced batman is just pointless now, you can try to write it sure, but I don't think it would be very interesting on the levels that comics are capable of achieving nowadays.

Even the most revered PAUL DINI, whose work is very close to the spirit of the O'Neil Adams run I guess, still chooses to insert a little screwball batman into the mix now and then. I dunno but yearning for the old straitlaced batman of the 70's again just seems like pointless romanticizing of times gone past. They were and ARE still great comics, but they're also a product of their time just like anything else.

I have no problem with heroes like Batman being intense and driven, but making him even half-crazy misses the point, particularly when he compare him to his arch-nemesis, the Joker. Batman is sanity and order were the Joker is insanity and chaos. That's an oversimplification but it still works.

That being said, I'm not so sure that the modern sensibility is well equipped with dealing with fantasy heroes. Superheroes are ideals when you boil it down, and are poor subjects for psychological dissection as it breaks some of the fundamental rules of the genre. I realize that many disagree, but heroes like Batman should be "above" certain hangups given their stature.

A strait-laced Batman (though that's relative) existing inside a superhero universe makes sense to me. I'm also more interested in "existentialist" Batman, the detective and adventurer, over one that's no fun to read about. I also take issue with modern Batman "really" being all that complex and interesting. The irony to me is that the noir-ninja Batman is almost as ridiculous in his own way as the Adam West Batman was. Generally, I don't like extremes and I feel that both of these versions fly too far in opposite directions. Just my take.

[jgiannantoni05]

I myself think that Batman (since Inf Crisis) has been a pretty perfect balance of the 70's, 80's, 90's, and new millen. I'm loving where Batman is at as a character.

I think Morrison and Dini have great conceptions of Batman. Wagner does too, would love to see him on a main title. Or Geoff Johns, very curious as to what Johns would do with Batman.
________
Halewood body & assembly (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Halewood_Body_&_Assembly)

[Libaax]

Im so sick the crazy Batman BS that i dont read anything but Detective comics anymore.

They took it far too much.

I would rather have some generic 90s Batman before Batman is crazy BS.....

[JumpingJupiter]

I do love O'neil's era not just of Batman but of comics alltogether. And yeah, I think these over the top Batman stories of late are just a fad. It'll pass.

[Chad]

TwoMorrows Publishing is releasing The Batcave Companion in April. Michael Kronenberg offered an online description of the book recently:

I'm glad to see the interest in BATCAVE COMPANION. Michael Eury and I have been working on this book diligently for over two years now. We've packed its 240 pages with everything we can regarding BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS from 1964 to 1979. We received contributions from many of the important Batman creators from that time period. I think there will be many things you'll learn about Batman in that time period that you never knew before. In addition to a ton of art, with quite a bit never seeing print before, we've included an issue-by-issue index for BATMAN and DETECTIVE from 1964-1979. The index includes not only credits and plot summaries, but also key details and trivia about each story. I think you're going to love it.

http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/topic/8689/t/Batcave-Companion-in-April.html

As a fan of this period and the previously released Superman Companion I'm really looking forward to this project.

In addition to this, DC has just released The Strange Deaths of Batman tpb which may have been timed to coincide with RIP, but I suspect was assembled to showcase the Where Were You When Batman was Killed four parter and to test the waters to see how bronze age material might sell. If DC were looking to simply cash in on Morrison's run, it would have been far easier for them to have simply released a collection of those stories referenced during his run since they've all been reprinted elsewhere.

Anyways, speculation aside...

I agree that there's a lot from this era that is overlooked. Classic locked room mysteries such as the one in which a dying man with a grudge against Batman commits suicide in such a way that the murder weapon winds up blocks from the scene of the crime and near where Batman's been spotted. Multi-part stories such as the Bat-Murderer five parter from 1974 in which Commissioner Gordon sends the police and even Bruce Wayne after Batman when he seemingly guns down Talia in cold blood. Wild Bob Haney/Jim Aparo tales of Batman selling his soul to Hitler; Jim Gordon revealing his darkest secret of having murdered an alien and hiding the body as a rookie policeman; Batman undergoing psychological torture at the hands of the Russians and maintaining his sanity by uttering the name "Joe Chill" over and over and over; the Atom entering the brain of Batman's corpse and stimulating his neurons just enough that Batman's able to return to life as a zombie long enough to hunt down his killers. Wayne Enterprises, Man-Bat, Lucius Fox, Killer Croc, Jason Todd, Leslie Thompkins, Harvey Bullock, and Ra's Al Ghul were all introduced during this time.

While O Neil and Adams are rightfully remembered today, where's the appreciation for Frank Robbins and Irv Novick who really ushered in the Bronze Age with Batman 217 (and incidentally came up with Alfred's last name in 216)?Englehart's and Roger's run may be a classic, but I'd argue that Gerry Conway's sequel is better. Sure they had Batman hunted by the police, but Conway had him shot in the back by the GCPD. That Deadshot face-off on the giant typewriter is well remembered today, but how many people recall Batman breaking into prison where he fought his way through police just to kidnap Deadshot and lock him in a cage in the Bat-Cave? Alfred hiring the Human Target to impersonate Bruce Wayne unbeknowst to his employer? Hugo Strange's showdown with Batman in a replica of Wayne Manor wired to explode at any moment? Dick Grayson filling in for Batman and bluffing a confession out of Rupert Thorne?

Even the idea of a Miller-esque Batman being possible only once a new era had been ushered in doesn't ring true when you realise that such a Batman existed as early as 1982 with Mike Barr's Batman and the Outsiders (the series owed a lot to discussions Barr had had with Miller and issue one even offers his thanks for Miller's influences several years before he would write for the character).

It's impossible to list all the contributers to this period - Jim Aparo, Don Newton, Ernie Chua, Len Wein, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Roy Thomas, Alan Brennert (who wrote arguably the greatest Batman stories ever with Tec 500 and Brave and the Bold 182), Dick Giordano, Gene Colan, Doug Moench - but they all did something that either added something new or offered a refinement to Batman that served to offer a rapid succession of perspectives that could all be refered to as defintive interpretations of the character.

[Captain Jim]

I "get" 1964 (beginning of the "New Look" i.e., silver age Batman). But is there something especially significant about 1979? Might have made more since to take it through 1986.

[Chad]

I "get" 1964 (beginning of the "New Look" i.e., silver age Batman). But is there something especially significant about 1979? Might have made more since to take it through 1986.

The only possible reason that occurs to me would be one of necessity. It could be that 1979 acts as the cutoff date simply because anything beyond that would have drastically increased the page count for this book. Although that suggests we won't be hearing from creators such as Alan Brennert, Mike W Barr, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Doug Moench, and Gerry Conway, and learning the reason for DC introducing a second Robin when they did for example, it also implies that the writers are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to what they are examining. Which is refreshing. Les Daniels wrote a history of Batman about 10 years ago which uncovered a lot of interesting facts behind Batman's creation, development and projects that never came to fruition, but completely skipped over the bronze age in his rush to become the 10,000th person to write about Frank Miller. It's great to hear that these writers are taking the opposite approach.