Comic Book Resources

Baker's Plastic Man was the funniest thing since Milk and Cheese.

When you profile pictures like this, you should tell us which title and issue they're from! I'd love to buy this story, wherever it's from!

God, this was a great series and a wonderful issue. Billy Batson R.I.P.

T....just buy the whole series. It's worth it.

My favorite parody from Baker's Plas centered around Batman from early on in the series.

You're assuming DC even noticed the joke. I honestly wouldn't credit a lot of superhero artists and editors with that level of self-awareness.

You’re assuming DC even noticed the joke. I honestly wouldn’t credit a lot of superhero artists and editors with that level of self-awareness.

I think they did get the joke. And their response to it was Infinite Crisis. And the point of Inifinite Crisis wasn't "We hear you about the excessive darkness and maybe you're right," as most people misinterpreted it but rather "We hear you about the excessive and while you may seem right on the surface, know what? You're not! We're as heroic as ever, deal with it! And um...iconic! Yeah. Iconic, that's are answer to everything."

I second what T. said..

WHAT IS THE TITLE??

The first issue of Baker's PLASTIC MAN, particularly the very first sequence, is one of the funniest things I have read in my life, in any medium. I did find that the series got a little too meta for its own good, though, and over the second year, I actually found it less and less rewarding.

So, while your writeup is clearly -- and fairly enough -- suggesting Kaufman's witty remark about Broadway, "Satire is what closes on Saturday night," I'd venture this other Kaufmanism about comedies that fails, "There was laughter at the back of the theatre, leading to the belief that someone was telling jokes back there."

@T

Agreed. However to DC's credit: They were right. A wonderful comic like Kyle Baker's Plastic Man is the comic everyone says they want (self-contained, light-hearted), but will never buy since it isn't in-continuity and "mature." I use "mature" in the comic book sense of the word (Look kids! Rape and murder!).

does the art in Plastic Man (since no one else will tell T. and Blackjak that's where this is from) really look like that, or is that just a horrible scan?

I can't believe you Lawrence! Of course Plastic Man was mature! It had rape AND murder! How did you forget Billy Batson being raped to death by Dr. Light so quickly? Or Wonder Woman murdering Ra's Al-Ghul 14 times?

lol

I thought the joke here was that their costumes are slutty and shouldn't be looked up to, not that DC is/was "dark"

I thought this page was from the last issue.... the one that never got published.

Thank you, yo go re!

It's weird, I love Kyle Baker's art, but i don't know how I feel about this... It sort of strikes my like the old Playboy/Penthouse 70's strips... But maybe like "Anonymous" said, that was part of the joke - someone in a really short skirt talking about being a role model for kids...

But man, that Talky Tawny is GRRREAT!

I thought the joke here was that their costumes are slutty and shouldn’t be looked up to, not that DC is/was “dark”

That's the only joke I can see there.

I thought the joke here was that their costumes are slutty and shouldn’t be looked up to, not that DC is/was “dark”

I thought it was both.

In the context of the book, it was Billy Batson's funeral after Dr. Light, uh, does what DC thinks Dr. Light should do to people. That page was about the silly cheesecake on girl's heroes, but the book itself was about the dumb "maturity" of DC comics.

"It's like that's his power now."

This page makes the eventual fate of Mary Marvel really, really ironic.

A little more Mary Marvel upskirt, please.

Did Huntress and Power Girl trade places standing beside Supergirl off-panel?

@ Mad Monkey: I think that's actuallysupposed to be Black Canary... Unless Supergirl ripped her bodice in mourning between panels... There's more cleavage on display...

That is Black Canary in the last panel.

It sounds very preachy.

Haha, just bought them all off eBay for $20. Score!

"It sounds very preachy."

Yes, it's supposed to. There's this thing called subtext, where you use the superficial message to give meaning to something that is only implied.

Language! It's amazing!

"A little more Mary Marvel upskirt, please."

A little less creepshow, please.

Kyle Baker's Plast Man run was great. Along with the current Ambush Bug, they're two of the highlights of the DCU since...probably Identity Crisis. They both are the total opposite of the all the current trends in the DCU, while also making great fun of those trends. Good comics...but kind of sad, really. I miss fun books.

I miss Kyle Baker's Plastic Man. I think my favorite gag in the whole series is seeing Robin age 15 years while Batman stays 35. That, and the concept of the JLA having a company picnic.

Dear DC: Ethan Van Sciver? On Plastic Man? Really?

But maybe like “Anonymous” said, that was part of the joke - someone in a really short skirt talking about being a role model for kids…

That wasn't part of the joke, that was the joke.
These are characters created for kids, and now they are treated as sex fantasies.

Frank cho would be so proud *Sniff*.

"These are characters created for kids, and now they are treated as sex fantasies."

I'd argue that they were always both. Look into Wonder Woman's real origin.

"Yes, it’s supposed to. There’s this thing called subtext, where you use the superficial message to give meaning to something that is only implied. Language! It’s amazing!"

Thanks for enlightening me, teach.

But what I meant was, the subtext in this page sounds preachy to me. Both this page and a interview I've read with him once seemed arrogant (and I actually agree with his political positions, even if I disagree with his view of superhero comics).

But I've only read his interviews. I didn't read the comic.

"Both this page and a interview I’ve read with him once seemed arrogant"--It takes arrogance to be right, and it takes arrogance to be good. If you're not arrogant, you don't have the balls to make something amazing, and you don't have the balls to have a position that means anything. Arrogance gets a bad rap.

I’d argue that they were always both. Look into Wonder Woman’s real origin.

Wonder Woman doesn't appear in the page, so that's kind of irrelevant.

There was nothing sexual about Mary Marvel when she was created, nor Super Girl.

I think Anthony Cheng's talking about comic book characters in general, so it isn't "kind of irrelevant," but even if you thought he was only talking about the ones on the page, how about Catwoman? I'm pretty sure she was always sexualized. You can't just pick the characters who support your argument and ignore the rest.

And Mary Marvel may not have been used in an overtly sexual way back in the day, but we're talking about a normal-looking teenage girl who turns into a buxom adult woman in a miniskirt. Even in the 1940's comic book creators weren't so innocent they didn't see the subtext there.

I think Anthony Cheng’s talking about comic book characters in general, so it isn’t “kind of irrelevant,” but even if you thought he was only talking about the ones on the page, how about Catwoman? I’m pretty sure she was always sexualized. You can’t just pick the characters who support your argument and ignore the rest.

Well, he quoted me, and I was talking about the characters on the page, so it very much is irrelevent.
If you're going to bring up an exception, and the exception wasn't in the discussion, and the exception really only applies to the excpetion... then what's the point?

I haven't read the first appearance of Catwoman, but she wasn't wrapped head to toe in black leather, that's for sure - she wore a long dress if I remember correctly.
In fact, Power Girl is the only one whose dress looks anything like it originally did, and wasn't she originally a version of Super-Girl? Again, a character who wasn't sexual at all when introduced.

And Mary Marvel may not have been used in an overtly sexual way back in the day, but we’re talking about a normal-looking teenage girl who turns into a buxom adult woman in a miniskirt. Even in the 1940’s comic book creators weren’t so innocent they didn’t see the subtext there.

Have you read the old Captain Marvel comics?
I haven't read many, but I've read Mary Marvel's first appearence, and it wasn't sexualised at all.
She was in a kids book.
Also, I believe her and billy were about eleven or twelve.
There is literally no argument to show that her original creators wanted her sexualised, or that she should be.
The creators weren't 'so innocent', but they had the decency not to push sex in a children's fiction.

Oh, also, Mary doesn't turn into an adult - it was only Billy who ever did that.
The others all keep their personalities and their bodies, Billy is the only one who changes.
And I believe they kept that in the DCU version, so it's just a teenage girl in a mini-skirt... and yet it was Lost Girls everyone cried about...

Wonder Woman's relevant because she's credited as the "first" superheroine (this might not be completely accurate, depending who you count). I would argue every superheroine after her owes something to WW, but at the very least, every DC woman on that page certainly does. It's therefore worth keeping in mind William Moulton Marston's origin for her and its highly sexual nature. Ditto Phantom Lady, another popular early superheroine.

My point is that it's wishful-thinking and a-historical to imagine some "innocent time" in the past when superheroines weren't sexualized. Regardless of the target audience, they were always written and drawn by adult men who knew exactly what they were suggesting. Weren't we just talking about subtext a few posts up?

"There was nothing sexual about Mary Marvel when she was created, nor Super Girl."

As has already been pointed out, Mary from day one aged when she transformed.

Supergirl was originally created in a one-off to be Superman's perfect mate. Let's not get into the creepy incest shit that followed once Kara showed up, or a lot of DC artists would draw female characters nude and then the costumes.

And that page isn't satire, it's just a rant, and a hypocrtical one at that. If superheroes are only supposed to be for kids than why did Baker mainly use Plastic Man as a platform for his views rather than creating an alternative?

That's incorrect. Mary did not age. She just got powers when she said her word. She remained a young girl. This aging thing is a recent development, just like her sexualization.

And Baker didn't mainly use it for his views. This final arc shown here was that, but everything else was accessible, kid-friendly stuff.

I find it a little unseemly, all this obsession about whether comics are kid-friendly or not, when kids aren't even really reading superhero comics anymore. As long as comics aren't promoted to children, and are sold in specialty stores that children don't go into (and cost 4 dollars a piece, no less), there is little point in discussing whether content is kid-friendly.

I always feel like we're not talking about kids here, we're talking about old fans that wish to read kiddie comics (often reacting against fans that wish to read gritty comics with capes and the excesses of specific storylines). And that is why Kyle Baker's rant seems so irrelevant and preachy to me. If there are any kids reading comics these days, they're probably reading Wolverine, not Plastic Man.

And I also think superhero comics lost their innocence a long time ago. One of the defining, most-remembered comic stories of all time had Mastermind raping Jean Grey in something right out of http://www.mind control sex stories.com. I see Identity Crisis more like evolution than revolution. It's not like Meltzer were some alien that invaded comics and changed a wholesome medium overnight into porn. It's all part of a trend that dates back from the 1960s.

Aren't most female characters created as another way to entice people to read comics? I know in some cases it's to try and get more girls to read, but wasn't it also another things for young adolscent males to enjoy about comics? Granted, it wasn't as sexualized as it is today, but a lot of those comics were rather racy those standards...

Rene, what are you basing this "kids don't read superhero" comics thing on? Because it's not true.

And it's not "all superhero comics should be kid-friendly." It's "certain characters were created for children, why use them in this retarded 'adult' stories?"

"But what I meant was, the subtext in this page sounds preachy to me."

It's not preachy, it's irreverent. It's saying "Hey, stop trying to tell 'adult' stories with childish tools. Get over yourself. These characters don't need that kind of 'validation'."

It's saying, "Get over yourself."

Well i just picked up a good percentage of the plastic man run at an auction from a comic shop that was moving and getting rid of back stock so I will be interested to read it, I remember it was a critical darling when it came out but never got a chance to read it.

"Rene, what are you basing this “kids don’t read superhero” comics thing on? Because it’s not true."

Observation, mostly.

Even when I was a teenager reading Marvel/DC, most of my fellow fans were older than me. Kids were a tiny minority in the fandom.

And in my 20 years reading comic books (since 1989), I almost never saw a kid younger than 13 reading a Marvel/DC comic. And I live in a country where comics are still sold in newstands with more affordable prices than the American editions.

It’s “certain characters were created for children, why use them in this retarded ‘adult’ stories?”

Because the market evolved in that direction and the only people currently supporting the titles are the old guys?

Real kids are absent in this discussion, it's all old guys. Some old guys want fun, other old guys want gritty, but it's all old guys.

And that is sad in many levels.

Sales facts say otherwise, is all I'm saying. Kids do read them.

Yeah...
Just because the older generation(s) of readers are the most vocal, doesn't mean that there aren't kids out there...

The average comic reader may be in their 30s, but that means for every reader in their 40s, there's someone in their 20s, and for every one in their 50s, someone in their teens...

At least, based on the law of averages...

I think the idea was to be funny more than preachy -- it's funny when there's subtext that's different than the overt text. The snap between the imagery and the words creates humor. I thought this was funny as hell (as was KB's Plas in general) -- and this from someone who doesn't care abt the "sexualization" of superheroes. They're not for kids; they're not for adults. They're for whoever likes them (a given story). They wear tight, revealing clothes. Artists like to draw boobs & muscles -- it's like complaining that actors are mostly hotties. Well, yeah. We pay to look at them, along w/pretend what they're pretending they're going through is real. We like to look at what looks nice.

But whatever they look like, superheroes are NOT sexual. Their stories rarely revolve around sex (Daredevil gets a lot action, but even Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark's sexed-iness is mostly just a character tag, not a story point).

KB is mostly just about the funny; he goes for every kind of joke possible -- cheap shots, satire, parody, sophisticated "read between the lines" and more, all b/c more than anything he's trying to make you laugh (except in Nat Turner, though). And he does it for me (Cowboy Wally represent)

Joe, Blackjak -

Can you point me to some concrete data about the age of the readership of comic books?

But what I meant was, the subtext in this page sounds preachy to me. Both this page and a interview I’ve read with him once seemed arrogant (and I actually agree with his political positions, even if I disagree with his view of superhero comics).

as much as i love Kyle Baker and Plastic Man, i have to agree with Rene here... the issue this page is from was in the last (or was it second to last?) issue and i remember the series getting a bit heavy-handed towards the end.

i think Baker's view of superhero comics relies too much on an outdated "Hey Kids! Comics!" paradigm. yes, i'm sure kids still read comics, but not in large enough numbers for them to be thought of as the primary audience.

what Baker was satirizing in Plastic Man was not just DC's recent darkness, but the idea of "seriousness" in comics in general, which he's never been a fan of. he's said that when he worked as an inker at Marvel in the 1980s, he didn't even bother to read the comics he was inking because he found them too boring, too full of plot and soap opera.

ask him his idea of a satisfying comic? "on every other page you either see a pretty girl or someone getting punched in the face." which can be a lot of fun when you think of Kyle Baker drawing it, but can also justify the worst excesses of the Image era.

i think Baker’s view of superhero comics relies too much on an outdated “Hey Kids! Comics!” paradigm. yes, i’m sure kids still read comics, but not in large enough numbers for them to be thought of as the primary audience.

Well I think that's part of the problem. The companies make the stories less and less kid friendly and new reader friendly. Then less kids and new readers read comics as a result. Then supporters of new comics use this as justification to continue in that direction: "Look! Why be kid friendly? What new readers? There are none left. That ship has sailed!"

Maybe if there were more kid-friendly comics, then more of the readership WOULD be kids. They're obviously interested in comics based on how they crowd to the manga aisle.

What repels kids isn't the darkness or grittiness. Do you see many kids walking out of something because it's too gory? Maybe it happens, but it's more likely that a kid would dislike something because it's too talky, too boring, too dreary. And I don't mean dreary as in pessimistic (it's only us old farts that worry if a story is uplifting or not), I mean dreary as in a long movie about office politics or intrigue.

Sex and violence may make some older fans angry because it serves as a signal that creators don't care about the kids anymore, but it isn't the reason why kids left in the first place. My own theory is that kids left because the serialized soap opera model introduced by Marvel in the 1960s became even more extreme and dominant, almost completely replacing the more action-driven, standalone model of the Silver Age.

Well, that and kids today have much more sophisticated alternatives to comics...more and better quality video games, cartoons, and movies...

I agree. And let's not forget another big reason why few kids (and women) read comics nowadays: they're not sold in places that are frequented by kids or women. That is it, that is the main one. All the graphic violence and sex are a consequence, not a cause, of kids not reading comics anymore.

I'd say the same for why few women read comics. It's become fashionable to complain about how sexist superhero stories are, but has anyone here read the "Twilight" novels? They're a huge hit with young women, and they're as "sexist" as they come, with a physically weak and emperilled damsel protect by her manly superhuman vampire lover.

Talking about how violent and sexist superhero comics are has become fashionable, but it seems to me it's more about the politics of some fans than a real cause for certain kinds of public not reading comics.

I don't have the numbers on me but a friend of mine runs a shop and has given me the scoop.

My point is that it’s wishful-thinking and a-historical to imagine some “innocent time” in the past when superheroines weren’t sexualized. Regardless of the target audience, they were always written and drawn by adult men who knew exactly what they were suggesting.

And yet, they weren't.

Mary Marvel was in no way sexualised, and Super Girl was about as sexual as Lois Lane, which is not very.
In fact, it's weirding me out that people keep arguing that she is - if you see anything at all sexual in her first appearance, or any others in the original insanely popular run, then that's you projecting your own messed up issues - there's certainly none of it on the page.

Just because Wonder Woman and Phantom Lady were created as sex fantasies, doesn't mean they all were.

As for the idea that every female super hero owes a debt to Wonder Woman, I disagree.
She has very different powers and a very different origin.
Up until Spider-Man, most superheroes could be traced back to Superman or Batman quite easily, you can see who was based more on one than the other, but I don't see that with Wonder Woman.

What repels kids isn’t the darkness or grittiness. Do you see many kids walking out of something because it’s too gory? Maybe it happens, but it’s more likely that a kid would dislike something because it’s too talky, too boring, too dreary. And I don’t mean dreary as in pessimistic (it’s only us old farts that worry if a story is uplifting or not), I mean dreary as in a long movie about office politics or intrigue.

In the old days, comics were found everywhere at newstands and 7-11's. many of us who are into comics got into them from our parents buying us a few for kicks while at the newstand or convenience store buying something for themselves. Nowadays they are only sold in specialty shops, meaning mom and dad are not likely to be buying comics for kids as an impulse purchase. The mom and dad that buy comics for kids are going to be adults who are fans of comics themselves. Why else would they be in a comics store nowadays? And if they are comics fans, chances are they're fully aware of the content inside, meaning they're probably not going to be likely to buy it for their children? What kind of sick parent would buy a copy of the latest gory Nightwing issue as their kid's first comic for example? And even if they did buy their kid a comic, the impenetrable continuity and sorting through the endless retcons would be the next deterrent to keeping the kids interested.

And kids do care about pessimism. At least when it's relentless.

Well, that and kids today have much more sophisticated alternatives to comics…more and better quality video games, cartoons, and movies…

That's an excuse used by adult comic fans that insist that superhero comics "grow up" with them. They are afraid if they admit in any form that the tacky adult content of the books is to blame for low sales, the content will be rolled back to being kid-friendly again, which would mean they would have to go back to being ashamed of reading superhero content. As long as superhero comics are kept excessively adult in themes, they can somehow justify to themselves and others why they're still fans as adults. i think that's also a big reason why comic fans LOVED The Dark Knight and claimed that it captures the true essence of Batman, even though it was glorified torture porn riddled with plot holes. They loved it because it was "adult," meaning that they could tell the mainstream "look, no kid-friendly stuff here! Now do you see I'm not childish for liking this stuff?"

These fans are afraid of acknowledging in any form that these immature "adult" themes are shrinking the industry, so they blame movies, internet, videogames, cartoons, but tell me this: if it's competition from other media that's killing superhero comics and not content and continuity, why does all-ages manga ABSOLUTELY KILL IN SALES? I mean, the sales are so through the roof that manga graphic novels are making it onto the top 20 of regular bookscan book sales lists, beating out conventional fiction paperbacks. The other-media-as-competition thing is just an excuse that doesn't hold up when you see the sales of manga.

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to the the fact that is was childish or adult, just that kids have more and more options now, especially today, where they can occupy their time without resorting to comic books. Video games, both console and online, are so much more sophisticated in terms of quality (compare todays games with the systems out 10 or 20 years ago). There's the internet. Look at all the book series kids have now...Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. Thanks to HP, kids are reading more and more books these days, and the quality of movies out there, whether it's animation or not, have increased by leaps and bounds. 20 years ago, the Lord of the Ring Series, Harry Potter Series, Spider-man series, X-men Series, Iron Man, etc...these movies wouldn't have been able to be done, the special effects just weren't there. I'm not saying that kids 10 or 20 years ago didn't have the options they do today, they did, they just didn't have as many alternatives and the quality of alternatives was much lower.

Shit, if I were a kid today, I'm not sure if I'd even bother with comics. If an adult handed me a comic book or the latest Harry Potter or whatever books series is hot among kids these days, I'd probably go for the book.

Walid, I know what you mean, but it's simply an excuse and not true. Manga sells like gangbusters with kids. If you go to Barnes and Noble or Borders and go into the graphic novels aisles, they are clutters with kids in the manga section while the superhero comics section is empty save for a few adults. All these experts and fans threw up their hands and expressed defeat in the fact of the internet, TV and Harry Potter, but manga's sales have thrived with kids and is insanely popular, proving that the claim that comics couldn't succeed with kids regardless of the content because of increased competition from other entertainment sources was a myth.

Oops, hit return too fast. Anyway Walid, it is you who actually missed my point. American publishers and fans NEED to believe the myth about comics failing because of something out of their control like other media like Internet, TV, movies, Harry Potter, cartoons, etc., because the alternative would be to admit that the problem is something WITHIN their control like content, distribution model and impenetrable continuity, something that the current fans and publishers refuse to give up regardless of how the audience shrinks. By blaming other media, fans and creators get an excuse to keep going the adult route of gratuitious sex and violence. If they were to admit that other media really is no excuse for the flagging comics sales (which it isn't given the popularity of manga despite the same competition from internet and movies), then the publishers and fans would be forced to admit that something is wrong and has to be changed, like maybe embracing all-ages comics again.

The "other media are killing us" excuse is just a way for people to say there's nothing that can be done to fix the problem, so we may as well keep doing what we've been doing.

The average comic reader may be in their 30s, but that means for every reader in their 40s, there’s someone in their 20s, and for every one in their 50s, someone in their teens…

At least, based on the law of averages…

Not at all. One reader in their 50s could be offset by on in their teens or two in their twenties.

(I'm not commenting on what the truth is - just pointing out some dodgy maths)

Manga to me *is* another alternative to American comics, which I forgot to include. And there is something wrong with the model for super-hero comics. As people pointed out, they aren't readily available as they used to be. I imagine Archie comics sell reasonably well, since parents can just pick them up at the local grocery store for their kids.

If anything, “other media are killing us excuse" should be forcing American comic companies to work harder to fix the problem, and to try and find more and better ways to attract readers.

@ Rene,

My source was 2000A.D... about three years ago they quoted the age (based on their subscriber base, merchandise purchases, DreddCon attendees, and Titan UK subscriptions for comic-related magazines) was 32. Five years previously they had given it as 30.

@ DanCJ

I know the maths is dodgy. But the point is there must be readers under 30 as well as over 30... especially as the average age (again, admittedly in the UK, and not the US for certain) went up by 2 years over a five year period... that SHOULD mean a greater influx of younger readers, but may simply mean more deaths of older readers...

While it's certainly true that teenagers, especially teenage boys, still come to comics, I think what concerns most of the fanbase is that they don't even approach being a majority of the readership anymore. There is a general perception that until the post-90's crash, teenage boys were uniformly the majority readership of all American comics. It seems to upset older readers that there's no visible new generation of "fans" ready to roll in behind them, reading Wolverine now but sure to be reading Garth Ennis and Vertigo in ten years' time.

Personally I think demographics have just changed, such that now most people come to comics in their 20's. That's roughly when people usually get plenty of disposable income to use to develop hobbies and neurotic passions, and comics is a hobby that demands a fair bit of money these days if you want to be remotely well-read.

Personally I think demographics have just changed, such that now most people come to comics in their 20’s.

I just think new people don't come to comics period anymore, except for an odd exception here or there. I can't imagine it being a common occurrence for a 20-something to start a serious comic habit at that age, unless it's independent comics, and even then I don't see it being a major routine in his life, just an occasion purchase here and there.

Well, it's not common in the sense that a majority of 20-somethings do it, but it does seem to be extremely common for folks fresh out of college who enjoy online culture to develop an interest in comics during the period between attaining financial independence and getting more interested in marriage/kids. These people tend to be lapsed gamers or anime fans who are looking for something more mature and less time-consuming to enjoy.

They are often uninterested in joining comics-specific online discussion groups, but seem to like sharing and discussing whatever they're reading with their current circle of friends. Multi-volume series with finite plots like like Fables, Walking Dead, and Y the Last Man are usually preferred over anything involving superheroes, unless it's something self-contained like Watchmen. They tend to also really like webcomics and those print collections of webcomics that sell so well these days. This group is not as overwhelmingly male as the traditional comics fan, the gender split seems more 60/40. I talk about comics (and swap recommendations) with other women more now than ever before, even in periods when sales were overall much better.

If I didn't hear the same story repeated online so often, and not in places I expect to hear about comics, I would be inclined to think it was not significant, too. Instead I think a quiet revolution has happened concerning the nature of the industry and how it attracts new readers, but it's only being really noticed in the parts of the comics community not primarily interested in superheroes or monthlies. Essentially I think part of the industry is experiencing healthy growth while other parts may be destined to atrophy.

i think that’s also a big reason why comic fans LOVED The Dark Knight and claimed that it captures the true essence of Batman, even though it was glorified torture porn riddled with plot holes.

But... everyone loved that movie - it's only comic fans I've heard gripe about it.
Everyone else thought it was top-notch - it was a critical and commercial smash hit.

the true essence of Batman, even though it was glorified torture porn riddled with plot holes.

But… everyone loved that movie - it’s only comic fans I’ve heard gripe about it.
Everyone else thought it was top-notch - it was a critical and commercial smash hit.

I find 3 camps to be fiercely loyal to the movie: Heath Ledger fans, comic fans and people who just always go with the hype (like the people who believed Crash was as good as the critics claimed). Out of these 3 camps, i find comic fans to be the most rabid in their love for the movie. Non-comic fans were the most likely to be willing to admit it wasn't the best movie ever created.

"It’s not preachy, it’s irreverent."

Nah, it's preachy.