Thursday, November 08, 2012
Okay, I'll say it, since apparently no one else will:
I detested "Li'l Gotham".
I didn't just 'not like it'. There are a lot of thing I just don't like it. Like, say, Marvel comics But I don't care if you do. Then there is 'disliking' something; that's when how I feel about something makes me actively surprised that you like it. Then there's 'detesting' something; that's when, if you like, it actually makes me frown or grimace.
I detested "Li'l Gotham."
First of all, it was... soft. The lines were soft, water colors are soft. There are many ways to draw Batman stories. A Bob Kane Gotham is very different from a Neal Adams Gotham or a Bruce Timm Gotham. But all of them are ... not soft. I have a big problem with Renoir's Gotham.
Second of all, it was... cute. Now, I don't need Batman to be always grim and gritty; I am not one of those fanboys. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of the "Batman: Brave and the Bold" series or "The DC Super-Friends" book. I never miss an issue of "Superman Family Adventures" which, while very juvenile, is hilarious and entertaining. But I do not want to see cute loveable versions of the Joker and the Penguin; they aren't plushies. Or for that matter Batman.
Third of all, it focused on the odious "Damian" character, a monstrous little thug, the kind of person Batman should be incarcerating, not training as Robin. And, again, making his awfulness ... cute.
Adorable sociopathic children. Adorable murderers and psychokillers. Adorable bone-breaking vigilantes. Who buy criminals lunch. Perhaps I am curmudgeonly, but I cannot imagine to whom all this is supposed to appeal, other than adolescent girls who like to imagine that adolescent boys aren't really sex-starved hormone-addled monsters (like, say, vampire and werewolves) but are rather cuddly sensitive souls who just need someone to love them.