CBR: REVIEW: "Batman" #3

[CBR News]

CBR reviewers Chad Nevett and Greg McElhatton both review Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo's "Batman" #3, coming away with different reactions to the third chapter in the Parliament of Owls mystery.


Full article here.

[Karl O'Neill]

Greg Mac got it right. He got it right.

[FHIZ]

2.5?

Lol, wut?

[CSPDX]

2.5?

Lol, wut?

Chad's been lukewarm (to be generous) on all the DC books since the relaunch. If you read his review, his only real complaint is that it features familiar story tropes. He admits it's well crafted and features impressive art. I've noticed he can be very binary, if it doesn't blow his doors off, he doesn't have time for it, which I think explains the harsh star rating. That's ok, I guess, but this is Batman a book that's been going for like 70 years now. Even Grant Morrison uses those same tropes, he just uses ones from 50 years ago everyone thought were lame, and tries to convince you they're actually really cool. Snyder is really only interested in telling a good story, and that's not what Chad's looking for. Different strokes.

[coconutphone]

Good example of why reviews are pretty useless.

[NinjaMic]

I disagree with both.

4 and a half is too high but it damn sure isnt 2 and a half.



I'd give it a solid 4. It was good but it really just moved the story along.

[NinjaMic]

Chad's been lukewarm (to be generous) on all the DC books since the relaunch. If you read his review, his only real complaint is that it features familiar story tropes. He admits it's well crafted and features impressive art. I've noticed he can be very binary, if it doesn't blow his doors off, he doesn't have time for it, which I think explains the harsh star rating. That's ok, I guess, but this is Batman a book that's been going for like 70 years now. Even Grant Morrison uses those same tropes, he just uses ones from 50 years ago everyone thought were lame, and tries to convince you they're actually really cool. Snyder is really only interested in telling a good story, and that's not what Chad's looking for. Different strokes.

Honestly, after his Voodoo #1 review, I'm convinced the guy just skims books and writes "reviews".

[The_Dork_Nut]

Good example of why reviews are pretty useless.

I have come to that same conclusion. I liked the last Batgirl issue. I like that they have somebody who doesn't love Scott Snyder reviewing this comic. I will get it tomorrow and see what I think then, despite what these two may think and see what side Im on.

[secretasianboy]

if not for the part where Batman trips an incredibly obvious trap
i would say the issue is perfect

[ticklefist]

The site just proved that until it can develop a site standard for reviews, it should stop doing them.

[Knight of DC]

I read the comic first before I read any reviews.

But I will have to ask, Mr. Nevett, what comic did you read? Snyder/Capullo's run is slowly but surely turning into one of my favorite Batman stories. It's one of the few in the Nu52 that I cannot wait a month for the next issue.

[serpico71]

The site just proved that until it can develop a site standard for reviews, it should stop doing them.

The reviews on this site are so all over the place, They are for entertainment only.

Some reviews on CBR were with such vitriol concerning DC, that I became disgusted, and I realized that the only people I trust are word of mouth, and the guys at the LCBS. One reviewer on Batwing even felt he would write, 'I don't even think DC knows that Africa has more than one country' - a ridiculous claim that had nothing to do with the review. Just felt like throwing a punch for whatever reason, I guess.

Batman #3 was remarkable. It was not full of action or disgusting battle scenes, but took a breather to give us an issue of pure 100% detective work that moved the story forward with a remarkable plot twist, that tied in the 'Streets of Gotham' story line that Snyder had been touting, and sets up the last half of the arc. Amazing issue, much more interesting that 1 or 2.

[Munkiman]

Good example of why reviews are pretty useless.

Not really. Reviews are very useful, but mostly you need to take an aggregate of a few. If most reviews are negative to average, then you probably shouldn't try the book if you're on the fence about it. If most reviews are positive, maybe check it out. And if the reviews are all over the place, as in this case, the best thing to do is to get the issue and see for yourself where your tastes fall. By giving two very different ratings, CBR is showing that it's the kind of book that people will have very different opinions about. IMO, that's useful.

[fiestaoffire]

By giving two very different ratings, CBR is showing that it's the kind of book that people will have very different opinions about. IMO, that's useful.

2 is hardly enough to have a feeling on what general consensus is. It's too much of an overgeneralization.

I personally have never liked rating anything by letter grade, out of 10 or out of 100, or by stars. I'd much rather have a review chock full with what the reviewer enjoyed or didn't enjoy, rather than trying to quantify their enjoyment, especially when comics can do so many things that it's hard to create and weigh certain elements over others (art style, story, dialogue, etc.)

[DarkBeast]

Even Grant Morrison uses those same tropes, he just uses ones from 50 years ago everyone thought were lame, and tries to convince you they're actually really cool.

You're confused as to what "tropes" are being referred to. Morrison does not use established storytelling tropes in any sort of usual way. Your complaint here is in regard to how Morrison referenced a few things that were in '50s and '60s Batman comics? Fine, but he did not employ those elements in familiar ways. He employed them in ways that no one has ever employed them. Snyder, on the other hand, employs totally familiar plot elements and characters in totally familiar ways. Always. With no innovation to speak of. The closest thing to innovation Snyder has given us was the face-scanner in issue one, which was used in lieu of text boxes introducing the characters. Wow, big innovation. I really needed to know Alfred's name.

Snyder is totally cookie-cutter in his storytelling. I think he's a decent writer (2.5 is too low, Chad, c'mon) but he's extremely low on the originality scale. Every plot point in every Snyder Batman story feels like a familiar story beat that we've all read in a thousand other Batman stories. Oh here's the scene in the morgue. Oh here's the scene where Alfred's trying to get Master Bruce to rest. Oh here's the scene where Bruce Wayne is talking about how he wants to improve Gotham. Oh here's the scene where the villain sneaks up on him. We've seen all of this stuff so many times that it's ridiculous to consider Snyder as some sort of A-list Batman writer. Literally EVERY scene feels like a stale remix of every generic Batman story ever. You couldn't get less original if you tried.

On the other hand, he does dialogue pretty well (when he can go two pages without inserting in another ham-fisted anecdote about someone's childhood, and the scientific factoids are also starting to wear pretty thin), and he sets up panel-to-panel work nicely. He does a good job in the details, but the overall framing and packaging of his stories are dull. He has had great art that really compliments his stories. He's no doubt also writing his story with his artists' strengths in mind. I give him decent credit for the things that he deserves credit for.

It's kind of like a flip-side of what we had with Morrison. With Morrison you had this wildly creative, innovative run, but the actual details always felt frustrating (because of imperfect artwork, or unannounced fill-in artists, or delays, or misprints with word-balloons going to the wrong character's mouth, coloring errors, and the occasional but very noticeable missteps by Morrison himself in trying to push certain elements too far). With Snyder's stuff, on the issue-to-issue and even page-to-page level, you know that everything's going to be worked out perfectly for a smooth, high quality presentation. But if you pull back at all and examine anything in relation to the overall run, you notice how damn repetitive and boring and uncreative it all is. Unless you're totally wowed like a gullible child by every scene, then you should begin to notice how the whole thing is very contrived, with many lifeless characters (the mayoral candidate, for example) and a plethora of stock scenes and dialogue exchanges that are way too familiar

Capullo is killing it, though. Great artwork.

I'd give Batman #3 like 3.25 stars. I'm not mad at it at all, but the constant non-critical cheerleading of Snyder has go to stop. Are you guys really so forgiving after wading through so much tedious exposition and extraneous narrative factoids in every issue? It is getting old. In this issue he did a better job than he usually does of matching up the factoids in an interesting way with what's going on in the actual story (owls not building their own nests), but even then it's still annoying. Every time I turn a page, see all those narrative boxes, I wince. Not that I don't like narrative boxes in my comics, but Snyder's anecdotes are often so damn tedious and boring. I wince the whole way through. At the end, SOMETIMES I'm pleasantly surprised when Snyder can get through one of his anecdotes or scientific factoids without completely annoying me or making me roll my eyes at how ham-fisted or schmaltzy it is.

And look at how he ended issue 2. If Tony Daniel or David Finch wrote this stuff (and they've written many comparable passages) everyone would be all over them for how tired and typical and bland it is:

"I'm the only legend this city needs. In many ways, it's my oldest and truest friend. And it knows me better than anyone, just as I know it. Which is why I can say that there is no Court of the Owls. Not in Gotham. Not in my city."

Yawn. Morrison never needed to resort to such familiar stock narration.