Batman: Neal Adams Omnibus

[NeathBlue]

Apologies if there is already a thread about this, I did look but couldn't find one and wasn't sure wether to post in the collection section or here in the Batman section.

My copy arrived today, on first glances I have to say for the £38 I payed when I preordered it last September, it looks great value with over 1000 pages.
It's going to take me weeks to get through this properly, and while I can understand that a lot of people won't like the redone colouring, I personally like it and think it suits the modern paper it is printed on... Where as the original suits perfectly the cheap paper that was used Bach then.
Anyone else picked up a copy and thoughts about it?

[mtop2036]

I'm thinking about buying it but I have a question. Are we getting whole story arcs here? Since its only neal adams stuff are we getting partial storys? For example say one story is over 3 issues, but only 2 of them are done by adams so the other one isnt included leaving an incomplete story. Or are the storys in this time period mainly kept to 1 issue?

[NeathBlue]

Not sure there are loose ends in terms of unfinished story lines... The contents are just Adams' work and nobody else's.

[Jim Kelly]

The really most important Batman epic from Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams was the ongoing battle with Ra's al Ghul. While O'Neil wrote most of the stories, Adams only did about half of the stories. The big fight for all the marbles starts in BATMAN 242 and ends in 244, with a coda in 245 (which I consider important to the arc). The thing is the story in 242 had art by Novick and Giordano, not Adams (even the cover was by Michael Kaluta). This story is left out of reprint collections dedicated to Adams alone (though it was in other collections).

I don't have the OMNIBUS, but from the contents listed online, it looks like 242 was left out of this collection.

[JBatmanFan05]

The recoloring is garish and terrible and totally wrong no matter what paper.

DC owes it to all fans to offer an unrecolored AND unredrawn version.....Yes, Neal and fam even changed Batman's ears in some panels and moved text boxes and etc. Truly terrible.

[NeathBlue]

Yes 242 is indeed left out of this as well...

I wouldn't personally say the rework garish or terrible, yes it would have been nice for it all to have been reprinted as it was originally, but Adams has already said the reasons why he's recoloured and also, redrawn some parts...
The original stuff will always be the best, it's like trying to redo the Mona Lisa with modern techniques... You'll still get a great painting but never be as good as the original master.
What would be interesting if we had a time machine would be what the Neal Adams of 45 years ago would make of what the Neal Adams of today has done... But as I said I personally still like the redone art and I think the collection is superb but obviously never as good as the original ��

[Jim Kelly]

A motivation for me to buy collections is either so I don't have to buy the back issues (which with Neal Adams can get expensive) or so I don't have to take my back issues out of the box all the time (which can turn a VF copy into a VG copy). But the Neal Adams revamps made it so I had to either buy the originals (thankfully I have most, but I still have to work on getting some of THE BRAVE AND THE BOLD) or I must get out my old copies to see what the story really looked like.

The revamps are just pointless to me--other than as 21st century re-creations of 20th century art. I realize that even the most faithful reproduction is still only a reproduction, but these are something else.

The worser thing was that once Neal Adams revamped the pages, then those became the pages that DC would use going forward for any other reprint books. Obviously, they do this because it saves time and money--once they have all those files, they can just use them ad infinitum. But that makes the chances almost nil of ever geting a new collection that shows the stories as they originally appeared.

[DrSteel]

Is is any good/worth buying? Never read these stories, but art is very good.

[banky]

The recoloring is garish and terrible and totally wrong no matter what paper.

DC owes it to all fans to offer an unrecolored AND unredrawn version.....Yes, Neal and fam even changed Batman's ears in some panels and moved text boxes and etc. Truly terrible.

I think the backlash is well documented by now but the idea of an "original unaltered version" is just a pipe dream by modern printing standards. Even the non-altered trades from the 1990s had modern recoloring (not digital blends) which is evident when you compare it to the original floppies. The only option for those wanting the originals is to obtain the back issues.

I think the Ra's al Ghul saga included in the omni is fine for those who've never read it (Batman #'s 232, 243-244) but the completist will want the missing stories which focus on Talia ("Swamp Sinister" in #235 and "Vengeance for a dead man" #240) as well.

As far as the redraws go, I think the backlash is overreaction frankly but YMWV. There are definitely some cases where the changes were not improvements but not the across the board abomination the purists will have you believe.

[JBatmanFan05]

I think the backlash is well documented by now but the idea of an "original unaltered version" is just a pipe dream by modern printing standards. Even the non-altered trades from the 1990s had modern recoloring (not digital blends) which is evident when you compare it to the original floppies. The only option for those wanting the originals is to obtain the back issues.

I partially agree. The pure-est original coloring is not attainable as far as I understand. But I and others definitely want more that 90s reprint type recoloring which is like infinitely more deferential to the overall style and feel of the originals than the Adams Family (pun intended) garish computer digital blend mess that we get in the Illustrateds and Omnibus. I'll take the Tales of the Demon TPB type recoloring any day over Adams ruination of his work. Fans deserve that option for the tpbs IMHO. Like no other Bronze Age Batman artist has had his art's colors so radically changed like Neal Adams.

If they did this 90s reprint type recoloring version of the Adams Batman Omnibus, the backlash would end.

[Jim Kelly]

As garish as the colours are, that's not really my complaint. There have been other books of reprints with ugly colouring. That's something that can always be fixed in later editions.

My complaint is that Neal Adams changed his own pencil work, revamped inks (some of which were by other inkers not Adams), changed around captions, balloons, sound effects, titles and panel borders (which were largely the job of the letterer in the old days). Some of his changes even affect how a story is read--so he's also changing the work of writers.

It's bad enough that he's changing the appearance of his original work, but he's also changing the work of other talents. However, my interest in maintaining the integrity of the work isn't because I'm a purist. It's because I want later generations to fully appreciate what a great talent Neal Adams truly was.

What makes Adams so awesome is the context of his work. If you buy the original back issues, you can see the progression of his Batman. You can also see how he has an increasing influence over the types of Batman stories. You miss that, if all the work is made to look the same--and according to 21st century standards.

A little more faithfulness to the pencils, inks and lettering would better show that progress for someone who doesn't have accesse to the back issues. I think it must be a mystery to many readers today why us old guys hold Adams in awe. They can't see how he changed Batman and evolved the character over roughly a six year period. That evolution isn't available in the revamped reprints.

It's sad that Neal Adams doesn't understand this. His own efforts to improve his old work damage his legacy as a result.