I'm always amazed that Englehart's run was only eight issues long, and that it took better than half its plots as direct sequels of the stories in a Famous First Editions: Batman #1 reprint that Englehart must have gotten ahold of.

I'm also always amazed at Englehart's inflated opinion of his own run (someday, I must finish my essay on why "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" is better or more important or something than Englehart's two-parter). He basically credits himself with complete creative inspiration for both BTAS and the Burton movie.

All that amazement notwithstanding, I'll admit to a certain amount of pleasant anticipation toward an Englehart/Rogers/Austin reunion.

Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a return to JLA for Englehart, either. His year on the title back in the day was a marked high point.

If "Joker's Five-Way Revenge" is the one I'm thinking of, then it is more important than the Laughing Fish, since it is the first story in 30-odd years to feature a psychopathic murderous Joker instead of a Joker who drives around in a giant purple car, stealing things but never killing. That story defined the Joker for the next 30+ years and continues to do so.

But the Laughing Fish story is just way more fun.

And say what you want about Englehart, he rescued not just one, but two Batman villains from obscurity (Hugo Strange and Deadshot).

Crap. Now I have to buy a Batman comic.

You guys have read Englehart's recent Marvel work, right? Not pretty at all.

Miller/Lee sounds like fun, and DC sure isn't kidding when they talk about getting big names on the All-Star books. I will forgive Miller for DKSA since it's just one misfire - granted a horrible, horrible misfire - but still only one.

At last! A Batman comic by the people who brought you The Dark Knight Strikes Again and Hush!

...Aw, crap.

And Marc wins for most curmudgeonly comment in thread. Well done, sir!

C'mon, we can at least get a little excited about Englehart and Rogers, right?

Hell, I'm excited enough for all of you! Engelhart might have been riffing on Batman #1 stories, but his was a genuinely fun take on the character -- one, incidentally, at odds with the current conventional wisdom about Bats' psychology. (His Bruce Wayne was actually worried about becoming "a daytime mask for the Batman" -- the polar opposite of today's position.)

Englehart did have a couple of Batman stories that were less than thrilling (a Legends of the DCU sequel to "The Laughing Fish" featuring Aquaman and the Joker; and a LOTDK arc with the Riddler). Likewise, Rogers famously returned to the character with that Archie Goodwin plot/James Robinson script that appeared in LOTDK -- which also featured the return of Silver St. Cloud. Hopefully their re-teaming (plus Terry Austin, who really complemented Rogers, at least in the '70s) will be greater than the sum of the parts.

As for Miller, I think of Spawn/Batman and shudder. I figure DK2 was just some kind of creative hemorrhage he had to get out. (At least Dick will be heroic in All-Star....)

Yeah, it's going to depend on which Frank Miller shows up: The creative genius committed to his craft, or the guy who says "They backed a truckload of cash up to my house! I'm not made of stone!"

Hopefully, All-Star has an editor who's willing to kick some writer ass to make sure the stories are good.

One of the things I tend to discount "The Laughing Fish" for is the fact that the second part, where the Joker is murdering people under police protection, is lifted exactly from Batman #1. It's not a sequel or an homage, it's a copy.

The one Batman #1 riff that Englehart didn't do, that it would be kinda cool if it was the focus of his return, was the Cat[woman] story. You could sink some teeth (so to speak) into a Silver v. Catwoman Love Showdown. Especially if Bruce is wearing a sweater vest and has a waffle-shaped injury on his temple.

Why must DC and Marvel try to recapture the past? Let's get Englehart and Rogers on Batman -- it's worked out so well with Claremont on X-Men. I love those issues, but I fear what they might do now. It's been almost 30 years, after all. As much as I love Silver St. Cloud (the only women for Bruce Wayne, as far as I'm concerned), I have a bad feeling that she'll come back only to meet the same fate as Vesper Fairchild. This and Miller and Lee really can't work, can it? If we don't like it, the old stuff will be compromised, and even if we do like it, we'll say stuff like "It's all right, but it can't compare to what they did in the past." Couldn't Dc just reprint the old Rogers/Englehart/Austin run (what was it, six issues?) in a nice hardcover volume? That would be cool.

"Why should old writers even bother? In fact, why don't we just read their old stuff again, since there's a possibility that these old writers might be stagnant?"

Burgas, you suck. Mark, you suck. The All-Star line up; I'm having that. Even Morrison.

On the All-Stars line in general: assuming I'm understanding it correctly, it seems like a brilliant concept. It's not the Ultimate line--it's the new DC canon. It's the set of books that tells accessible, powerful, standalone stories about the iconic characters.

Doesn't anyone else think this is incredibly cool, and a great way of getting new readers? Heck, I wouldn't mind if this were the future of superhero serials; don't just pump stuff out monthly, fair weather or foul. Release self-contained books that are generally accessible whenever you've got a great creative team and a great story.

(I'm not terribly excited about the Batman book specifically, but I'm intrigued. So long as Miller remembers to make it sufficiently standalone, I could well see it working out as the Batman book to give to non-comics readers.)

Alex, I think the All-Star line is a great idea, but the Batman title really is going to depend on which Miller shows up. Isaac, don't come to a gunfight without any bullets. :)

And Marc demonstrates why we're called the Howling Curmudgeons....

Alex, if All-Star is the new canon, we're just going to have massive retcon problems all over again, just like the twenty years since Crisis. If All-Star are non-canon standalones, that's fantastic. If they set the continuity for the regular titles, that's a recipe for mass confusion.

I wouldn't go as far as Isaac, but I do not agree with Greg Burgas. There are at least a few examples of second runs equalling or surpassing earlier runs--2nd Levitz on LSH, Miller's Born Again on Daredevil--so I can reasonably be optimistic.

Of course, two counterexamples are, in fact, Miller: Man without Fear, which was dull and pointless and DKSA, which was foolish.

And it is generally true that Englehart's recent work hasn't been genius.

But, still, I find it in me to be optimistic.

I expect the All-Star books will be the new "external" canon (for showing, say, would-be movie adaptors what this character is all about) while not affecting the "internal" canon of the post-everything DC universe.

Of course, there's a question of whether you can extend the line beyond the two characters that everyone already knows what they're all about. I suppose with Celebrity authors, maybe. (Larry Niven on Green Lantern; an A-list SF writer like Brin or Vinge or Simmons on the Legion; that sort of thing.)

I wasn't aware that I suck -- I suppose I could, but that's not the point. I have no problem with both these creative teams per se (that's my fancy Latin education shining through) I just worry about companies trying to recapture lightning in a bottle instead of trying to push forward. Of course some people revisit old creations and make it work (I like Moench's second run on Batman -- the one with Kelley Jones -- a lot more than his first one), but I worry about Marvel and DC (and apparently a lot of comics fans) who assume it's going to work just because of who's on the book. I'm intrigued by these creative teams, I'm just worried, that's all. Which Miller will we get? Heck, which Marshall Rogers will we get? Just chill, Isaac. It's all good.

Greg -- I agree that past performance is no guarantee of future returns, or whatever it is they say in the mutual fund business. But all we've got to go on is the identity of the creative teams, and Engelhart and Rogers on Batman is a lot more exciting to me than, say Tom & Mary Bierbaum and Rob Liefeld on Batman. It's a team that clicked well with each other in the past working on a character they clicked well with in the past.

I'm in absolute agreement with you on at leats one thing, though: chill -- it's all good.

Oh, Isaac's just shooting the shit. He just doesn't have any bullets, that's all. :)

Besides Englehart.

I don't need bullets in a flame war. Heheh. ehhhh...

And I'm still right. And you still suck, Latin-boy.

Say what you want about Millar, but he is at the least best in the (superhero) buisness craft-wize. He's also the only person to turn to for fun filled fascist fiction. Titilating! (in a Judge Dredd kind of way) Also, Lee didn't write Hush, and at least when Millar's bad, he's fucking terrible, which is cool. Try for something and fail, instead of simply solid genre work, which is all E. does. Not that I read any of his stuff, but I bet it's stupid.

And yeah; Gregs, Marc, Jason, I'm just shooting the shit...without bullets, whatever that means. Golly, I'm slow. Could you tell me what it means?

All in good fun.

You know, I'm looking at the post above me, and I cannot for the life of me decide if it's intended as a parody or not.

Parody of what? So no.

Not being serious, but I do mean that middle part, more or less. And the insults aren't serious.

Okay, then on to my questions: do you mean Mark Millar or Frank Miller when you say he is at the least best in the (superhero) buisness craft-wize. He's also the only person to turn to for fun filled fascist fiction. Titilating! (in a Judge Dredd kind of way) Also, Lee didn't write Hush, and at least when Millar's bad, he's fucking terrible, which is cool. Try for something and fail, instead of simply solid genre work, which is all E. does. Not that I read any of his stuff, but I bet it's stupid.

Also, since you argue it's a serious statement, do you really intend to say that you haven't read anything by Englehart and then claim that all he does is simply solid genre work (which, by the way, is complete bullshit: the man wrote some of the most demented and outlandish comic book storylines envisioned by the mind of anyone who wasn't Steve Gerber at the time) as if putting out simply solid genre work would be a bad thing? Hell, I'd love for some solid work to come out.

That's why I didn't know if it was a parody or not, because it was both ignorant on the face of it and counter to the facts. I'm still confused by what it is you're actually trying to say.

The one writer I would most like to see on LSH is Dwayne McDuffie. Brin kind of frightens me after the second Uplift Trilogy, though the notion that the Oans retired to the event horizon of a black hole would be a nifty way to get rid of them.

the only problem I see with expanding the all-star line is that eventually somebody writing all-star green lantern or all-star whatever will want to write a story with batman or supes guesting and then we have the question of, is this a shared new universe? Do all-star batman and all-star superman live in the same world? will there be an all-star world's finest?
why can't they just put the big names on the real books and let em at it?

why can't they just put the big names on the real books and let em at it?

Because then people will bitch that it's not in continuity.