Daredevil vs. Batman with a side of gibberish to go. Hold the mayo.

[Bass]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Bass, you are being absurdly reductionist with your perception of Daredevil, and you're not interested in most of the characters you've listed because you're not invested in them. Reading ONE issue of a book then labeling a character as a poor mans blank or a crappy blank, I expected far better from you.

"Invested" in a character... Just last night I read AREA 10, a Vertigo "graphic mystery" (a whodunnit graphic novel). I adore whodunnits. Anyhow, I read it. And while the premise was interesting (a serial killer dubbed Henry VIII cuts peoples heads off) it quickly falls apart because it is a cliched hack job. Awful, awful comic. Very disappointed. Yet, there was a point of no return, where you've invested enough time in it that you have to finish it. Finish it I did.

But being invested in a character or story is just that; reading something you don't like because you've spent too long reading it. No one is 'invested' in Archie Leech or Otto in A FISH CALLED WANDA. You can't be 'invested' if you're enjoying it, because it's not an investment. It only becomes an investment if you seek to get out more than you put in, and it's not paying off.

Nonetheless, I've grown up with these characters, and loved them since I was 5 years old. I'm certainly invested, and I know way too much about all of them. I've given them all fair goes. I have long boxes full of comics of these characters. So I've given them more than one issue, but the the sad truth is, one issue is generally all you need. You pick up a first issue that's not great and stick with it in the hopes it'll get better and pay off, but that's only because it's Daredevil or Captain America or what-have-you. If I gave you the first issue of something like LUCKY LUKE and you didn't like it, you wouldn't 'stick' with him, you'd dump his ass. And you'd say, "Meh, I didn't like it." You wouldn't go, "Hmm. Despite giving him time and moeny, I haven't given him a fair chance. I'll pick up the next few volumes to give him a fair go."

I know these characters, and the writers have produced multiple works I've read, and despite all the chances I give them, they never interest me. I don't refuse to become invested, but they refuse to give anything worth investing in. I think I got two or three trades into Brubaker's DAREDEVIL. It wasn't bad. At all. Pretty good. I liked it. I haven't picked up the next volume because I just don't care. I read pretty much all of Bendis' run. I read the stories by David Mack and Bob Gale and Frank Miller. I know Daredevil.

His best story would be improved if it was a Batman tale. This is why he is a crappy Batman and why he has never hit the big time. He is a worse version of Batman. And that is because Frank Miller re-invented him in 1986 as Batman and everyone has copied that original work for 25 years.

I think he meant more of the characters being of the same archetypes, in this case orphan vigilante who dispenses rough street justice, Daredevil tends to come off as a wannabe Batman. I disagree with Bass, but I can see where he's coming from. One could also make the argument that it's the comic's job to make you interested in the character in every issue or, more realistically, in the first issue of that character's new series at least (Hellboy is a good example of this). However I think it's always a good idea to keep a sense of investment in the characters, because even if the first several issues of something don't do it for you, investment in the character will make you willing to comeback later if you hear that the stories are better (Ghost Rider's recent series and the Red Robin series are good examples of being crap at first but getting a lot more interesting later on).

I'll never understand the 'investment' nonsense. I read Hickman's SHIELD which was incoherent gibberish. If it's not good, it's not good. If you don't like it, you don't like it. When Adam Warren began EMPOWERED, his first volume (the best one, unfortunately) he had no idea if he was getting a second volume. Yet, you know full well, some crappy multi-year storyline like ULTIMATUM is going to be fully told and realised despite it being awful from the first issue because people are 'invested'. And it's not a length thing either; I liked Hickman's F4 with the first twenty pages. I liked EMPOWERED in the first pages. How many pages was it before you fell in love with SCOTT PILGRIM? or THE UMBRELLA ACADEMY? Six? Did you ever feel 'invested'? No. You felt "This is awesome, I can't wait for the next part". Yet SECRET INVASION starts up and everyone can tell that this is not good, that something has gone horribly wrong, but keep going because they read the build-up and are 'invested'.

It's true for TV and cinema and novels too.

Yesterday, I watched CAPOTE and it was wonderful. I have a stack of 40 dvds above my telly and a long box full of unread comics. I haven't got time to get invested in something that might turn out maybe to be okay if I give it enough time because he's Superman with a new hat.

That said, I tried INCREDIBLE HERCULES, from the start (#116 right?) and it was entertaining. It was entertaining about ten pages in. So I read all four issues. Ares was hysterical. But the ending was shoddy.

I do give these things a fair go.

Really, it's all about empathy. If you empathize with a character, you'll follow him forever. If you don't, you won't. That's pretty much every discussion I've ever had about THERE WILL BE BLOOD in a nutshell. Doesn't matter if it's "good" or not, some people empathized with Plainview, others didn't. C'est la vie.

I haven't been reading this stuff in ages so I don't complain, and when I do, I get livid. It's my own fault, and no one's to blame but me. :/

 

[ProjectX2]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I understand what you mean. There are so few comics actually written in France during the 1950s by bearded women that I don't even get the opportunity to invest in the characters or stories.

 

[Bass]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[The Overlord]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

IT HAS ALL TO DO WITH SIEGE!

Also, yes, that is exactly what I mean. I should clarify, that Daredevil's stories (like the Frank Miller one) are actually good, I'm not saying they're bad at all. It's just that... he's Batman. But less so.

Born Again wouldn't have worked with Batman.

I think you are ignoring the more subtle differences between the characters, not every character is different in an extremely overt way.

 

[Bass]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Born Again wouldn't have worked with Batman.

I think you are ignoring the more subtle differences between the characters, not every character is different in an extremely overt way.

You may be right about Born Again, I can't remember.

But the 'subtle difference' in the characters is generally that Daredevil is blind.

 

[E]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

But the 'subtle difference' in the characters is generally that Daredevil is blind.

:lol:

You're trying too hard now.

 

[The Overlord]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

You may be right about Born Again, I can't remember.

But the 'subtle difference' in the characters is generally that Daredevil is blind.

Actually no, there are far more smaller differences then that.

1. Daredevil is a lawyer, Batman is not. Considering how many TV shows there about lawyers there tons of story lines you can glim from that profession, so there are stories about the legal system you can do with DD that can't do with Batman. You said that's irrelevant, because Gordon serves a function as a official in the legal system, but that argument holds no water, for various reasons. A defense attorney plays a completely different role then a police commissioner, DD will actually have defend criminals in court, that's not something a police commissioner will do. Any story that involves Murdock defending someone isn't something you can do with Batman. Plus Commissioner Gordon is a supporting character in Batman, not the main character, so considering the fact Matt is the main character in his series you can do far more stories about the legal system in DD then you can Batman.

2. Daredevil is a working class hero, Batman is not. That's why Born Again would work as a DD story line that wouldn't work with Batman, a character like Kingpin financially and professionally destroying some lawyer seems plausible, doing that to the CEO of the one biggest corporations in the world seems far less plausible. You would never see Bruce Wayne homeless.

3. DD is more brutal then Batman, Batman has more constraints on himself then DD does. In DD# 181 DD broke Bullseye's back, in The Man Without Fear Mini he killed one of Kingpin's hit men in self defense, he tortured villains like Hammerhead in the prison arc and Ox in the Mr. Fear arc. DD has crossed a lot of lines Batman would not.

4. Most importantly, DD is far less popular then Batman, this may seem unimportant, but it is the most important difference of all. Often the most popular heroes, the companies are more conservative with really popular characters and things can easily get more convoluted when the character has more then 3 titles ongoing. However with a less popular character the writer can have more leeway and can take more risks. I think that's why Captain America is one of the best written comics in recent times, because Cap is less popular then say Spider-Man, the writer can play around with him a bit more.

I think it is a generalization to say DD and Batman are the same, one that ignores some important details.

 

[Bass]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Actually no, there are far more smaller differences then that.

1. Daredevil is a lawyer, Batman is not.

2. Daredevil is a working class hero, Batman is not.

3. DD is more brutal then Batman, Batman has more constraints on himself then DD does.

4. Most importantly, DD is far less popular then Batman, this may seem unimportant, but it is the most important difference of all. Often the most popular heroes, the companies are more conservative with really popular characters and things can easily get more convoluted when the character has more then 3 titles ongoing. However with a less popular character the writer can have more leeway and can take more risks. I think that's why Captain America is one of the best written comics in recent times, because Cap is less popular then say Spider-Man, the writer can play around with him a bit more.

I think it is a generalization to say DD and Batman are the same, one that ignores some important details.

Except for #4 (Batman and Superman take far more 'risks' than Daredevil ever did to the point where there are three archetypal versions of Batman; the sci-fi superhero, the gritty vigilante, and the gothic horror mystery - Daredevil does not fight space pirates, nor will he ever) this post is a brilliant examination of Daredevil and should probably be stapled in front of any DD writer's desk so that he remembers that Daredevil is not Batman.

I totally agree with you that Daredevil has the capacity to be more than a crappy Batman, and maybe I wasn't clear or you misunderstood, but it's not that Daredevil can be more, it's that he isn't more than a crappy Batman.

Daredevil is a lawyer, but often, this is portrayed as him essentially being a private detective. Someone comes up to him and says, "Someone raped me" and then off he goes, dresses up as Daredevil, finds some clues by reading people's heartbeats or using his superpower senses (making him the dullest detective ever), beats up the bad guy, and puts him in jail. There may or may not be an actual court scene. The other case is that danger strikes and a crime is committed as Daredevil leaves the hall of justice. This is how he is a lawyer. It's not that being a lawyer isn't different, it's that it's never used as anything more than window-dressing. Batman's whole "playboy billionaire" is inherently built into his character; it's where he gets those wonderful toys, it's to do with his life history and his motivation, it's an integral part of the character (when it needs to be), whereas Daredevil could easily not be a lawyer and just be a private investigator or a cop or a reporter or a priest. It would be nice if Daredevil's lawyer trait was really utilised, but it almost never is.

"Daredevil is a working class hero" is a good point, but you often see people trying to destroy Bruce Wayne just as people try to destroy Matt Murdock. The Black Glove recently tried to do it, Dr Hugo Strange, too, and it's an old trope for all superheroes. It actually works better with Batman than Daredevil because Batman has far more to lose. Not just in a monetary scale, but Wayne Industries is generally the lifeblood of Gotham, so all of Gotham hangs in the balance, and, most importantly, the family name is all he has left of his parents. In fact, that works so well with Batman I'm amazed it isn't used more often. Daredevil, by comparison, has only one thing to lose; his law firm.

Not only that, but while Daredevil takes on the criminal underworld of slums, so too does Batman, and his rogues gallery outclasses Daredevil. There isn't a Bullseye story that wouldn't work better with the Joker. A Kingpin story that wouldn't work better with Ra's Al Ghul or Bane. An Elektra story that wouldn't work better with Talia Al Ghul or Catwoman. A Typhoid Mary story that wouldn't work better with Harley Quinn, and on and on. And The Hand works great as the Al Ghul league of assassins.

As for Daredevil being more brutal than Batman... again, you have a point, but neither kill. Daredevil in self-defence may have done it, but you're cherry-picking. Batman used to shoot people in the face. Batman took the venom drug. Batman has shades of grittiness that change depending on when he's written, and through it all, both Daredevil and Batman's brutality is essentially the same character trait; the righteous fury. Daredevil wondering how to deal with Bullseye without killing him is exactly the same as Batman trying to not kill Joker. It's the same. Spidey doesn't wrestle with his conscience in that way, and Superman certainly doesn't either. But Batman and Daredevil... same conflict.

Nonetheless, your points are a great examination of Daredevil and how one could try to making him unique and distinct... but that's not how he's handled.

As I said; there isn't a single story that Daredevil has had that wouldn't be improved by it being Batman. This is what I mean that he's crappy, and the only difference people use is trappings of the character; he's blind or a lawyer.

Here's what I mean; Frank Miller's debut; replace Kingpin with Ra's Al Ghul, Elektra with Talia Al Ghul, and Bullseye with Joker (or Bane). Consider how Talia so heightens the drama of the story compared to Elektra. Do it the other way, take awesome Batman stories and give them to Daredevil, and it just doesn't work. Take THE DARK KNIGHT and give it to Daredevil; first of all, Bullseye replaces Joker, and that sucks since Joker is awesome. Daredevil doesn't have a Harvey Dent/Two-Face character to my knowledge; maybe it's Foggy, and that sucks too. THE KILLING JOKE with Bullseye or Typhoid Mary or Gladiator (ugh). BATMAN RIP with Kingpin (Daredevil lacks the scale to have such a story). Doesn't work.

Character wise, almost nothing changes. Bullseye daring Daredevil to kill him works too. It's just less cool. Joker trumps Bullseye.

That's what I mean by "crappy Batman" - it's not that he couldn't be nor that he doesn't have the capacity to be more than that, but as he's written, he tells Batman stories but his character has less to lose and less interesting supporting cast and rogues gallery.

But you know what Daredevil has that Batman really doesn't?

Karen Page.

Batman does not have such a weak-willed supporting character. There is no analogue. Karen Page is what makes BORN AGAIN work at all; you could do it as a Batman story like I said, but without Karen Page, it really doesn't work. The basic plot is easy and, perhaps, works far better; Ra's or the Black Glove tries to destroy Bruce Wayne and by extension, all of Gotham, but the whole "betrayed by a weak friend" element is unfortunately lost. You're right about BORN AGAIN not really working; she's something Daredevil has over Batman. Unfortunately, she's dead now which makes her like a second Elektra but until she died, he really had something unique to himself.

 

[The Overlord]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Except for #4 (Batman and Superman take far more 'risks' than Daredevil ever did to the point where there are three archetypal versions of Batman; the sci-fi superhero, the gritty vigilante, and the gothic horror mystery - Daredevil does not fight space pirates, nor will he ever) this post is a brilliant examination of Daredevil and should probably be stapled in front of any DD writer's desk so that he remembers that Daredevil is not Batman.

I don't think that's risky, its just silly. I never liked Batman going into space, that's what you have guys like Superman and Green Lantern for. How many important Batman villains are from space?

I don't think they would ever do a 5 year storyline where everyone knows who batman really is.

I totally agree with you that Daredevil has the capacity to be more than a crappy Batman, and maybe I wasn't clear or you misunderstood, but it's not that Daredevil can be more, it's that he isn't more than a crappy Batman.

Daredevil is a lawyer, but often, this is portrayed as him essentially being a private detective. Someone comes up to him and says, "Someone raped me" and then off he goes, dresses up as Daredevil, finds some clues by reading people's heartbeats or using his superpower senses (making him the dullest detective ever), beats up the bad guy, and puts him in jail. There may or may not be an actual court scene. The other case is that danger strikes and a crime is committed as Daredevil leaves the hall of justice. This is how he is a lawyer. It's not that being a lawyer isn't different, it's that it's never used as anything more than window-dressing. Batman's whole "playboy billionaire" is inherently built into his character; it's where he gets those wonderful toys, it's to do with his life history and his motivation, it's an integral part of the character (when it needs to be), whereas Daredevil could easily not be a lawyer and just be a private investigator or a cop or a reporter or a priest. It would be nice if Daredevil's lawyer trait was really utilised, but it almost never is.

Except there are several different story lines were DD isn't a detective and is a defense attorney, where the focal point of the storyline his him defending people in court.

There is one where in the Miller era, where DD defended a minor crime boss who murdered his partner, DD thought he was innocent because he had a pace maker that didn't allow DD to read his heart beat and later found out he was guilty and DD had to catch him doing a different crime.

There was another story where he had to defend Mr. Hyde, generally a scummy person, who was charged with a crime he didn't commit. Now Mr. Hyde is guilty of several crimes but not this one, so Murdock had to defend him on this charge.

There was also the recent Brubaker storyline where DD was defending an ex super villain named Big Ben Donovan who was taking the rap for a crime he didn't commit because the real criminals were threatening his family, so Murdock and friends have to use a legal stalling moves to keep him from getting executed.

Then there are the stories where I guess he does civil law for pro bono reasons. Like where he sued a corporation that the Kingpin owned that was illegally dumping toxic waste and blinded a child in the process.

"Daredevil is a working class hero" is a good point, but you often see people trying to destroy Bruce Wayne just as people try to destroy Matt Murdock. The Black Glove recently tried to do it, Dr Hugo Strange, too, and it's an old trope for all superheroes. It actually works better with Batman than Daredevil because Batman has far more to lose. Not just in a monetary scale, but Wayne Industries is generally the lifeblood of Gotham, so all of Gotham hangs in the balance, and, most importantly, the family name is all he has left of his parents. In fact, that works so well with Batman I'm amazed it isn't used more often. Daredevil, by comparison, has only one thing to lose; his law firm.

And how many of those attempts succeeded? There is no pathos in those attempts because Batman will never be poor, he will always have a few million hidden here and there in accounts no one knows about.

How many of these attempts succeeded in any way? DD was disbarred for years after Born Again, he didn't regain his license for several years, how often has Bruce Wayne lost control of Wayne Enterprises at a time?

I think Born Again was more interesting, because it felt like more of personal journey for DD, where he goes to Hell and back, rather just another "Oh no I have to save the city." It felt like Born again gave DD some character development and had some lasting affects on his life. Can that be said with any of the Batman stories you mentioned?

Not only that, but while Daredevil takes on the criminal underworld of slums, so too does Batman, and his rogues gallery outclasses Daredevil. There isn't a Bullseye story that wouldn't work better with the Joker. A Kingpin story that wouldn't work better with Ra's Al Ghul or Bane. An Elektra story that wouldn't work better with Talia Al Ghul or Catwoman. A Typhoid Mary story that wouldn't work better with Harley Quinn, and on and on. And The Hand works great as the Al Ghul league of assassins.

Kingpin is a crime boss, Ra's is a terrorist, there tons of stories you can do with one and not the other, they are different characters with completely different goals, the only thing they have in common is having wealth and power. John Gotti and Osama bin Laden don't have a lot in common. Kingpin's true opposite number would be Penguin and I think Kingpin is way better then Penguin.

Also considering Bullseye is a hired gun and Joker is a criminal mastermind, there are many different stories you can do with them. For example Joker doesn't have the kind of skill set that would make the government interested in conscripting him, but Bullseye does. Joker abilities come from his intelligence, but his plans make sense to him alone, Bullseye abilities come from his skill with weapons. That's why Bullseye working for the Thunderbolts works and Joker working for the Suicide Squad doesn't.

Also frankly I think Typhoid Mary has more pathos then Harley Quinn, Harley Quinn often gets played for laughs, Mary doesn't. So with Harley its harder to take her seriously as a tragic character when she gets put into the comic relief role all the time. Mary doesn't have that. Plus I think Mary is more tragic, because there is a truly good personality in there, that's a victim of the evil personalities, Harley just comes off as an extreme door mat sometimes, which isn't quite the case with Mary.

Also I don't think DC would ever do a storyline where Joker kills Catwoman.

As for Daredevil being more brutal than Batman... again, you have a point, but neither kill. Daredevil in self-defence may have done it, but you're cherry-picking. Batman used to shoot people in the face. Batman took the venom drug. Batman has shades of grittiness that change depending on when he's written, and through it all, both Daredevil and Batman's brutality is essentially the same character trait; the righteous fury. Daredevil wondering how to deal with Bullseye without killing him is exactly the same as Batman trying to not kill Joker. It's the same. Spidey doesn't wrestle with his conscience in that way, and Superman certainly doesn't either. But Batman and Daredevil... same conflict.

Except DD has killed someone, but only once and only in self defense.

The fact is there are certain things DD has done that Batman hasn't done for one simple reason, desperation. Batman was nearly unlimited resources, about a million sidekicks and is a member of the Justice League. DD has none of that, he has his radar senses, a lot training and a law degree. DD has way fewer options then Batman does.

Consider the King of Hell Kitchens arc, DD declares himself the new Kingpin, to full the power vacuum Kingpin always leaves behind. That is not something Batman would have or want to do, that's something only Daredevil would do.

Nonetheless, your points are a great examination of Daredevil and how one could try to making him unique and distinct... but that's not how he's handled..

I think some writers have done out I have outlined and others haven't. Its always a mixed bag.

As I said; there isn't a single story that Daredevil has had that wouldn't be improved by it being Batman. This is what I mean that he's crappy, and the only difference people use is trappings of the character; he's blind or a lawyer.


Here's what I mean; Frank Miller's debut; replace Kingpin with Ra's Al Ghul, Elektra with Talia Al Ghul, and Bullseye with Joker (or Bane). Consider how Talia so heightens the drama of the story compared to Elektra. Do it the other way, take awesome Batman stories and give them to Daredevil, and it just doesn't work. Take THE DARK KNIGHT and give it to Daredevil; first of all, Bullseye replaces Joker, and that sucks since Joker is awesome. Daredevil doesn't have a Harvey Dent/Two-Face character to my knowledge; maybe it's Foggy, and that sucks too. THE KILLING JOKE with Bullseye or Typhoid Mary or Gladiator (ugh). BATMAN RIP with Kingpin (Daredevil lacks the scale to have such a story). Doesn't work.

I have already addressed most of this, I still think Kingpin is a superior crime boss villain to any Batman villain serving the same fucntion, like Penguin, who ironically enough has become a poor man's Kingpin, only less threatening.

But I'm going to go the extra mile and actually defend Gladiator, now you said Gladiator is just a less interesting version then Killer Croc, That is completely incorrect. Gladiator is like a realistic version of a mentally ill person in comics, someone who isn't a bad person, isn't capable of elaborate criminal schemes and unlike almost every other villain with a mental illness, is actually treatable.

Joker is not a realistic version of an insane person, he has a mental illness that doesn't exist in the real world. Most mentally ill people are not proud of being insane and actually want to be productive members of society and they are not capable of the long range plans Joker can come up with. Joker is a fun villain, but he wouldn't exist in the real world. Someone like Gladiator where insanity is a real handicap, would exist in the real world.

Gladiator has a real mental illness you may see in the world real, he had an consistent delusion, that's what a real mentally ill person would have. Plus Gladiator was successfully treated for several years and became a productive member of society, how often does that happen Batman, Arkham is the worst asylum in fiction in terms of treatment and results.

Gladiator has something Killer Croc lacks, pathos. When Mr. Fear mentally tortured Gladitor, I felt sorry for him, if Scarecrow mentally tortured Killer Croc, I wouldn't care that much, I would think he deserved it.

See I can find differences in even your most minor examples.

Character wise, almost nothing changes. Bullseye daring Daredevil to kill him works too. It's just less cool. Joker trumps Bullseye.

That's what I mean by "crappy Batman" - it's not that he couldn't be nor that he doesn't have the capacity to be more than that, but as he's written, he tells Batman stories but his character has less to lose and less interesting supporting cast and rogues gallery.

But you know what Daredevil has that Batman really doesn't?

Karen Page.

Batman does not have such a weak-willed supporting character. There is no analogue. Karen Page is what makes BORN AGAIN work at all; you could do it as a Batman story like I said, but without Karen Page, it really doesn't work. The basic plot is easy and, perhaps, works far better; Ra's or the Black Glove tries to destroy Bruce Wayne and by extension, all of Gotham, but the whole "betrayed by a weak friend" element is unfortunately lost. You're right about BORN AGAIN not really working; she's something Daredevil has over Batman. Unfortunately, she's dead now which makes her like a second Elektra but until she died, he really had something unique to himself.

But it still doesn't change the fact that Born Again is a story that works with DD and not Batman, which kinda negates your previous point.

I mean what would you suggest should be done with DD instead? Return him to his Silver Age roots? I mean no offense to the 8 people who liked Silver Age Daredevil, but those stories weren't good. DD came off like poor man's Spider-Man, only with less pathos and far less interesting. Say what you will about Kingpin and Bullseye they were still better then every Silver age DD villain and the quality of story telling went up after Miller changed things.

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

In interested to see how DD is as a villain in the upcoming Shadowland mini-event.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

It kind of feels like the argument for Daredevil as a crappy batman seems to boil down to opinion rather than anything you can back up with fact... Man Without Fear and Born Again are phenomenal storylines that simply couldn't work with Batman. I love both of the characters, I find both of their stories extremely compelling...

I think aside from a handful of stories, the back and forth between The Kingpin and Daredevil is actually better than the back and forth between Ra's and Batman... It's far more consistent and far more devastating. And while the Joker is a great abstract concept, I can't really read out a list of my favorite Joker stories. I like him better as an idea than I like him in practice. Bullseye is the most terrifying villain in the Marvel Universe... He's more Deathstroke + Deadshot than he is The Joker.

This is all just my opinion. I think both are great characters... Obviously Daredevil was created as a knock-off of Batman for the Marvel Universe, but he's evolved into something bigger than that, and I think the best Daredevil stories are some of the best comics Marvel has ever produced.

Wait, this is the Siege thread, how did this discussion start?

 

[Zombipanda]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Hm... I'll get into more detail later, but I think the main advantage Daredevil has over Batman is presence. He's a lesser known character. He's not as iconic and consequently the integrity of his image isn't nearly as crucial for licensing purposes. I'll get more into it once I have the time, but I think some of the Daredevil stories told over the last few years are absolutely superb, and largely better than most of the Batman stories being put out over the same period of time. I think being marginalized is a great boon to the character.

 

[Bass]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I don't think that's risky, its just silly. I never liked Batman going into space, that's what you have guys like Superman and Green Lantern for. How many important Batman villains are from space?

I don't think they would ever do a 5 year storyline where everyone knows who batman really is.

Nah, but they'll do a year where Gotham City has been destroyed by an earthquake. Or where Batman's crippled. Or where he's dead. And when you consider that he has four monthly titles, that works out to 4 years of Daredevil comics.

All that, and he can fight space aliens.

Except there are several different story lines were DD isn't a detective and is a defense attorney, where the focal point of the storyline his him defending people in court.

These are all fantastic examples (please give me the issue numbers). It irks me that I haven't read them (or don't recall them), which most likely means these are exceptions when they should be the norm.

I think Born Again was more interesting, because it felt like more of personal journey for DD, where he goes to Hell and back, rather just another "Oh no I have to save the city." It felt like Born again gave DD some character development and had some lasting affects on his life. Can that be said with any of the Batman stories you mentioned?

Never said that BORN AGAIN or the other 'hallmarks' of DD were bad. They're most certainly not. It's just that they could be much cooler with Batman.

BORN AGAIN is a good example of both sides of the argument - the basic plot of the supervillain ruining the superhero works better with Batman, he has much more to lose than Daredevil and what he loses is more important to his environment than Daredevil. But! The way that BORN AGAIN gets into the story, through Karen Page, is very uniquely Daredevil and just wouldn't work with Batman.

I mean, you can easily say that Foggy Nelson is Lucius Fox; they both look after the day-to-day part of DD/Bats' business. Ben Urich is Jim Gordon, doing the mundane footwork and his link to the public world. But who is Karen Page? Leslie Thompkins? Alfred? Robin? Batman just doesn't have a "Karen Page" and, I don't think he ever could.

Bruce Wayne could easily befriend his secretary, and she could easily be an important recurring role in his stories, but can you imagine if Bruce Wayne's secretary had a heroine problem? It would never work because he'd buy her an island and turn it into a rehab facility and cure her. But what can Daredevil do? That's why she's wonderful. That's why BORN AGAIN takes advantage of something unique to Daredevil.

And now she's dead.

Daredevil lost an element of his storytelling world, that looking back on it, was integral to him having a unique place in the ludicrously oversaturated superhero genre.

Kingpin is a crime boss, Ra's is a terrorist, there tons of stories you can do with one and not the other, they are different characters with completely different goals, the only thing they have in common is having wealth and power. John Gotti and Osama bin Laden don't have a lot in common. Kingpin's true opposite number would be Penguin and I think Kingpin is way better then Penguin.

Penguin is not the correct corollary to Kingpin. Kingpin, to Daredevil, is the tyrant with unending resources and total control over his criminal empire, which drastically outclasses Daredevil's resources. Ra's Al Ghul fits that role, not Penguin.

Also considering Bullseye is a hired gun and Joker is a criminal mastermind, there are many different stories you can do with them. For example Joker doesn't have the kind of skill set that would make the government interested in conscripting him, but Bullseye does. Joker abilities come from his intelligence, but his plans make sense to him alone, Bullseye abilities come from his skill with weapons. That's why Bullseye working for the Thunderbolts works and Joker working for the Suicide Squad doesn't.

Joker is routinely hired by whatever supervillain team is being made, but here's the thing; Joker's got so much more gravitas than Bullseye. This is (one of the many reasons) why he's one of the most beloved and well-recognised supervillains of all time, and Bullseye is... well, he's like Daredevil. He's got a cult following, but he's strictly second-tier.

Also frankly I think Typhoid Mary has more pathos then Harley Quinn, Harley Quinn often gets played for laughs, Mary doesn't. So with Harley its harder to take her seriously as a tragic character when she gets put into the comic relief role all the time. Mary doesn't have that. Plus I think Mary is more tragic, because there is a truly good personality in there, that's a victim of the evil personalities, Harley just comes off as an extreme door mat sometimes, which isn't quite the case with Mary.

Again, Harley Quinn is a truly beloved character. Typhoid Mary isn't anywhere near her league.

Also I don't think DC would ever do a storyline where Joker kills Catwoman.

Just because they wouldn't, doesn't mean it woudn't be better. As I say, the whole "Death of Elektra" story (which is very good) would probably be more entertaining if Elektra was replaced with Talia or Catwoman.

Except DD has killed someone, but only once and only in self defense.

The fact is there are certain things DD has done that Batman hasn't done for one simple reason, desperation. Batman was nearly unlimited resources, about a million sidekicks and is a member of the Justice League. DD has none of that, he has his radar senses, a lot training and a law degree. DD has way fewer options then Batman does.

As I say - Batman used to shoot people with a gun.

But I think what you're really getting at here is this simple fact; Daredevil has a higher-percentage of down-endings than Batman. (Or at least, he feels like he does.)

It's not desperation or any of that - Batman is also put into such situations, the difference is that Batman usually gets out of those situations and Daredevil succumbs and fails.

I hadn't considered this, but it's totally true isn't it? I'm adding this to my list; "Daredevil can lose."

Consider the King of Hell Kitchens arc, DD declares himself the new Kingpin, to full the power vacuum Kingpin always leaves behind. That is not something Batman would have or want to do, that's something only Daredevil would do.

I think it would work brilliantly, and in fact they've teased it many times; the idea that Batman takes over Ra's Al Ghul's League of Assassins. In fact, Batman is more qualified to do it than Daredevil, it makes more sense. Not only is Batman this master of all skills, but he's a billionaire philanthropist. He'd know how to organise and command the criminal underworld. Daredevil, on the other hand... it was a good twist, but I never bought it.

And neither did Bendis, since he said, "Oh, you're a bit mad there, Matt" and suddenly it was all resolved. Ugh.

But I'm going to go the extra mile and actually defend Gladiator...

I was wrong. Gladiator isn't Killer Croc... he's Two-Face.

The guy who goes crazy and wants to be a good guy? Yeah, that's... actually, I'm just being purposefully flippant. While he and Two-Face seems to share similar traits, the description you gave of Gladiator is brilliant, and I'm putting him next to Karen Page and "Daredevil can lose" in my little battle to make Daredevil more than a crappy Batman.

I admit; I got Gladiator wrong and dismissed him too easily.

I mean what would you suggest should be done with DD instead?

I think you've posted several excellent examples of what should be done with Daredevil; you focus on the lawyer and the fact that he lives in a working class world. You don't rely on Kingpin and Bullseye, you don't make him take over the Hand or whatever nonsense, but maximise tragic characters like Karen Page and Gladiator.

What I'd love is to see brand new Daredevil villains that only Daredevil could have.

Bullseye is the most terrifying villain in the Marvel Universe... He's more Deathstroke + Deadshot than he is The Joker.

You're absolutely right. Bullseye sits between Deadshot and Joker. When Bullseye is a professional killer, he's better than Deadshot. When he's the lunatic mass-murderer, he's worse than Joker.

With this in my brain-meats, I think I get how to make Bullseye work: drop the psychosis and the manic theatre. Make him professional. If you emphasise that aspect, he'd really come into his own.

Wait, this is the Siege thread, how did this discussion start?

I made an off-hand remark about how DD was a crappy Bats and that Green Arrow was a crappy Cap (something no one disagreed with).

EVEN MY THOUGHT-CRUMBS CREATE THREADS.

Hm... I'll get into more detail later, but I think the main advantage Daredevil has over Batman is presence. He's a lesser known character. He's not as iconic and consequently the integrity of his image isn't nearly as crucial for licensing purposes. I'll get more into it once I have the time, but I think some of the Daredevil stories told over the last few years are absolutely superb, and largely better than most of the Batman stories being put out over the same period of time. I think being marginalized is a great boon to the character.

My point isn't that Daredevil is a bad character with no good stories. It's just that he has some terrific and famous stories under his belt and most, if not all of those, would work just as well, if not better, with Batman, yet the reverse isn't really true.

I felt that "Daredevil could be good" was a bit of a fanboy's whining, but I see now, that there are more examples of Daredevil not being a crappy Batman than I originally thought/assumed.

Which is great.

 

[thee great one]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Daredevil has been the most consistent title for Marvel for years. Batman lite or not.

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I'd like to add that Green Arrow is not only a crappy Cap, but also a crappy Hawkeye, and that's pathetic because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye was a originally Green Arrow rip off.

 

[Zombipanda]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

I'd like to add that Green Arrow is not only a crappy Cap, but also a crappy Hawkeye, and that's pathetic because I'm pretty sure Hawkeye was a originally Green Arrow rip off.

Really? I don't think Green Arrow and Captain America have ANYTHING in common. I also think that he's fundamentally a far more interesting character than Hawkeye. The fact that he hasn't had any good stories in quite some time doesn't change that.

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Really? I don't think Green Arrow and Captain America have ANYTHING in common. I also think that he's fundamentally a far more interesting character than Hawkeye. The fact that he hasn't had any good stories in quite some time doesn't change that.

Well they're both "activist" type characters (though only Steve Rogers, Bucky isn't like that) with a liberal slant. So when Cap gives up his super hero name because of his disagreement with the public it's a big deal, but when Green Arrow gets pouty about the government nobody really cares. As for the Hawkeye thing, I just personally think he's just cooler. I mean after the big three he's the most recognized and respected Avenger having been in nearly every incarnation of the team as well as having led both the Avengers and the Thunderbolts. He's also one of the few men to have been Captain America's partner despite having been a former villain. I honestly can't think of the last time Green Arrow was even on the Justice League, his most famous story is where he fails to notice his sidekick is a junkie, and now he's going to be patroling a forest in the middle of Star City to prevent crime.

He's preventing crime. In. A. Forest.

However I will admit that I haven't read any of his previous solo books, so my reasoning is a little biased. I did like Conner Hawk though.

 

[Zombipanda]

Re: Siege (Bendis/Coipel)

Well they're both "activist" type characters (though only Steve Rogers, Bucky isn't like that) with a liberal slant.

Really? I wouldn't describe Captain America as an activist OR a liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. He's a guy who wears an American flag and more often than not, is performing at the behest of the American government, whether that's SHIELD or the President or similar-such nonsense. Sure, he had his little tiff with taking over the Nomad identity (which honestly, struck me as a little hollow) and siding with the anti-registration camp, but both of these strike me as generally conservative principles. Superhuman registration strikes me pretty clearly as a parallel to gun control. It's about the rights of the individual over the rights of society, which is a pretty roundly conservative value. He believes in a strong military, in "America" as some almost godlike but unexplainable sublime value, in the role of intelligence agencies to work domestically and abroad. He's a conservative character who occasionally has liberal values tacked onto him because at his core, he's really a pretty two-dimensional character. He always does exactly what he believes in, always sacrifices for the greater good, and always stands by his values unswervingly.

I think Green Arrow, OTOH, is a character with interesting conflicts of ideology and action. Vigilantism is, by its nature a pretty right wing mission statement. It's the Randian ideal of the individual imposing his value systems on the order in place. Green Arrow's a guy with a liberal value set who still feels the need to enforce his sense of right onto the masses. He may frequently do so in the name of "social justice" but just as often he's as likely to lose control of his temper and end up contradicting his own principles. He follows in the Batman archetype but in a ways, he's an inversion of that. He's got a lot of the foibles Batman pretends to have when he plays at Bruce Wayne. He forces his own sense of justice on the world around him in his superhero identity and frequently neglects his family and his girl for the sake of his own hedonism. I also generally think the last few plot lines have been good ideas that have utterly failed in their execution. Oliver Queen as mayor is ace, and to loop around to the Daredevil discussion it touches on something that's rarely addressed in the Daredevil book. How hypocritical is it to serve as a representative of the state on one hand and as a vigilante on the other? Even Cry For Justice could have been an interesting exploration of his inner rage and frivolties balanced against his liberal ideology, although the ball was pretty awfully dropped on that one too. I even think him as the Robin Hood of Star City could be compelling, but I doubt it will happen.

So when Cap gives up his super hero name because of his disagreement with the public it's a big deal, but when Green Arrow gets pouty about the government nobody really cares.

When Cap gives up his super hero name because of his disagreement with the public it seems like an attempt to make him relatable. When Green Arrow does it, it's indicative of how the character has been developed.

As for the Hawkeye thing, I just personally think he's just cooler. I mean after the big three he's the most recognized and respected Avenger having been in nearly every incarnation of the team as well as having led both the Avengers and the Thunderbolts. He's also one of the few men to have been Captain America's partner despite having been a former villain. I honestly can't think of the last time Green Arrow was even on the Justice League, his most famous story is where he fails to notice his sidekick is a junkie, and now he's going to be patroling a forest in the middle of Star City to prevent crime.

You're not listing critical components of the characters. You're just explaining things that have happened to them. What's recognizable about Hawkeye? He's a guy with a bow and arrow who's also kind of snarky. There really isn't much development beyond that. He got kind of broody for a while but now he's cool again. He was a villain once but he underwent a quick heel turn and hasn't looked back since. He's really just as one note, if not more, than Captain America.

As for the Justice League connection, huh? Are we judging the characters based on whether or not they join superhero teams? Green Arrow is intended to be a smaller, more local, social action hero. His stories are better told on a smaller scale with more of a socio-political bent. When you put him on a global threat task force, all it does is marginalize the character.

Also, "his most famous story is where he fails to notice his sidekick is a junkie"... Man.... You say that like it's a bad thing.

Despite DC having treated him like **** for years, he's still one of my favorites, precisely because he is a ****-up who continually fails to live up to his own standards. At his best, he's more human and more believably damaged than any of Marvel's "realistic, down to Earth" heroes.

 

[Ice]

I very much like this thread's title.

 

[ProjectX2]

Thank God.