Paul Dini's Detective Comics run

[catbatfan]

"Brulina" is a truly terrible term for this romantic pairing. It sounds like something Kevin Smith would come up with. Bat/Cat is fine.

Let's hope nobody starts saying "Team Selina" as if the Twilight model is something to aspire to.

Brulina is the perfect term. I like smoosh names for couples. For example, Clois for Clark and Lois.

[catbatfan]

Incredibly dull and boring. It must have been weird reading the Batbooks at the time, because Morrison was doing a really out there ambitious Batrun that a lot of people found confusing, whilst Dini was doing some of the most by the numbers Batman comics ever.

Nah. Morrison was ruining Batman by injecting weird sci-fi ideas into the mythos, whereas Dini was telling excellent, more traditional Batman stories.

[Hoosier X]

Nah. Morrison was ruining Batman by injecting weird sci-fi ideas into the mythos, whereas Dini was telling excellent, more traditional Batman stories.

I'll agree with you on Dini. His run was the best Batman run since ... Knightfall? Maybe even better than Knightfall because some of Knightfall was kind of stupid.

But I still don't like Brulina. Aren't "smoosh names" for actual couple? (Like Brangelina.) And not for "will they/won't they" type situations (even one that has been going on for decades)?

I prefer "Team Selina" to "Brulina." But not by much.

[coveredinbees]

Hey, I know it's not collected in its entirety, but I've been thinking about reading Dini's Detective Comics run in the trades. It seems like a lot of his stories have been met with quite a bit of praise ("Slayride", "Heart of Hush"). The out-of-print trades I'm finding, though, are kinda pricey.

My question is, for people who've read his work, is his run worth the time and money? Any stories I ought to skip? I don't read a lot of Batman, but I've read all the core stories (the Miller stuff, Loeb/Sale collabs, Killing Joke, etc.) as well as the entirety of Grant Morrison's time on the character, which I loved.

Thanks for the help!

I just got this during the Batman comixology sale. I'm 2/3 of the way through. It's great. Even the issue without Batman was good, though not as interesting as the others. He has a strong grasp on the characters. The Poison Ivy issue was excellent. I thought he was going for something likable, but she's horrible. I knew I'd a made good choice in purchasing it then. All of the villains have their entertaining moments. There are several done in one issues that tell a greater story. I totally recommend it, if you haven't already decided.

[Hoosier X]

And Morrison's Batman is not that great, but not because of the sci-fi. It's mostly because Morrison thinks he's Alan Moore where he's actually more of a Peter David-level talent, and he frequently bites off more than he can chew.

[catbatfan]

I'll agree with you on Dini. His run was the best Batman run since ... Knightfall? Maybe even better than Knightfall because some of Knightfall was kind of stupid.

But I still don't like Brulina. Aren't "smoosh names" for actual couple? (Like Brangelina.) And not for "will they/won't they" type situations (even one that has been going on for decades)?

I prefer "Team Selina" to "Brulina." But not by much.

Smoosh names are acceptable for all couples, even fictional. Just take a look at tv show message boards.

I am hardcore Team Brulina!

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

I actually liked "Night of the Penguin", even though (or maybe because) it was light, fluffy fun with no real stakes to it.

"The Wonderland Gang!" scores with me as well for similar reasons, though it's a bit deeper.

And if nothing else, Harley's always fun to read.

I meant that if Dini is that bed for you for those reasons you don't have that many better options when it comes to finding good Batman stories to read. Perhaps Englehart, Brubaker, Breyfogle and Barr? And I don't mean the pivotal (Miller or Moore). The way I see it, Dini didn't mean to do something mid blowing or a big event, just what I think most writers should try: good stories with a steady quality. If fact what I like the least is when he got off that track (ie, hush).

To be honest, yeah, those are pretty much the low points of the run and I enjoyed the same you did, as well as the Joker ride thing, Professor Aesop and Facade.

The early Poison Ivy story was too much, too 90s Image for Dini and didn't really fit with her characterization in his later stories. I didn't like the new Ventriloquist. I'd have just ignored Robinson's story, nobody really cared about it, anyway.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

And Morrison's Batman is not that great, but not because of the sci-fi. It's mostly because Morrison thinks he's Alan Moore where he's actually more of a Peter David-level talent, and he frequently bites off more than he can chew.

I didn't know Peter David was that good.
I think Morrison makes awesome plots and concepts and his characterization is sharp. However, I feel that he should separate by layers, so that his complexity doesn't get in the way of our first read. The second read for me, specially when it comes to the later issues of most of his arcs, is mostly about trying to find out what happened. I'd like them to be more about digging deeper out of pleasure (as it tends to happen with Moore).

[exile001]

Under editorial pressure. That was not Dini choice. Dini cleary hinted Batman/Zee but hey editorial said no before Dini had the chance to do something serious. But now Batman is cleary rejecting Catwoman at every chance he gets. Her being the new queen of crime in Gotham in a near future is going to make the matter worse.

Fair enough, that just removes something I though I liked about Dini's run.

Batman's rejection of Catwoman has only really been seen in Forever Evil, right? That's just Johns' writing a terrible Batman. That said, I quit catwoman a long time ago so something may have happened there.

In Eternal he was suggesting he didn't trust her, maybe even pushing her away (for her own safety), but not outright rejecting her.

[exile001]

I like smoosh names for couples. For example, Clois for Clark and Lois.

I'm not such a fan for the name smoosh, but Clois is adorable. And I'm guessing, then, that we also agree on Clark and Lois forever?

[LoneNecromancer]

Dull, mediocre, atypical, forgettable, boring. All great words to describe Dini's Batman.

And Morrison's Batman is not that great, but not because of the sci-fi. It's mostly because Morrison thinks he's Alan Moore where he's actually more of a Peter David-level talent, and he frequently bites off more than he can chew.

Oh bless.

Yeah, the man who wrote influential works on the entire industry in Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Invisibles all popularising the Vertigo style, JLA which pushed the widescreen action style in comics whilst also still being an intelligent read, New X-Men which did some of the most genuine new and interesting stuff in modern superhero comics in years, and then the universally loved All-Star Superman and then Seven Soldiers of Victory, is on par with that guy who wrote Young Justice and a run with Aquaman with a hook for a hand.

[phonogram12]

And Morrison's Batman is not that great, but not because of the sci-fi. It's mostly because Morrison thinks he's Alan Moore where he's actually more of a Peter David-level talent, and he frequently bites off more than he can chew.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I like Grant Morrison. I do. Along Mark Waid and Jeph Loeb he is probably one of my favorite Superman writers since COIE. And to this day no one has been able to take the Justice League to the heights he has.

That said, I thought his Batman was absolutely, positively abysmal. With the exception of the introduction of Damien (whom I thought Paul Dini and Peter Tomasi handled better, anyway), there was not a single thing I liked about his run (with the notable exception of Andy Kubert's art of course).

There are certain things I like about certain characters. When those things are changed, taken away, or things are added that I don't like, I'm usually compelled to dislike that take, which is why I disliked Morrison's handle on Batman so. It's the same reason that I love Mark Waid's Superman and JL but hate his Daredevil. It's the same reason I loved Peter David's Young Justice, but hated his She-Hulk. I just feel that just because a creator is talented doesn't mean that his talent translates into a good product with every property (for a film reference see Ang Lee and his Hulk movie).

[RubberLotus]

I meant that if Dini is that bed for you for those reasons you don't have that many better options when it comes to finding good Batman stories to read. Perhaps Englehart, Brubaker, Breyfogle and Barr? And I don't mean the pivotal (Miller or Moore). The way I see it, Dini didn't mean to do something mid blowing or a big event, just what I think most writers should try: good stories with a steady quality. If fact what I like the least is when he got off that track (ie, hush).

To be honest, yeah, those are pretty much the low points of the run and I enjoyed the same you did, as well as the Joker ride thing, Professor Aesop and Facade.

The early Poison Ivy story was too much, too 90s Image for Dini and didn't really fit with her characterization in his later stories. I didn't like the new Ventriloquist. I'd have just ignored Robinson's story, nobody really cared about it, anyway.

Englehart only wrote a handful of Batman stories, and I don't find much of it memorable aside from his Joker. That said, Englehart's Joker kicks ass. He might be my favorite Joker writer of all time, which isn't a title I give lightly to pre-Crisis Joker writers.

Brubaker is... competent enough, but again, I don't recall many of his stories that *popped* for me. Even The Man Who Laughs felt like him phoning it in, stitching a bunch of already-done Joker origins together, and calling it a day.

Norm Breyfogle's art is almost always a joy to look at, but the quality of his writers vary. His most common collaborator Alan Grant could write an awesome story when he was firing on all cylinders (Rite of Passage, the Ventriloquist's debut, etc.), but that wasn't that often.

Mike W. Barr... I really liked the first couple issues of his run on Detective, but his 50th anniversary story where Batman teams up with Sherlock Holmes (and a bunch of other detectives) was sadly pretty forgettable. And Year Two was really God-awful, especially since Alan Davis only did the art for part one.

[Hoosier X]

Yeah, the man who wrote influential works on the entire industry in Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Invisibles all popularising the Vertigo style, JLA which pushed the widescreen action style in comics whilst also still being an intelligent read, New X-Men which did some of the most genuine new and interesting stuff in modern superhero comics in years, and then the universally loved All-Star Superman and then Seven Soldiers of Victory, is on par with that guy who wrote Young Justice and a run with Aquaman with a hook for a hand.

You're right about All-Star Superman. That's my favorite Superman story (with the exception of the Powerstone story in Action #47 and Superman #23 in the 1940s).

So, yeah. Peter David never wrote anything as good as All-Star Superman. You got me there.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Englehart only wrote a handful of Batman stories, and I don't find much of it memorable aside from his Joker. That said, Englehart's Joker kicks ass. He might be my favorite Joker writer of all time, which isn't a title I give lightly to pre-Crisis Joker writers.

Brubaker is... competent enough, but again, I don't recall many of his stories that *popped* for me. Even The Man Who Laughs felt like him phoning it in, stitching a bunch of already-done Joker origins together, and calling it a day.

Norm Breyfogle's art is almost always a joy to look at, but the quality of his writers vary. His most common collaborator Alan Grant could write an awesome story when he was firing on all cylinders (Rite of Passage, the Ventriloquist's debut, etc.), but that wasn't that often.

Mike W. Barr... I really liked the first couple issues of his run on Detective, but his 50th anniversary story where Batman teams up with Sherlock Holmes (and a bunch of other detectives) was sadly pretty forgettable. And Year Two was really God-awful, especially since Alan Davis only did the art for part one.

Contextually, Englehart is a big deal. He reinvented Deadshot and the Dr. Phosphorus and Hugo Strange stories were terrific. He also gave the Penguin a little edge, although looking back at Burgess portrayal would have been a good idea.

The perfect combination is Breyfoggle-Wagner-Grant, althoug they didn't do bad without Wagner. I'm not that big on Grant without either.

Barr took Batman in a very 80s, very original idea. Instead of being grounded and realistic like Year One, he pushed the camp against reality. The Doomsday Book and Year Two stories were breaks from that narrative, but still pretty great. I think the Doomsday Book has a great premise but lacked something to have a brilliant delivery. Part of the problem is that only Batman and Holmes had detective moments. If somebody cared to redo that story, the four detectives need to actually solve something on their own and then crack another mystery together. It's amazing how DC has little actual mystery stories and so many detectives.