Batwoman #7 preview

[sherkahn]

ComicBookResources has the preview of issue #7, and the creepiness factor continues.

And I think I have an explanation about the past issues about the art.

UPDATE: Looks like there is a change in the talent behind Batwoman.






Yikes!

Ok, we've all had discussions about the art on the recent books Batwoman, and how Kathy and Bruce have different visuals/art applied to them compared to the other characters (except the other supernaturals we have seen) and how they transcend the page, as they look painted or more details than the other characters, or themselves out of costume.

I think this was done on purpose, as it seems we are having urban legends fighting other urban legends, as Bloody Mary is brought into the conflict, as we have seen La Llorona.

I hope this Maro character get's his comeuppance soon.

*******

It should get it's own thread, and I will ask someone who is more versed in this to do so, but here is the update:

Amy Reeder isn't on Batwoman anymore, due to creative differences.

Comments

[bjornwilde]

Here's Amy Reeder's words on the subject (which are rather professional in my opinion) if any are curious.

I will definitely be stalking keeping an eye out for her work in the future as I love her style and her pushing of the boundaries of page layout.

[janegray]

...Is it just me, or are other people too really getting tired of constant scenes of murder in Marvel and DC comics?

I mean, I get that the writer has to show that the villain truly is a credible threat for the hero. But more and more I've been starting to feel like we can't get a single story anymore without a bunch of civilians (usually women, most often prostitutes or teenaged runaways) getting gruesomely murdered in the prologue.

Such scenes aren't even all that effective. I mean, the victims are civilians (usually particularly vulnerable civilians at that), it's not really all that hard to kill them. Even I could kill some random people off the street if I were an evil psychopath, all it takes is a pointy stick.

So, really, all those scenes do is show that the villain is willing to kill. Bit effin' DUH.

I'm not saying that mainstream comics should be "sanitized" or anything. But ubiquitous snuff for the sake of snuff is incredibly tiresome imo.

Again, it's not the trope itself that bother me, it's the overuse of it. Yes, yes, I get it, the villain is BAAAAAAAAD! Can we stop wasting pages upon pages reiterating this extremely obvious concept again and again and again and again, especially by virtue of the fact that modern comics cost $3 each?

[filthysize]

"Show, don't tell" is kind of a basic rule in writing, though. It would be pretty terrible if everyone keeps talking about a villain doing terrible crimes and we don't see them do anything.

Plus, I think the point of these prologues is less about showing that they're evil and credible (those are a given) and more about showing what their powers are and what they're like. Take, for example, a show like Supernatural. Of course it's a given that every episode they're going to fight some evil monster threat, but there's the pre-credits sequence where the monster kills a civilian to show the audience who the monsters are, instead of a boring exposition dialogue during breakfast of "What are we hunting this week, Sam?" "Oh, a Brazilian Ghoul Chicken. You see, they don't just kill their victims, first they cluck three times and dance the samba and then when the target gets scared they would burst through the ceiling bla bla bla bla" just show it already.

[janegray]

"Show, don't tell" is kind of a basic rule in writing, though. It would be pretty terrible if everyone keeps talking about a villain doing terrible crimes and we don't see them do anything.

Yes, but surely there is a middle ground between "never show the villain do anything evil" and "every single story ever must have a prologue where the villain slaughters a bunch of civilians (usually women)."

As I said, my issue isn't with the trope itself, but with its overuse. I don't necessarily object to its use in this one Batwoman story, but I do object to its use in so many Marvel/DC stories.

I also disagree that, at least in most cases, the purpose of those scenes is to show what the villain's powers/abilities are. More often than not, the deaths are rather predictable (ie: a monstruous beast-like villain eats his victims, a large muscular one beats them to death, a clown-ish one kills them with fire or acid, a telepathic one drives them insane or makes them bran dead, a wizard one turns them into an animals or uses them as human sacrifices for a spell, etc etc).

And, given that the villain is going to fight the hero anyway, why can't we just be shown the villain's abilities during their battle with the hero? In your Supernatural example, couldn't the monster of the week show its "cluck three times and dance the samba and blah blah blah" modus operandi directly on Sam?

Take One Piece, for example: virtually every single character in that story has fantastically outrageous powers, but we usually find about them as they fight the protagonists. Same with Bleach, we aren't told about nor shown the characters' Bankai beforehand, we get to see them for the first time during the battles. Same with Fullmetal Alchemist, neither the heroes nor the audience had any idea what the Homunculus' powers were, abilities like the indestructible shield and the lighting-fast charge and the huge monstruous transformations were all shown for the first time in the middle of the fights.

In any case, I repeat: my issue isn't with the trope itself, but with its overuse.

[shadowpsykie]

i do agree that the overuse of it is annoying... that said, i still think the titles i mentioned (and DC in general has done a good job at it) even Batwing which has at t imes been really violent, is not unecissarily so.

also never got turned onto One Piece or Bleach....

clown-ish one kills them with fire or acid,
*whimper* no clowns... please... *clutches crucifix tighter*

a telepathic one drives them insane or makes them bran dead
Bran dead! now that's just EVIL!!!

;D

[shadowpsykie]

i don't know... done in excess and pointlessly, i would agree with you. But these are supernatural villains (and based off of Urban Legends which are pretty... grotesque in some cases)

Batowman does it well, So does Batman, as does Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Justice League Dark, and I, Vampire. Detectiv comics... not so much (I really think detective comics is more about shcok value now)

pointless violence for the sake of violence yes, that gets annoying quickly. but in this case, i think it has been done well...

now if you'll excuse me, i am going to grab a crucifix, a bottle of holy water and hide in a corner....

[janegray]

See my reply to filthysize above ;)

[practicalcat]

Never just you. Blehhhhhhhhhhhh.

[junkurosu]

Never just you.

I'm just hoping a writer will give us a big villain eventually (if not, I'll do it DC/Marvel!) who doesn't directly murder or cause harm. They would abhor death and yet they are still clearly bad.

And while scenes like this will help viewers, sometimes you need something to shake up the monotony of a story and maybe the idea of not knowing why they are bad or how they are doing it could make a good story great.

[icon_uk]

Nope, right there with you, and I've been saying it for years.

It seems that EVERY new Batman villain (to use an example with a large selection of baddies) is a killer. Not just someone who throws Batman and Robin in a cool deathtrap in the course of their criminal activities, that's par for the course, but actively engages in slaughter of otherwise not terribly important people, whose deaths do nothing but provide gore fodder, or a headcount to make us realise just how truly "badass" this villain is.

Even the old baddies who didn't use to murder all that often now do it all the time (The Joker being the worst offender, he used to be a criminal who had no problem killing, but now he's a killer who only occasionally does anything ELSE)

Hell, Kevin Smith had Crazy Quilt suddenly be a loon who killed and cut out peoples eyes, instead of the art thief (with a hate on for Robin), and had some of the older "goofier" villains shown to be retiring because they didn't like how violent the new up and coming villains were.

It's just.... depressing, and woefully unimaginative.

[blackruzsa]

I think the only way it'll show how horrible the villain is is if the civilians actually have a personality.

I remember an opening scene from NBC's Grimm where you enter on an old married couple for all of two minutes, and you completely fall in love with their characters, only for them to get gruesomely murdered.

That's the only way big bads can really affect a reader with civilian murder. Make them CARE.

Otherwise, drop the fucking thing. Cheapening of lives is not funny, never nice, and was never a good thing.

[janegray]

It's not a matter of caring for me. The victims could have the best personality ever, and it wouldn't change the fact that their death is just for shock value. And while shock value can be a valid storytelling device in small doses, it completely loses its effectiveness when it becomes so common as to be expected.

It also doesn't help that superheroes don't kill and that supervillains never seem to stay in jail for more than a few weeks, so no matter how horrifically nightmarish evil the villain is, he will always get away scot-free. Recently, the Joker cheerfully told the tale of that time he boiled a baby alive and forced the baby's father to eat the soup, but of course the very worst punishment he had to suffer was getting locked up in Arkham to watch TV for a while.

I don't watch NBC's Grimm, but if it's anything like Buffy, I'm assuming whoever killed the old married couple was made to pay for it at the end of the episode, am I right?

[blackruzsa]

Well, the one who killed the couple was the arguably human victim of animal cruelty by others of his kind (it's a creature thing, he was tortured into animalism) and his torturers were killed horribly.

Grimm's great, you should watch it. I think it's the kind of thing people on S_D will enjoy, and it has the same production team (?) as Buffy.

[mrosa]

This is Reeder's art? It's quite a change since Madame Xanadu (yes, I was one of the few who bought it); a bit less Manga, in my view; I think the inks are also helping her here. Absolutely love her facial expressions.

[maxisanacorn]

Oh that's where Steph and Cass and the actual Barbara Gordon went =/

[skemono]

I knew Mary Worth was a murderous, face-devouring demon, but nobody would believe me!