Jump to content

Talk:All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All Star

[edit]

There were references to it being like the silver age, so is it a continuation of the silver age storys, or is this a fresh start “reboot” with it’s own story line and continuity?

Grant Morrison states definitively in this interview that it's not a reboot to continuity.Vizjim 10:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creator info

[edit]

If you want to make a section for the opening story and list the artist/writers there then thats fine. But the AllStar line will switch creative team after 9-12 issues so to have Miller and Lee in the opening paragraph is inappropriate for the article.

On a side note I must restate my objection to calling Frank Miller a "former" Batman writer. Legendary would be acceptable, but people move around on titles on comics all the time. Calling him former is like saying he retired or something. He is working on another Batman book on the side, and has put many out over the years. Former is completely wrong.

"Legendary" would be completely inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. Tverbeek 20:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I actually meant to add the word, but I would argue that based on the picture painted of how Frank Miller has impacted the Character of Batman in the Batman Article "Legendary" would not be fanboy at all. I don't think his name NEEDS to be mentioned on this page at all, my only point was that it should not be with the moniker "FORMER".--AjaxSerix 15:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Giving him the honorific "legendary" is utterly fannish. As is objecting to the fact the was described in terms of his past association with the character, to which he is returning only temporarily. When his run on this series is over, he'll be a "former Batman writer" again. Get over it. Tverbeek 22:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are incorrect in your interpretation of "legendary." Given Miller's relationship with Batman and, as has been stated, his overall effect on how the character has been written for the last 20+ years, calling him a legend would be comepletely accurate, and appropriate for an encyclopedia. Not necessary in this article, perhaps, but Frank Miller is most certainly a legendary Batman writer.12.47.223.8 15:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - SoM 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest instead the word 'awesome'? Surely nothing fannish there. Dyslexic agnostic 08:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recall heaing or reading that Frank Miller said "It will be like me working on Batman:Year Two!"--Brown Shoes22 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good NPOV choices would be "significant," "seminal," or "influencial." --Happylobster 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like seminal or influential. Lauded might be good also.
How about "goddamn" Batman writer?joshschr 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was beautiful. Atypicaloracle (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a Wikiquote page !

[edit]

How do you start a page ?--Brown Shoes22 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen or not?

[edit]

OK, before anyone goes changing things, the current 2005 imprint DOES NOT have any hyphens (All Star NOT All-star). The original series from the 1940s for the most part DOES carry the hyphen (although they weren't anal about it, so it may not always appear). So please don't alter my changes on this to All-star (disambiguation), All Star Batman and Robin, All Star Superman, All Star Comics and All Star DC Comics. That means you too, Brown Shoes22!! We are fellow Edmontonians and have to stick together. Dyslexic agnostic 07:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many lssues ?

[edit]
  • They've commited to 12, and Jim Lee will probably book at that point, though Miller isn't so definitive.

All Star Time

[edit]

could it be possible that All Star Batman and Robin is set before All-Star Superman? cause reading both it seem it could possibly be so, and explain alot

Issue Backups

[edit]

Is anyone else tired of the issues being backed up so much? The series started over a year ago, and they've only released four issues. 12.37.71.134 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context for "Goddamn Batman"

[edit]

The infamous quotation could use some kind of context -- it seems to have just been dropped in. Didn't it "win" an "award" for Worst Line of the Year or something? It could use a citation for all the flak it got. -HKMarks 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced and NPOV Statements

[edit]

The section about fan reaction and criticism does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I've added a tag asking these statements be verified with sources, and if they're not updated with sources in a couple of days, I'll probably remove the passages that aren't written from a neutral point of view. Rray 00:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section appears to be absent now. Someone should put it back in, as that's what I came to the article for.
Please feel free to re-add it along with appropriate citations and write it from a neutral POV. Rray 00:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
citations placed (seriously, i took me like 20 minutes, the internet is FILLED with fans panning the comicbook), about NPOV... i suppose much of the article should be re-written using more neutral words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You can (and should) sign your discussions using four tildes. (~ is a tilde.) Good work putting in citations for this - I wonder if some positive fan reaction with citations wouldn't help balance the article though? Rray 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh im not that much of a serious wikipedian here, so i never sign my things. But anyways, about balancing criticism with positive reactions... ive always believed its a sign of amateur writting here, not that theres anything wrong about it, but its always written in sucha bad way here, if you find some be my guest to place it in a proper way (instead of the usual <<"bad criticism" however it could be argued that/some say that/this could be defended by stating "positive criticism"). The whole section is a tad POV, ill try to find some but i mostly found harsh criticism online--Kessingler 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article I think the issue of "fan reaction" is so one sided that it probably violates Wiki protocols. It is true that SOME fans are not happy with the book. But, even a causal search of message boards will reveal that just as many really like it. Putting aside sales, which is a significant indicator of its reception, the "fan reaction" is not all that accurate. Moreover, it siting message board postings as sources, this bit has really cherry picked what is out there. A far more accurate piece would discuss why fans do not, and why fans DO like the book. The impression this article gives is that All Star Batman is universally hated...which is demonstrably not true.--GrantLaFleche 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded some of that "Fan Reaction" section (as far as I could make sense of it) but I would agree with the above user that message board postings aren't the most credible sources for citation. Are these reputable comic book reviewers or just random wwweb haters?
172.151.197.4 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read everything, the fan reaction section just seems to be an unencyclopedic bashing of the comic book with some message board references thrown in. I know of at least one very positive and well-written review that went on at great length about how good the series is. But since this is an encyclopedia article, it's probably just as well to not provide a bunch of POV stuff. So I deleted the entire section again. If someone wants to write something a little fairer for the fan reaction section, that might be okay, but I think the article is just as good without it. Rray 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the word here its "FAN REACTION", the sources ranged from IGN, about 2 sites with comicbook reviews and forum opinnions (from who else but... FANS). Im extremely sorry i didnt found the U.N. report on the comicbook, but alas, according to this article the comicbook didnt had a bad reception from fans, aparently it didnt even had a positive one (how neutral). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The major problem here is that we know the greatness of Jim Lee and Frank Miller, but the Batman isn't coming across as the Batman- more like some sneering, play acting thug/wannabe wolverine in a cape. Its as if Frank Miller, who has been touted for years now as the force behind restoring the Batman to his roots, has suffered some head trauma and abandoned everything he knew about the character. The Batman IS a deadly, often ruthless, driven character. But he is not some undisciplined mouthy thug. This crude, sloppy version was evident in the last "Dark Knight Returns" series and doesnt fit him. The Batman's extensive martial arts discipline, training, expertise, and cool are completely erased in this series. This person would NEVER have "drafted" some kid into his enterprise. He would NEVER have manhandled Alfred, either. Also, I've noticed a marked tendency by Miller (and now Lee) to depict the Bat insignia in as crude a manner possible. Don't know why this is; if they keep this up it'll just be a black jagged line. And whats with the feeble blue colour on the cape, cowl, gloves and boots? As far as the Black Canary subplot- I'm not sure what she's doing here, outside of the obvious eye candy value. Her mindset seems as demented as the so-called Batman- she dresses in an alluring manner, surrounds herself with the surliest of pigs and adds ALCOHOL, but then gets mad when they make the inevitable, almost obligatory, crude remarks re: alluring outfit. Of course we are then treated to the equally inevitable ass-kicking, complete with shattered molars and spewing blood. Advise: take a look at any of the Justice League or Batman animated series available today. Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, DWayne McDuffie all give outstanding renditions of a great character. Cape131.37.206.6 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussion of the article; it's not the place for a fan review of the book. Rray 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will It be Cancelled?

[edit]

I've heard (read) a rumour that DC are going to scrap this title due to poor sales resulting from the irregularity of its availability, and the fact that they unable to establish a more regular stream of content from messrs Miller and Lee. Does anybody know anything about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.106.197.156 (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, id guess we'd knew why it didnt sell, but some fanboys here deleted the "fan reaction" section from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The rumor was that it had been cancelled, because DC cancelled subscriptions, due to the fact that it was so ridiculously late. It is selling very well when it comes out, and I doubt DC is going to do anything to piss off Miller (since they will *always* want him to do more Batman stuff) or Jim Lee (whom they more-or-less own at this point). 64.95.27.5 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

Every now and then someone comes in and starts expanding the controversy section. If you do this, you need to include appropriate citations, because it's starting to look like a review of the books and also original research. Rray 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be an appropriate source for listing criticisms? Or, at least, an "external link"-type thing? --Dr Archeville 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a legitimate example of a critical review, but to be fair, we should also include mention of a more positive review too. Another legitimate critical review can be found here too.
And this would be a good example of a positive review to balance things out.Rray 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poor reception by fans section was erased a while ago, first because it was unsourced (so it was deleted), afterwards when it was sourced... it got deleted again, aparently articles that dont praise or even dare criticise frank miller dont count here.
Please sign your comments if you're going to participate in a discussion. Also, please don't make accusations that are unfounded and inaccurate. You're supposed to assume good faith. The section was renamed "Reception", which is more accurate and balanced, and both criticism and praise are now represented in the section. Rray 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the past criticism seems to be there, even though there were sources that pointed out stronger criticism for the comicbook. My acusation its not unfounded nor is it innacurate since i cannot think of any other reasson for why it was deleted, i do not believe it was POV either since there seems to be a critical consensus about the comicbook too. Now about the... "Reception"... part, theres hardly any real criticism aside from the phrase "The goddamned Batman", instead theres a vague criticism... if we may call it that, in which the comicbook is given actually praise if we consider what Frank Miller fans look for (Batman being grittier and darker is not much of a criticism...). Also i dont see how if i sign my comments it will make my opinnion more or less valid, i dont see no reasson for why i cannot participate in a discussion without signing. And another thing, dont make unfounded and inaccurate statements, the "Reception" section is not more balanced and accurate, only praise seems to be represented in the section (unless "the goddamned batman" is your idea of criticism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.56.249 (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Signing your posts on the talk page is part of that. If you want to participate here, great, everybody's welcome, and here's where you can learn how to behave: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette
The entire 1st paragraph of the Reception section consists of nothing but criticism. The paragraph has 5 sentences, and only one sentence is about Miller's use of "the goddamned Batman", and that's written in the context of Batman's entire dialogue pattern being over the top.
If you have specific, encyclopedic, verifiable content to add to that article, then feel free, but keep in mind that the whole process here works on a basis of consensus. (And you'll have little luck building a consensus by being rude, critical, and unhelpful here on the talk page.) All of your edits are subject to revision by other editors here; that's how it works. It's cool if you don't like that. You can go bash this comic book all you like in any number of comic book discussion forums on the Internet, and you won't have to worry about whether your contributions there will be edited. But that's not how this place works. Rray 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is He Superman or the Flash?

[edit]

I don't own the issue, but does Superman really run the doctor's car across the ocean, or does he fly it? Seems kind of out of character for him to run. joshschr 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, yes. From what I understand, this version of Superman is able to leap tall buildings but not fly at this point in his career. Might be out of character, but this is outside of continuity. Lots of the characters seem to be doing things "outside of character". Rray 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I learnt from reading issue 7, Superman can fly, but doesn't know he can fly.

That's right, Batman comments that he's so stupid he doesn't know he's capable of flying.

It's probably a nod to the early Superman. When he first appeared, he could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound," but it was deamed to look stupid when they started the Max Fleicher cartoons, and because of the Fleichers, he started flying. In some stories (to explain him leaping), they say it's because he was still learning his powers or (in others) they hadn't built up enough for him to fly. -Kur

What ?

[edit]

Issues 11 and 12 however were canceled pending a later release date, Sidenote--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expletive (nearly) deleted

[edit]

This has hit the mainstream press which might make it worth more of a mention - it might. Rich Johnston throws in a bunch of links to Fox News, NY Mag, LA Times, etc. here (scroll down to Gutter Mouthed Press section) and a Google news search throws up others, like the NY Post. It'll be interesting to see if this helps or hinders the sales figures but, as that NY Post article shows - they are selling on eBay for up to $250. (Emperor (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Muddled up words ({edidsemiprotected})

[edit]

({edidsemiprotected}) it says that "alfred blackmailed superman into taking the doctor from gotham to paris"

however the doctor is in paris and has to be taken to gotham, it should read, "alfred blackmailed superman into taking the doctor from paris to gotham.

Martynross2 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put on Hiatus

[edit]

Dan Didio has said the title has been put on hiatus: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/020913-DiDio20.html 12.37.71.139 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God! DiDo, Levitz or Morrison need to kick Miller's ass for this mess. (JoeLoeb (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Joke interpretation?

[edit]

One theory I've seen discussed on messageboards and the like, though not from a citeable source, is that the series is tongue-in-cheek and deliberately intended to fit the "so bad it's good" mold. That's also the impression I myself get when reading it, though that may just be because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Has this interpretation appeared anywhere that Wikipedia can reasonably cite? Because if so, it's the closest the "reception" section is going to come to being balanced. 99.16.198.149 (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Balance" does not mean we arbitrarily maintain an equal amount of favorable and unfavorable material. It means the material is presented in proportion to actual reaction to the series. If more of it is unfavorable, then that's how it should be reported. Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That only responds to the least important aspect of what I said, though. I suspect a significant and notable point of view is missing from the article.
(To the very limited extent the balance point is salient at all, it's salient because I think the article leans too far toward the negative. That's perfectly compatible with agreeing that most of the critical reception has been bad, and that the article should continue to reflect that.) 99.29.96.158 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled/Replaced

[edit]

All Star Batman and Robin has been cancelled with a new miniseries coming out to finish the story. http://www.newsarama.com/comics/all-star-boy-wonder-100402.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'd edit it myself but this article is locked, so can we get a mention of this /\? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.4.185 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight: Boy Wonder Subsection

[edit]

The DK:BW subsection of the article is now out-of-date. DC solicits its February offerings via Diamond Comic Distributors in November. Newsarama's full list of DC's February solicitations (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dc-february-2011-solicitations-101115.html) does not have any mention of ASBRBW or DK:BW. That means it's simply not coming out in February. A brief line like "However, DC's order solicitations for February 2011 carried no mention of the series" would be sufficient to update this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though DC themselves still haven't said anything official, in this article (http://larryfire.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/the-fire-wire-2010-holiday-gift-guide-icons-the-dc-comics-and-wildstorm-art-of-jim%C2%A0lee/ when talking about the 'Dark Knight: Boy Wonder', it states 'Although the book will not appear in February as originally announced, Jim Lee (the artist) assured me that it would be a 2011 title'. Thought this might deserve a brief mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added on 21:20 17 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.195.88 (talk)
That looks like a personal fan blog, so it would not be permitted under WP:SELFPUB. Nightscream (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Batman redirect

[edit]

"All Star Batman" currently redirects to this page. This page is about the comic "All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder" written by Frank Miller, which is a different comic book series than "All Star Batman" written by Scott Snyder. Snyder's "All Star Batman" doesn't seem to have its own page and isn't ever referenced on this page. The All Star DC Comics page claims to link to the Snyder series but instead links here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinstefanowicz (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All-Star Batman and Robin" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect All-Star Batman and Robin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § All-Star Batman and Robin until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Star_Batman_%26_Robin,_the_Boy_Wonder&oldid=1236022620"