Comic Book Resources

Hush will reveal the bandages to reveal...more bandages! He's the Unknown Soldier!

Who'll then take off the bandages to reveal...Spider-Man's robot parents!

Who will flip open their robot face to reveal...the real Aunt May!

Do you dislike Jeph Loeb? The concept of the character Hush? Personally, I don't think the Hush story in Gotham Knights was very good, but I enjoyed Batman: Hush.

I'm more prepared to believe there's depth and subtlety in Bazooka Joe than in Leob's Hush.

Thank you, Jeff Ryan for the inspiration behind this...

Hush will take off the bandages to reveal that he's really...

The Unknown Soldier...who will unwrap his bandages and unmask himself as...

Larry Trainor/Negative Man...who will remove his dressing so we may see his true face...

Valentina Vostok/Negative Woman...who's bandages will be unwound from her head and we find out that it's...

Rebis...and, yeah, it just gets too weird by this point...

When you unwrap Hush you don't even get shitty gum to chew. Yes, shitty gum is better than what you get when you open up Hush.

Eventually Hush is unravelled to reveal...BRUCE WAYNE. It'll be a SHOCKING tale unlike any you've seen before!

What? Fight Club? What is...a movie? Nope, we've never heard of it...

I don't know what you guys are going on about, Jeph Loeb is the definitive Batman writer and Hush is definitely the greatest contribution to the DC universe in one of the most seminal runs of the past twenty yea- I'm sorry, I can't even bring myself to finish this sentence ironically.

I think Paul meant to say that "The original ‘Hush’ is one of the semi-anal modern Batman stories."

Yeah, I went there.

Ah... 2002-03. The grand Hush mystery.

The Internet was ablaze with comic fans everywhere debating just WHO was behind the Hush bandages. Was it Jean Paul Valley? Was it Two-Face? Was it "Holiday"? Was it Jason Todd? Well of course it wouldn't be Jason Todd... bringing him back would be an admission of creative bankruptcy. I hope DC never does that...

...anyway, who was Hush? After all, it couldn't be this fellow Tommy Elliot, Bruce's childhood best friend who just so happened to be introduced in this very arc, that would be too easy! What is this, a Scooby-Doo mystery?

And his motivation COULDN'T be a simple rehash of Lex Luthor's original post-crisis origin, no siree!

Well, at least Tommy Elliot's MASTER SKILLS IN ALL FORMS OF SURGERY KNOWN BY MAN restored Harvey Dent's face for many enjoyable follow-up stories. Two-Face was played out anyway, it's not like they'd ever use him in a major motion picture again.

...

OKAY, snark aside, "Hush" had a lot to do with bringing me back to comics after a several-years hiatus because a) Jim Lee's art is gorgeous, b) the buzz was inescapable, and c) at the time I had no idea that Jeph Loeb was the Michael Bay of comics. Not that's a BAD thing, but it's not a GREAT thing either. So I'll always appreciate Hush for bringing me back. But Hush might hold the record for "most jettisoned plot points" in the history of comic arcs. I'm preaching to the choir, but bear in mind:

1) The Bat/Cat romance was more-or-less over by the end of series. All that's confirmed is that she knows his identity now.
2) OYL Riddler "forgot" he knew who Batman was
3) OYL Harvey Dent became Two-Face again without DC ever using him "normal" again in any significant way
4) The new Clayface (which had to created in Gotham Knights since the abilities that Clayface used in "Hush" didn't correspond to the abilities of any of the alive Clayfaces at that time) died in the follow-up arc after his hastily-created origin.
5) The Jason Todd appearance was a fake-out, but then was retconed into being the real deal. I have yet to since read a Jason Todd story that made me feel that bringing him back to life was a good idea.
6) The Loeb/Lee follow-up arc never happened, resulting in the truly horrid Gotham Knights follow-up that wasted Grant Morrison's awesome Prometheus as Hush's lackey.

...so, in hindsight, not quite the milestone it was intended to be. Hopefully Dini can do better with a character that certainly HAS potential, even if his origin is less-than-stellar...

"OYL Harvey Dent became Two-Face again without DC ever using him “normal” again in any significant way"

IMHO that's one of the great losses of the (overall successful) direction 52 ended up taking. I get the feeling there was a major arc planned involving Harvey fighting crime in Gotham as well as the tale of GCPD corruption and intrigue that ended with Gordon back as Commissioner and Bullock in the situation we found him in at the beginning of OYL. We didn't get to see it; Gotham time ended up reserved for Batwoman and the two Questions.

hey Im no Loeb fan myself but the Hush story was fun for what it was...a popcorn movie..there was no deeper meaning to it and sometimes thats okay in a comic. And while the follow ups have been horrible...especially with Jason Todd..at the time that cliff hanger was exciting hell everyone was talking about it...also Prometheus not really that awsome even before the Gotham Knights story..his greatest claim to fame is being defeated by a shot to the family jewels

The "restored Harvey Dent" plot point would have been the FIRST thing I would have wanted to cover after Hush, and the teasing of Jason Todd's return would have been LAST. Unfortunately, the folks at DC didn't agree. What was even the point of restoring Harvey Dent for a couple of years even, without doing anything with him???

I thought the Hush saga in Gotham Knights started out pretty cool, with an attempt at giving the bat-events of the past few years some continuity, but man did it ever go downhill fast.

Last year, I hitched my wagon to Grant Morrison's star instead of Paul Dini's. And trust me, it was a hard decision, but I just couldn't get two monthly Batman books. I've sinced dropped Morrison and was really thinking of getting Dini's Batman, which from what I've heard has been pretty standard cool.

A five part Hush series does not encourage me to pursue those feelings.

"hey Im no Loeb fan myself but the Hush story was fun for what it was…a popcorn movie..there was no deeper meaning to it and sometimes thats okay in a comic."

Rob, I don't disagree with you on that point. Fun comics are good, and when I refer to Loeb as the "Michael Bay of comics," I don't mean that in necessarily a bad way. The Rock was an awesome movie.

HOWEVER... I disagree with the fact that there "was no deeper meaning to it." Clearly with Loeb's attempts of "change" in the Bat-universe (i.e. Bat/Cat romance, Harvey Dent restored, new mastermind villain, Riddler knows Batman's ID), there WAS an intended "deeper," "NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME" attempt to change the status quo. And then everything, per normal, was completely reversed without even trying to utilize the new status quo outside of Gotham Knights, which was NOT good comics (can I declare that, Brian?)

Basically, all that resulted from the "far-reaching" changes of "Hush" was that Catwoman knows Batman's ID and the return of Jason Todd.

Loeb's fault? Not really, but I'm sure the follow-up arc that never materialized would've been better than Gotham Knights.

I hear you can unravel the secrets of the universe in a Bazooka Joe comic.... or at least kill a good minute trying to figure out what the joke was. One of those.

Still more than you can say for Hush though.

Jeff Ryan, J. R., Joe Rice, and JR have all posted in this thread, and they are, judging by their commments, all different people. Seems like a mahematical anomaly.

The Bat/Cat romance was recently hinted at in Dini's latest issue of Detective Comics.

Also, I know I'm in the VAST minority (as in, probably the only person ever), but I really liked the Hush Gotham Knights stuff. I mean really, really liked it. I followed Lieberman and Barrionuevo to the Martian Manhunter miniseries, which I also enjoyed.

I think you should go stand in a snark free corner for awhile, Brian.

I think you should go stand in a snark free corner for awhile, Brian.

Nuh uh!

That is why this piece was accompanied by the snark free goodness of the celebration of Archie Comics Great Experiment of 1989-90!

Tekende said...
"Eventually Hush is unravelled to reveal…BRUCE WAYNE. It’ll be a SHOCKING tale unlike any you’ve seen before!

What? Fight Club? What is…a movie? Nope, we’ve never heard of it..."
Actually, Bruce Wayne had already done that story WAY before Fight Club, in 'The Untold Legend of the Batman' (which anyone who's enjoying 'Batman R.I.P.' should really pick up). Of course, 'Fight Club' was written slightly better...

Hmm, Hush or Bazooka Joe comics? That's a tough one, Brian...

BRAD: "I think you should go stand in a snark free corner for awhile, Brian."

BRIAN: "Nuh uh!

That is why this piece was accompanied by the snark free goodness of the celebration of Archie Comics Great Experiment of 1989-90!"

So, if one provides snark-free goodness, one is allowed to be snarky at other times? Is there such a thing as Snarkarmic Balance?

Was Hush a great story? No. But it was a decent story, especially compared to the crap Loeb is capable of. And Dini is a good writer, so I'm sure he can take a questionable character like Hush and do something good with him. All in all I'm very disappointed in you for making a blog post simply to engage in the mocking of two creators, only one of which usually deserves it, but for stuff much worse than Hush.

Was Hush a great story? No. But it was a decent story

No, it wasn't. Decent is WAY too strong praise for a Jeph Loeb story. Only two levels of Loeb quality: (1) obvious crap and (2) decent on the surface but actually really crappy once you actually think about it.

If Paul Dini is going to talk about the "nuances" of Hush, then yeah, he's "earned" his mocking, too.

Let's not forget Paul Dini was supposedly the big mastermind behind Countdown, too. The man makes mistakes, same as everyone else, and not everything he writes will be gold. This doesn't make his best any less wonderful, but also doesn't mean that he's beyond reproach.

(That said, honestly: some of the stupidest opinions on comics I've ever read have come out in interviews with creators whose work I've enjoyed. So Dini doesn't somehow stop being a masterful Batman writer just because he didn't reject Hush out of hand.)

It's not unreasonable to like Hush, but take it for what it was: Batman fighting all the classic Batman villains, and Jim Lee drawing big, cool stuff.

"Nuanced" isn't really the word that comes to mind.

Was 'Hush' really that bad? I read it relatively recently, after reading years worth of the harshest possible criticisms of it (a lot of it from the folks here), and I couldn't see what the fuss was all about. I mean, yeah, Tommy being introduced at the start of the story and then being revealed to be the killer (um, spoilers, I guess?) was pretty cheesy, but it's not like there weren't a bunch of other quality candidates thrown in along the way. There was some really solid characterisation in there, some interesting ideas and temporary status quo changes that nobody did anything with, and some of the best art of Jim Lee's career.

Really, I don't get the shine on Dini. He's a lot of fun, but his dialogue can be pretty reminscent of the cartoons: expository in a way that's necessary for young TV viewers but story-halting for older readers in contemporary titles.

And, of course, there's Countdown, which was pretty much The Diniverse Presents: DC's Most Forgettable Characters.

poor paul dini, complimenting a fellow writer only to be ridiculed. i, for one, think hush is a fine addition to batman's rogue's gallery

Loeb’s fault? Not really, but I’m sure the follow-up arc that never materialized would’ve been better than Gotham Knights.

Well it's either Loeb's or the editors - maybe he should of checked with editorial first to see if any of this would be followed up, and if it wasn't editorial should have told him 'no', OR, at least done a few issues to unravel or at least use some of his changes.
Of course, this is the downside to creators doing shorter arcs instead of longer one's - the next guy wants to tell his own stories instead of finishing someone else's.
Maybe there should be a rule of thumb for writers (or editors, it's hard to know who's at fault these days) - if you don't want to actually deal with a consequence of your story, then no one else does either, and you shouldn't put it in there.

Loeb’s fault? Not really, but I’m sure the follow-up arc that never materialized would’ve been better than Gotham Knights.

I highly doubt that. I'm sure Loeb's follow-up would have been even worse, just because it's rare to find a worse writer than Loeb in ANY medium. I think only Ben Raab seriously has a shot at writing a worse story than Loeb.

Howard Mackie could take Loeb in a crap write-off, easy.

Howard Mackie could take Loeb in a crap write-off, easy.

Howard Mackie is damn awful, but he actually wrote 7 panels in a row once that didn't have a ridiculous plot hole so even he is somehow more competent than Loeb, sadly.

No one likes the Long Halloween (outside of the very very end anyway)?

So... hang on a second...

Everyone here is criticising Dini about a character that Jeph Loeb created?!?!

Give Dini a chance! We've often seen really crap characters turned into gold by a different writer with a new take... Cat-Man anyone??

Yes, Hush was a bit obvious, but it was still great fun... And Jim Lee's artwork on the villians was gorgeous!

Looking at the quote from Dini... "Seminal" translates as "best-selling"... The "nuances" he's referring to may not even be anything that Loeb/Lee did intentionally, but rather something that Dini read into it himself, and that he realised that he could write with...

And... remembering a brilliant interview with Alan Grant for the Judge Dredd Megazine, the Bat-Editors are/were notoriously bad at actually listening to writers, rather they would try to push their own plots/ideas on the writers and re-write accordingly...

Let's see how it turns out before we slag it off?

and SMILE!