Batman Year 100

[Seraku]

just finished this.

damn this was near perfect, one of my favorite Bat stories

anyone agree?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I rather liked, Although I wouldn't call it near perfect.

[matthewaos]

Really enjoy it. I liked the story very much and the art.

[Mia]

The story was absolutely excellent! It's one of my all time favourite Batman stories.

[Murrocko]

What's it about?

[Seraku]

What's it about?

first off it's by Paul Pope

it's set in 2039 (100 years since his debut in 1939). the orwellian government has created a new world without "masks", and then one of their cameras catches a glimpse of the Bat killing a fed and they scramble to bring him in. The feds storm the city, but Batman evades as best as he can trying to figure out who framed him and why. Commisioner Gordon (our Gordon's grandson) tries to piece together the mystery on his own and makes many startling discoveries

it's a unique mystery with cyberpunk mixed in, not all questions are answered and that makes it better.

[AJM]

I loved it. The mystery too - (SPOILER?) we never quite find out who Batman is, which is brilliant.

[Murrocko]

first off it's by Paul Pope

it's set in 2039 (100 years since his debut in 1939). the orwellian government has created a new world without "masks", and then one of their cameras catches a glimpse of the Bat killing a fed and they scramble to bring him in. The feds storm the city, but Batman evades as best as he can trying to figure out who framed him and why. Commisioner Gordon (our Gordon's grandson) tries to piece together the mystery on his own and makes many startling discoveries

it's a unique mystery with cyberpunk mixed in, not all questions are answered and that makes it better.

Hmmm, sound right up my alley.


So is Pope really good or something? Ive never read any of his stuff or really ever heard of him at that.

[NickGuy]

the art is great, the story feels like year one meets DK2 though

[Seraku]

I loved it. The mystery too - (SPOILER?) we never quite find out who Batman is, which is brilliant.

well we clearly know he's Bruce Wayne, we just don't know how the hell he's still alive and literally kicking even after 100 years, which honestly was a nice touch, since any explanation would have taken away from the story.

I also loved the ending though

"who are you? :mad: "
"you'll NEVER know :evilsmile: "

[Karl O'Neill]

I must order this trade. never read it.

[nightwing45]

It was a great story, and I thought the art fit with the tone of the book.

[AJM]

well we clearly know he's Bruce Wayne

Was that actually confirmed? I don't remember that being the case at all, plus he looks younger in this and than he does in current continuity. I'll have to read it again, bit i got he feeling it was his son or something.

[dancj]

Was that actually confirmed? I don't remember that being the case at all, plus he looks younger in this and than he does in current continuity. I'll have to read it again, bit i got he feeling it was his son or something.
Yeah I agree.

[Seraku]

Was that actually confirmed? I don't remember that being the case at all, plus he looks younger in this and than he does in current continuity. I'll have to read it again, bit i got he feeling it was his son or something.

the exchange at the end with Gordon, and the original Gordon's file confirms my theory for me. I mean they pretty much say that the Bob Kane, Frank Miller, Adam West Batmen are all the same. Batman is an eternal mortal.

also this is an elseworld, it's not really connected to continuity, it's just Pope telling his own badass Batman story.

[AJM]

the exchange at the end with Gordon, and the original Gordon's file confirms my theory for me. I mean they pretty much say that the Bob Kane, Frank Miller, Adam West Batmen are all the same. Batman is an eternal mortal.

also this is an elseworld, it's not really connected to continuity, it's just Pope telling his own badass Batman story.

The exchange confirms this:

1. That Jim Gordon knew that the original Batman was Bruce Wayne.

2. That his grandson, the new Jim Gordon, thinks that the new Batman is still Bruce Wayne...

...but as readers, we know that's impossible because he couldn't live to be over 120 years old. Jim Gordon III believes he's a mythical, supernatural being - which he clearly isn't because we've seen him bleed and suffer in a very human way. Plus his methods, attitude and personality seem different from Bruce. And he looks young too.

The point is, the mystery is the intention - there is no answer. I doubt even if Paul Pope himself knows.

[Infinity Man]

first off it's by Paul Pope

it's set in 2039 (100 years since his debut in 1939). the orwellian government has created a new world without "masks", and then one of their cameras catches a glimpse of the Bat killing a fed and they scramble to bring him in. The feds storm the city, but Batman evades as best as he can trying to figure out who framed him and why. Commisioner Gordon (our Gordon's grandson) tries to piece together the mystery on his own and makes many startling discoveries

it's a unique mystery with cyberpunk mixed in, not all questions are answered and that makes it better.

Nice synopsis. I'll have to check this out, it sounds like fun.

[Seraku]

...but as readers, we know that's impossible because he couldn't live to be over 120 years old. this is a comic book that isn't in continuity

also like I said the file showed that Bruce was Bob Kane, Frank Miller, Adam West Batmen within the same lifetime, why couldn't he still be alive?

[AJM]

this is a comic book that isn't in continuity

also like I said the file showed that Bruce was Bob Kane, Frank Miller, Adam West Batmen within the same lifetime, why couldn't he still be alive?

...because he's human?

[Rawhide Kid]

The story is not very original: like someone says before, it's kinda like Year One and Dark Knight Returns, which are great stories so it could be worse !
But the art... The art is astonishing.

[Seraku]

...because he's human?

like that has any real meaning in a comic.

in any case this is going to go on forever, and it's beside the point. It doesn't matter who Batman is, it's the fact that he exists and fights evil and has secrets in a world that has no secrets.

[Lupek]

I re read this this morning.

The art is fantastic. It's a decent story. As others have said, I actually liked not having Batman's true identity explained. Loved the false teeth and the constant hacking and coughing.

I'd be up for more of Pope's Batman.

[Eric D.]

It's my favorite Batman story. It's also one of my favorite all-time stories.
Paul Pope is greatness in my book.

[Eric D.]

i love Pope's design of the Batman outfit. in the trade he goes into detail about what he would realistically expect out of batman's appearance and applying it to the design.

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/pope%20batman%20100.jpg

I recently read Daredevil #600, and rand across the pinup below....I had to doubletake for a moment...
Rafael Grampá's interpretation seems to share a certain philosophy of design with Paul Pope's Batman.

http://kitsunenoir.com/blogimages/rafael-grampa-2.jpg

[Sn4tcH]

I do not dig Paul Popes art, and I need to re-read this. I read it at a time where art distracted me too much. I could probably enjoy it for its story these days.

[stillanerd]

The exchange confirms this:

1. That Jim Gordon knew that the original Batman was Bruce Wayne.

2. That his grandson, the new Jim Gordon, thinks that the new Batman is still Bruce Wayne...

...but as readers, we know that's impossible because he couldn't live to be over 120 years old. Jim Gordon III believes he's a mythical, supernatural being - which he clearly isn't because we've seen him bleed and suffer in a very human way. Plus his methods, attitude and personality seem different from Bruce. And he looks young too.

The point is, the mystery is the intention - there is no answer. I doubt even if Paul Pope himself knows.

Here's how I look at it: what is the most common thing said by creators and fans of Batman alike in regards to how Batman gets depicted? There is no one interpretation of Batman. He can be an swashbuckling adventurer, a film noir detective, a Robin Hood like crusader of the oppressed, an authority figure, a grim and dark "creature of the night", a high-tech ninja, a gothic superhero, a gritty revenge fueled vigilante, a specially deputized enforcer of the law, a master strategist--whatever the mood of the particular time and place within a culture allows him to be.

But there are constants, however, things which do not change regardless of the interpretation. That Batman is Bruce Wayne, that he saw his parents murdered when he was a boy, that he spent years training himself to the peak of physical and mental condition, that he doesn't have any superpowers and relies on gadgets, and that he has a resilient, indomitable will.

What Paul Pope did was take the "many interpretations of Batman" that have been done over the years and made it so as if they were literally a part of Batman's actual history from 1939 all the way up to 2039. That's why Batman in the story feels very much like he could very well be Bruce Wayne despite him having to be over 100 years old and yet also why he's different than other versions of Batman. So even though, realistically, Batman shouldn't be Bruce Wayne in" Year 100" he still very much is Bruce Wayne and it doesn't particularly matter HOW he could still be Bruce Wayne only that he is. Because Bruce Wayne and Batman are one and the same, regardless of how he is interpreted.

[AJM]

But there are constants, however, things which do not change regardless of the interpretation. That Batman is Bruce Wayne, that he saw his parents murdered when he was a boy, that he spent years training himself to the peak of physical and mental condition, that he doesn't have any superpowers and relies on gadgets, and that he has a resilient, indomitable will.

...which would be perfectly reasonable if it were referenced in the the story, but it's not. The origin of Pope's Year 100 Batman (seeing his parents murdered) is never revealed, hence creating the mystery – we have no idea why or how he is Batman. And in current continuity Bruce Wayne isn't Batman, and not for the first time either, so it's not really a constant as you say. There is a different Batman now and there have been others in the past, so why can't Pope's in 2039 be a new guy in the costume too?

As i've said before, i don't think we're supposed to know who he is and i don't think Pope does either.

[mosdef]

I just got this, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. But I'm looking forward to it.

[stillanerd]

...which would be perfectly reasonable if it were referenced in the the story, but it's not. The origin of Pope's Year 100 Batman (seeing his parents murdered) is never revealed, hence creating the mystery – we have no idea why or how he is Batman. And in current continuity Bruce Wayne isn't Batman, and not for the first time either, so it's not really a constant as you say. There is a different Batman now and there have been others in the past, so why can't Pope's in 2039 be a new guy in the costume too?

As i've said before, i don't think we're supposed to know who he is and i don't think Pope does either.

There's a key distinction, though, whenever Batman isn't Bruce Wayne. When Azreal and now Dick Grayson took on the mantle, they were/are pretending to be Batman while Bruce Wayne is Batman. The current comics are clearly making that distinction as Dick Grayson is "playing the role" of Batman in order to hide the fact that Batman "died" from the rest of the world to prevent Gotham succumbing to crime and anarchy. It still acknowledges that Bruce Wayne and Batman are one and the same.

And with regards to whether or not it's a different Batman in Year 100, logically you should be right since, if if Batman was Bruce Wayne it that story, there's no way he could be over 100 years old and still look like he's 30 (unless he got dipped into a Lazarus Pit or some such). However, Pope does sprinkle enough hints to suggest that, somehow, Batman is indeed Bruce Wayne and has been for a very, very long time. There's at least two scenes, IIRC, in which Gordon's grandson is looking through the case files and we see Batman in 1939 (when he first debuted in the comics), Batman in the 1940s, a Batman who looks like his 1960s TV show incarnation, Frank Miller's Batman from the Dark Knight Returns (and makes direct reference to that story), and even, I believe, the time when Bane broke Batman's back in Knightfall. Also, there's the password used to open his grandfather's computer files on Batman. Not to mention Batman in the story, while certainly is "different" in the sense that he uses "fake fangs" and is more "homemade" when it comes to his costume and gadgetry, there's certainly enough characteristics which suggest the Batman readers are familiar with--his fighting skill, his analytical mind, his determination, his being self-assured to the point of over-confidence, his fatherly attitude towards the book's version of Robin and the doctor's daughter--suggests he might indeed be Bruce.

But, and I think it's part of the beauty of the story, is that one can certainly believe that it's not Bruce Wayne but rather just another in a long line of "Batmen" as you have. But, there's plenty there to suggest that, somehow, it really is Bruce Wayne who has "adapted" and "evolved" to be a Batman for this particular time and place and, at the same time, is the same as he ever was.

[Lemurion]

It's really interesting to see all these people praising the art: I could barely stand to look at it. This book almost made me not buy Wednesday comics just because that had Paul Pope art too.

[Eric D.]

Here's how I look at it: what is the most common thing said by creators and fans of Batman alike in regards to how Batman gets depicted? There is no one interpretation of Batman. He can be an swashbuckling adventurer, a film noir detective, a Robin Hood like crusader of the oppressed, an authority figure, a grim and dark "creature of the night", a high-tech ninja, a gothic superhero, a gritty revenge fueled vigilante, a specially deputized enforcer of the law, a master strategist--whatever the mood of the particular time and place within a culture allows him to be.

But there are constants, however, things which do not change regardless of the interpretation. That Batman is Bruce Wayne, that he saw his parents murdered when he was a boy, that he spent years training himself to the peak of physical and mental condition, that he doesn't have any superpowers and relies on gadgets, and that he has a resilient, indomitable will.

What Paul Pope did was take the "many interpretations of Batman" that have been done over the years and made it so as if they were literally a part of Batman's actual history from 1939 all the way up to 2039. That's why Batman in the story feels very much like he could very well be Bruce Wayne despite him having to be over 100 years old and yet also why he's different than other versions of Batman. So even though, realistically, Batman shouldn't be Bruce Wayne in" Year 100" he still very much is Bruce Wayne and it doesn't particularly matter HOW he could still be Bruce Wayne only that he is. Because Bruce Wayne and Batman are one and the same, regardless of how he is interpreted.

i can get behind that train of thought.