Joe Quinones' art keeps the quality from the previous issue: well done if somewhat streamlined, with somewhat vague likenesses of the actors. It is curious that much of the unofficial, personal art he has posted regarding the Batman movies over the last several years looks much more detailed with pin-point likenesses of the actors. It seems like Sam Hamm continues to be more influenced by Daniel Waters' Batman Returns script than his own 1989 script. He is also making the same mistakes DC made with their Batman '66 comics, by abandoning what made it what it was, and trying to graft elements of modern DC continuity onto it. In the case of Batman '89, we are introduced to Dr. Harleen Quinzel. Unfortunately we also get a lot of the current political climate grafted onto the story. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of this approach. When I read a comic that is supposed to embellish and follow the spirit of the Michael Keaton Batman movies, the last thing I want is preaching about political and social issues that are constantly on the news in 2021. I want to get lost in that timeless movie world, not be hammered by Hamm-fisted opinions and commentary about 2021 topical sociopolitical issues. Batman '89 is quickly becoming a huge disappointment. This issue gets a C-.
2 comments:
I agree that this comic book is turning into a big disappointment, thanks to Sam Hamm's script. I'm sure you are aware of Steve Englehart's claims that he (mostly) wrote the 1989 script, and Sam Hamm was just the union writer lucky enough to be picked to type it out and get the credit. I always took that claim with a grain of salt, thinking Englehart was exaggerating, but now I'm more likely to think that is more accurate than one would imagine. Just look at the fact that the 1989 movie is really Hamm's only major credit. He's really done nothing since, and the few things he did attempt (scripts for Fantastic Four and Watchmen) were rejected almost immediately after he turned them in.
Maybe DC should have assigned Steve Endglehart to write this "Batman '89" mini-series. It probably would have been much better.
@Stosh, it's funny you wrote that. I've been a big fan of the 2 Tim Burton Batman movies my whole life, although I wasn't born when they were released. I'm also a student of the silver and bronze age comics, and was aware of Steve Englehart and his part in the 1989 movie. I always believed Sam Hamm was a fake name the Screenwriter's Guild came up with because they couldn't give credit to Steve. It was fueled by the fact Hamm had no other credits of substance. I used to tell my friends, who looked to me as a Batman expert and would ask me questions, "Steve Englehart is the greatest Batman writer of all time, and he wrote the 1989 movie, but couldn't get credit because he wasn't in the Screenwriters Guild, so they credited the fake name of Sam Hamm." LOL.
Post a Comment