@muyjingo: I think you're just hating on Snyder and capullo. This arc was amazing, and it wasn't so much of an origin story so much as his first year in Gotham. Zero year doesn't have to show the same thing as year one. Then people would just say its copying it. But zero year basically defined the new 52 batman and why he does what he does. This arc is not forgettable at all, and already has been mentioned many times in other bat series. I'm not seeing how this isn't an update to his origin, so much is different.
All year one did was show Gordon. Some cops. And batman. Zero year actually fleshed out the city more, showing actual regular citizens struggling and being affected by what's going on, and the way they rejoiced when the city was saved was great. Year one showed corruption with cops. Zery year showed it everywhere, even in Bruce's own family and company. Year one was actually quote bland.
Even frank miller praised it.
Well, you can call it hating, and you might be right although that seems like a strong way to put it. I've certainly disliked their work from the start.
As for what you say, well we obviously disagree, but I'll try to address some of your points to clarify why I disagree.
I agree, Zero Year doesn't have to show the same thing as Year One - indeed, it should strive to be it's own thing. The thing is, I disagree that Zero Year defined the New 52, inf act I don't think it had any impact at all. The first arc with the Red Hood didn't make any meaningful change to the story we know, except to make The Killing Joke less impactfull by having the Red Hood be not a patsy used by one gang of mobsters and turning it into a powerful criminal organization were every member has a red hood. Aside from creating and introducing the red hood gang, how did this help to define the character in the New 52? If this had been set in modern day or was seen in LotDK, would it be any different? I think not, because it was just an early adventure, not a formative early adventure.
I feel the same way for the subsequent two arcs. The arc with Doctor Death had loose ties to Riddler, but that didn't really add anything (i.e. Riddler was unnecessary to the plot) and the third was just a Batman vs Riddler story. The only touch that made it somewhat originy was that Batman had been out of it for a while, so Riddler had kept control for longer than normal. Take that away and again, there is nothing defining about the arc. Hence, I see it as forgettable.
Honestly, I think Zero Year fleshed out the villians more than the Batman. Look at what I wrote above, how it compares to Zero year. In Zero Year we have a good cop come to the most corrupt city in that universe, determined to be good and starting to realize that sometimes working outside of the law, or at least outside of the executive branch. At the same time we have Bruce who has just come back with all this training and money and desire to help, slowly realizing that something extra is needed. That whole arc is fantastic, and set the stage for Batman stories to this day.
Is Zero Year trying to do something similar? Perhaps not, so perhaps it's not fair to judge it in that way. But if Zero Year isn't trying to do something similar, then I have no idea what it's trying to do. To me, Batman and Gordon are the same characters at the beginning of the book as they were at the end, except for the brief nonsense with Bruce getting inspired by a damn hologram.
I think if you are so dismissive of Year One, you should really read it again. It isn't as basic as you seem to insist, while I haven't seen any good points to make me think Zero Year isn't exactly that basic.
Oh, and Zero Year is really only being referenced in other books Snyder writes. I haven't really noticed any reference to it in Detective Comics or Batman and Robin.
Do you have a quote to Miller praising it? I would be curious to read that.
Log in to comment