The Neal Adams Batman (and his collected works)

[Will.S]

I've always loved this version of Batman and it's one of those definitive looks for the character but when I took a look a the Neal Adams hardcovers I saw that Neal recolored/tweaked a good chunk of his art with modern coloring. I then recoiled in horror.

http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/3/7/3744_400x600.jpg

Usually I'm not against this if the coloring was pretty horrific in the first place or if it was initially a black and white story, but in this case it's totally unnecessary and it takes away from the art for me. I usually prefer it when the colors stay closest to the era in which it was produced such as the flat colors. For this reason I may just wait for the Batman Chronicles to catch up to the Neal Adams runs or just get the Batman in the 70's book which has his art correctly reproduced.

But it sucks to not be able to get the originals since they're incredibly hard to find given that it's Neal Adams we're talking about here.

[AJM]

Absolutely, i don't like the new colours at all. Unfortunately i'd already ordered all three volumes from Amazon before i found out about it and i was very disappointed. Adams recolured them himself too, which is a shame. I've got a lot of the old O'Neill & Adams issues too but i wanted them in a more accessible form, and i feel a bit duped with these expensive HCs because they don't have the content i wanted. I'm not sure Chronicles will use the old version when it catches up (if we're all still alive by then!) - all the recent TPs are using the recoloured versions as standard. Oh well. I think old TPs are the cheapest way to get the original colours.

[T Hedge Coke]

Wait, it's okeh on a story that was originally black and white, but not on a work that was color in an era that had less range for color than we currently can manage?

Would you prefer they reproduce flaws, as well, in the coloring or printing? Why not print them on bad paper, just to be accurate? What about elements they may have wanted to achieve but simply could not due to the technological, financial, and simple making-the-deadline restraints?

I think Batman: Year One and The Killing Joke both benefitted from recoloring.

Heck, I'm a fan of recoloring/reworking recent comics if they are improved by it. I'd like some recent Mister Miracle and Vixen appearances to have some skintones reconsidered when they are collected for instance.

[The Confessor]

Wait, it's okeh on a story that was originally black and white, but not on a work that was color in an era that had less range for color than we currently can manage?

Would you prefer they reproduce flaws, as well, in the coloring or printing? Why not print them on bad paper, just to be accurate? What about elements they may have wanted to achieve but simply could not due to the technological, financial, and simple making-the-deadline restraints?


I think you're missing the point somewhat. We all know that colouring has moved on since Neal Adams' run on Batman but what I think the OP was saying was that it would be preferable to have the original 1970's colouring faithfully reproduced for authenticities sake. To re-colour these early 70's stories is a bit "revisionist" in my opinion and takes away from accurately recreating the comic reading experience that folks would've had in the early 70's.

To make a music based analogy, it's a bit like when old 1960's groups go back in the 21st Century and remix their old albums, a la The Doors. There's no doubting that the CDs still sound great but personally, being a rock music purist, I would much rather listen to the albums as the artists originally released them and as people first heard them in the 1960s. For the band to go back and tamper with their classic recordings 40 odd years later is, as I say, a bit revisionist.

Ultimately, some people like things to be reproduced authentically and some don't...it's all a matter of taste really. But you shouldn't berate someone else for wanting the colouring of old comics to remain faithful to the original publications. They're not just being a luddite, they're actually wanting a specific comic reading experience, one that is as close as possible to the original.

There could be many reasons why a person would want a faithful reproduction of an old comic book, some nostalgic, some aesthetic and some simply borne out of historical interest.


I think Batman: Year One and The Killing Joke both benefitted from recoloring.


Well, I have to disagree...at least where The Killing Joke is concerned. The original bright, lurid, ecstasy inspired colouring of The Killing Joke was totally in keeping with the times in which the comic was first published. In much the same way as the psychedelic artwork of Steve Ditko's Dr. Strange was perfectly in keeping with the 1960's.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with the newer re-colouring of The Killing Joke, it's actually very good, but the original colouring of the comic totally captured the zeitgeist of the late 80's. To make another music analogy, changing the colouring of such an influential book is like packaging The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album in a plain white sleeve. You just loose some of what it was that made the original so special IMO.

[T Hedge Coke]

To make a music based analogy, it's a bit like when old 1960's groups go back in the 21st Century and remix their old albums, a la The Doors. There's no doubting that the CDs still sound great but personally, being a rock music purist, I would much rather listen to the albums as the artists originally released them and as people first heard them in the 1960s.

With that warmth which is only the hiss added by the recording equipment? Do you also prefer to read novels printed on antique presses?

A good example of where I'm coming from would be the reengineering/rereleasing of the Raw Power album done by Iggy Pop, himself. There's nothing particularly wrong with how it was originally released, and there isn't to be implied a failing on the part of the technology or David Bowie (who engineered it the first time), but I prefer the rerelease. Sounds a helluva lot better to me and Iggy Pop seems to be happier with it... and it would have sounded worse using older, era-specific equipment.

I appreciate where you're coming from. I think it's one thing if someone is coming in as a stranger to the work, but when it's the same people involved, that's a different story. And even when it isn't the same creators, there really are things someone might want to take advantage of, and something like these Neal Adams collections aren't meant as a historical archive, but as something to be enjoyed now.

[The Confessor]

With that warmth which is only the hiss added by the recording equipment?


Well, warmth doesn't come from hiss, obviously. I'm all for digitally remastering albums so that the fidelity of the CDs is as good as it possibly can be, I just take issue with tinkering years after the date but that's kind of a separate issue to what we're talking about.


Do you also prefer to read novels printed on antique presses?

Now you're just being facetious.


A good example of where I'm coming from would be the reengineering/rereleasing of the Raw Power album done by Iggy Pop, himself. There's nothing particularly wrong with how it was originally released, and there isn't to be implied a failing on the part of the technology or David Bowie (who engineered it the first time), but I prefer the rerelease. Sounds a helluva lot better to me and Iggy Pop seems to be happier with it... and it would have sounded worse using older, era-specific equipment.


Well, it's horses for courses I guess. You obviously don't mind having your music or literature tampered with long after the fact, which is fine...I'm sure there are a lot of folks who feel the same way. But you should also recognise that there are other folks out there who would like the Neal Adams reprints to be more authentic or more accurately recreate the original reading experience. Plus, of course, some people might just plain prefer the original colouring to the newer colouring. Nothing wrong with that.


I appreciate where you're coming from. I think it's one thing if someone is coming in as a stranger to the work, but when it's the same people involved, that's a different story. And even when it isn't the same creators, there really are things someone might want to take advantage of, and something like these Neal Adams collections aren't meant as a historical archive, but as something to be enjoyed now.


Well, they could still be enjoyed now with the original colouring, couldn't they? I mean, just because things have moved on these days doesn't mean that you wouldn't enjoy reading the original comics with their limited colour palettes as well. I appreciate that these Neal Adams collections aren't specifically meant as Archive collections but it's a shame that they've been recoloured for those people that don't like the new versions.

I just think that you're wrong to sort of insinuate that people who prefer the original early 70's colouring are curmudgeons or luddites. They like the original colouring for a specific reason and as such, saying that they dislike the modern re-colouring is a valid point of view I feel.

[T Hedge Coke]

I just think that you're wrong to sort of insinuate that people who prefer the original early 70's colouring are curmudgeons or luddites. They like the original colouring for a specific reason and as such, saying that they dislike the modern re-colouring is a valid point of view I feel.

I don't mean to suggest a Luddite quality (after all, I assume you enjoy modern comics to look modern), but... historical reenactors? Historians? Archivists, maybe?

I think it's perfectly valid to prefer the works be not touched up or altered as a matter of taste, sure. People like what they like. But, as a matter of option, I think having the option to revisit an older work and do something you may have wanted to originally, or to clarify/purify your own work now that you have better technology, more control or more time, is perfectly valid, too. The only arguments I can come up with for denying the creator(s) this freedom would be as a matter of taste, or one of historical accuracy, but that's sort of blown away by the other factors (paper quality, printing quality, lack of ads or letters page), anyway.

[The Confessor]

I don't mean to suggest a Luddite quality (after all, I assume you enjoy modern comics to look modern), but... historical reenactors? Historians? Archivists, maybe?

Ha ha...nothing wrong with that. :cool:



I think it's perfectly valid to prefer the works be not touched up or altered as a matter of taste, sure. People like what they like. But, as a matter of option, I think having the option to revisit an older work and do something you may have wanted to originally, or to clarify/purify your own work now that you have better technology, more control or more time, is perfectly valid, too.


Yeah, of course it’s just as valid but remember, just because it's new doesn't necessarily mean that it's better. I mean, it is possible to totally ruin a book with the colouring, so there must obviously be the potential for a re-colouring job to detract from a comic more than the original colouring did. Not that I'm suggesting that this is the case with the Neal Adams re-colouring but you catch my drift.


The only arguments I can come up with for denying the creator(s) this freedom would be as a matter of taste, or one of historical accuracy, but that's sort of blown away by the other factors (paper quality, printing quality, lack of ads or letters page), anyway.


Well, I guess it really depends on whether you consider things like letters pages an annoyance in comics. I think that reproducing the letters pages in every issue like Marvel do with their Omnibuses is a really nice touch...it provides a fascinating insight into the mind set of the comic fans that read those old issues as they hit the stands.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree though. You like modern re-colouring in your collections of old comics, whereas I hanker after reproductions that are as faithful to the originals as possible. Different strokes for different folks.


Edit: You know, I think this thread is the first time I've ever posted in the Batman forum. I don't normally frequent these parts but the mention of Neal Adams in this thread's title caught my eye. I have a real soft spot for his work in Detective Comics.

[HopeLantern]

The Neal Adams Batman definitely is making BFTC a great read for me. It's nice to see it resurrected with Tim, even for a little while.

[carabas]

Well, I have to disagree...at least where The Killing Joke is concerned. The original bright, lurid, ecstasy inspired colouring of The Killing Joke was totally in keeping with the times in which the comic was first published.It's not really in keeping with the tone and feeling of the story though. Dave Gibbons never liked the original colouring.

As for Neil Adams... I would have gotten this in a heartbeat if not for the dire, dire recolouring job, not to mention the redrawn bits. Look at Batman's face in that first one...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162950_2.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_163100_2a.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162836_1.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162915_1a.jpg

[Will.S]

Absolutely, i don't like the new colours at all. Unfortunately i'd already ordered all three volumes from Amazon before i found out about it and i was very disappointed. Adams recolured them himself too, which is a shame. I've got a lot of the old O'Neill & Adams issues too but i wanted them in a more accessible form, and i feel a bit duped with these expensive HCs because they don't have the content i wanted. I'm not sure Chronicles will use the old version when it catches up (if we're all still alive by then!) - all the recent TPs are using the recoloured versions as standard. Oh well. I think old TPs are the cheapest way to get the original colours.Yeah once I saw what was done on the inside, it severely discouraged my urge to buy them. Of course not all of the stories are recolored since some of them retain the flat original look of the books but for the most part the recolored stuff was off putting. I'll probably just stick to the Batman in the 70's trade and whatever book reproduced Neal's art in a more faithful fashion to the originals.

I think you're missing the point somewhat. We all know that colouring has moved on since Neal Adams' run on Batman but what I think the OP was saying was that it would be preferable to have the original 1970's colouring faithfully reproduced for authenticities sake. To re-colour these early 70's stories is a bit "revisionist" in my opinion and takes away from accurately recreating the comic reading experience that folks would've had in the early 70's.

To make a music based analogy, it's a bit like when old 1960's groups go back in the 21st Century and remix their old albums, a la The Doors. There's no doubting that the CDs still sound great but personally, being a rock music purist, I would much rather listen to the albums as the artists originally released them and as people first heard them in the 1960s. For the band to go back and tamper with their classic recordings 40 odd years later is, as I say, a bit revisionist.
Yeah you hit the nail on the head.

The Neal Adams Batman definitely is making BFTC a great read for me. It's nice to see it resurrected with Tim, even for a little while.
Tim's costume was definitely one of the main things that made Battle for the Cowl better for me, even if it was just to see that throwback costume being used again with the accurately colored bright blue color.

It's not really in keeping with the tone and feeling of the story though. Dave Gibbons never liked the original colouring.

As for Neil Adams... I would have gotten this in a heartbeat if not for the dire, dire recolouring job, not to mention the redrawn bits. Look at Batman's face in that first one...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162950_2.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_163100_2a.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162836_1.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/2007-12-24_162915_1a.jpg
This perfectly illustrates why I disliked the coloring and tweaking so much. For some strange reason in the hardcovers Neal changes Batman's expressions to smiles or other odd facial features when they originally didn't have any. Also the colors for the originals books seem to match the scenes atmosphere better than the updated ones.

*sigh*

[T Hedge Coke]

I even like the re-drawing. I must be ill... somebody call a medic.

Seriously, I look at that panel with grumpyface Bats and wonder how he can say that much with face like that. The redrawn panel looks like he's speaking.

The first (particularly the women) and last (mostly making the figures pop from the foreground) panels of that page four are immensely improved to me, by the new coloring. The old isn't bad, and I'm not arguing that redoing or modernizing is always a benefit to works of art (I certainly wouldn't want to see Glynis Wein's work on Daredevil got rid of), but here it seems to communicate and enhance the line art better than the older.

[carabas]

but here it seems ... enhance the line art better than the older.As far as I can see, what it does is obscure and cover up the line art with dayglo computer colouring effects.

[AJM]

For art to be effective, it needs context, and when you adjust old art with modern methods it removes it from its context and often lessens the impact. Sometimes it can work well - Bolland's recolouring on Killing Joke is good, for instance, but i don't think it was necessary. And most of the time a reworking of older output amounts to little more than than vanity and - ironically - nostalgia. I really believe that everything - music, literature, comics, cinema whatever - should never be tampered with. If it was good enough at the time, why shouldn't it be good enough now?

I remember watching a documentary about The Exorcist where William Friedkin explained why the "spider-walk" scene was removed because it was dramatically destructive to the movie. Two years later he'd put it back in, and he was right the first time. I have never seen a rework or a remix or a repaint that's been more effective than the original. It's like seeing your grandmother in lingerie - she might look and feel good, but there's a whiff of desperation about her, it's unconvincing and a little uncomfortable and undignified. Why can't she just be Grandma? Don't we love her the way she is?

[Will.S]

I even like the re-drawing. I must be ill... somebody call a medic.

Seriously, I look at that panel with grumpyface Bats and wonder how he can say that much with face like that. The redrawn panel looks like he's speaking.

The first (particularly the women) and last (mostly making the figures pop from the foreground) panels of that page four are immensely improved to me, by the new coloring. The old isn't bad, and I'm not arguing that redoing or modernizing is always a benefit to works of art (I certainly wouldn't want to see Glynis Wein's work on Daredevil got rid of), but here it seems to communicate and enhance the line art better than the older.
The line art does stand out more but it seems to come at the detriment of the coloring.

Plus I've also noticed that there are fairly odd inking/penciling alterations as well. I'm not saying that Neal doesn't have the right to change his stuff after the fact but it just strikes me as odd and unnecessary since the work is already fine in itself and makes it less true to its time period.

If I were to make a recently successful recoloring comparison I would say that the recent printings of the Watchmen which followed the Absolute Edition recoloring are superior to the past trades since everything looks faithfully recreated and doesn't look jarringly done. It even had some enhancements to further improve it such as the lighting in some panels and it separates the Black Freighter comic from the actual Watchmen material better by adding a more retro look.

But with regards to Neal's Batman run, I think at the least it would be nice to have an original or an approximate to that alongside the retooled stuff since the original issues are very hard to come by at this point.

[carabas]

If it was good enough at the time, why shouldn't it be good enough now?What if the creators never thought it was 'good enough' even back then, o even if there are colouring mistakes that were missed?
Sandman, Batman: Year One and Watchmen have all benefitted massively from a recolouring.

[Will.S]

What if the creators never thought it was 'good enough' even back then, o even if there are colouring mistakes that were missed?
Sandman, Batman: Year One and Watchmen have all benefitted massively from a recolouring.
I almost forgot Year One as well.

I think there should be a balance. Obviously with today's paper and coloring techniques one can spruce up an old work as much as you want to but I also think that the new techniques should be able to reproduce the tone and look of the old stuff but in a smoother fashion in the same way that Watchmen, Year One, and most of the Marvel trades have done so far.

[Chad]

What if the creators never thought it was 'good enough' even back then, o even if there are colouring mistakes that were missed?
Sandman, Batman: Year One and Watchmen have all benefitted massively from a recolouring.

You know, I would have prefered for these original stories to have been left alone, but...

Adams has spoken extensively about the battles he fought to have greater attention focused on improving the quality of the work DC was producing in the 60's and 70's. While I believe he did personally show DC how they could utilize other techniques to increase the number of colors they had been using at the time to produce something other than four-color work, he didn't do this in time to have these improvements applied to his own works. He presented these stories between 1969-1974 and DC will be re-presenting them until the end of time. They will introduced to new readers hundreds of years from and they will still carry Neal Adams name on the stories. It seems unfair that what he was capable of in a month (or however long it took to produce these comics) has to stand the test of time regardless of the fact that Adams is now able and willing to spend the time he feels needs to present something that will always be promoted as "What Neal Adams was Capable of".

I don't like that the recent Brave and the Bold Showcase volumes used the redrawn stories because I believe that these collections should serve to reprint the comics in their original state. The reason I make a distinction between this and the three Adams volumes is because the latter were promoted as being the collected works of Neal Adams and I feel that if it's being used to showcase Neal Adams (as opposed to Brave and the Bold 85-102 or whatever) then he shouldn't necessarily be forced to adhere to this idea that "You've got one take at this Neal, good or bad it's going to go out into the world and be replayed over and over and over again until the end of time" if he's willing to attempt another go at it.