Scan barcode
bluenicorn's review against another edition
3.0
Pretty good- no knowledge of superhero universe needed. Cool, design-wise.
tewalkerjr's review against another edition
2.0
The art was good, and aspects of the writing were good.
But aspects of the storytelling were quite bad -- especially some jarring verbal anachronisms and cardboard-cutout-level characterization (particularly of the Joker).
Good concept, worth reading, could have been done better.
But aspects of the storytelling were quite bad -- especially some jarring verbal anachronisms and cardboard-cutout-level characterization (particularly of the Joker).
Good concept, worth reading, could have been done better.
antlersantlers's review against another edition
2.0
Very disappointing. I gave it 2 stars instead of 1 solely because of the architectural details.
At first glance, the art looks really beautiful -- moody, responsive, and atmospheric -- But it really didn't make sense when reading the comic. It took me a while to figure out why it looked so weird and then it hit me: most of the characters' mouths were closed when they were talking. It looks so ridiculous. And the color palette is awful. It's almost all a soft charcoal color, with some not-very-dark darks and some very strange pastel color accents. Gross.
There's also just waaaay too much writing. It was so boring to plod through because there was too much to read with so little visual pay-off. I had no investment in the plot or the characters, and one of the characters is Batman!
At first glance, the art looks really beautiful -- moody, responsive, and atmospheric -- But it really didn't make sense when reading the comic. It took me a while to figure out why it looked so weird and then it hit me: most of the characters' mouths were closed when they were talking. It looks so ridiculous. And the color palette is awful. It's almost all a soft charcoal color, with some not-very-dark darks and some very strange pastel color accents. Gross.
There's also just waaaay too much writing. It was so boring to plod through because there was too much to read with so little visual pay-off. I had no investment in the plot or the characters, and one of the characters is Batman!
lazy0718's review against another edition
3.0
I'm a bit torn with this book. The artwork is great. The mostly black and white drawings feel like they were done with charcoal. It creates a great look that stands apart from the traditional comic book look.
The story is good, but there-in lies my problem. It isn't a great story. It certainly doesn't stand out as one of the "Great Batman Tales." I like the setting (1930s or so Gotham City) and the style, but the story itself feels like a good episode of the old Batman cartoon, rather than "the great epic Batman film from the 1930s that never got made" that DC is trying to position it as.
I'd give this book 3.5 stars out of 5.
The story is good, but there-in lies my problem. It isn't a great story. It certainly doesn't stand out as one of the "Great Batman Tales." I like the setting (1930s or so Gotham City) and the style, but the story itself feels like a good episode of the old Batman cartoon, rather than "the great epic Batman film from the 1930s that never got made" that DC is trying to position it as.
I'd give this book 3.5 stars out of 5.
giantarms's review against another edition
2.0
[a:Aaron Diaz|3427105|Aaron Diaz|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1328403015p2/3427105.jpg] promised me Art Deco Batman. Okay, maybe this kind of fits the bill, but as I read I remembered something.
Superhero comics are crap. The end.
But so I don't forget this, here's a list why.
1) They are, without exception, too goddamn wordy. Why did you go to the trouble of drawing all those pictures just to have people stand around and blah blah blah?
2) By trying to draw people realistically, all they really do is spend the book in the Uncanny Valley. Anatomy is HARD, people. That is one of the benefits of using more stylized representations. In this particular book, there was a drawing of Bruce Wayne's head at the beginning and I was like "Hello, handsome" but he never looked that way again. Why? Because he -- nobody, in fact -- ever looked like the same person for two frames in a row. Good lord. So not only did I sit here thinking, "What the heck is wrong with this woman's shape?" I was also thinking, "Is this really the same lady as before?" (Of course she was, because there was only one woman in this comic and she was, of course . . .)
3) DAMSEL IN DISTRESS OMG
Anyway. I still like you, Chip Kidd, because even though I don't remember what [b:The Cheese Monkeys|28756|The Cheese Monkeys|Chip Kidd|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1167956353s/28756.jpg|1363319] was about, I was entertained by the way the book was made. Also, you called it The Cheese Monkeys.
As for you, Aaron Diaz. I can't criticize, but that's largely because it takes so long between pages I can't remember what the heck went on before. You will note that I wrote most of this review entirely because of poor memory. You do draw pretty, though. Don't get me wrong there. You keep on keepin' on, man. If you gots to read terrible superhero comics to fill up that creative gas tank, don't you pay me no nevermind.
OK NOW THE END FOR REAL.
Superhero comics are crap. The end.
But so I don't forget this, here's a list why.
1) They are, without exception, too goddamn wordy. Why did you go to the trouble of drawing all those pictures just to have people stand around and blah blah blah?
2) By trying to draw people realistically, all they really do is spend the book in the Uncanny Valley. Anatomy is HARD, people. That is one of the benefits of using more stylized representations. In this particular book, there was a drawing of Bruce Wayne's head at the beginning and I was like "Hello, handsome" but he never looked that way again. Why? Because he -- nobody, in fact -- ever looked like the same person for two frames in a row. Good lord. So not only did I sit here thinking, "What the heck is wrong with this woman's shape?" I was also thinking, "Is this really the same lady as before?" (Of course she was, because there was only one woman in this comic and she was, of course . . .)
3) DAMSEL IN DISTRESS OMG
Anyway. I still like you, Chip Kidd, because even though I don't remember what [b:The Cheese Monkeys|28756|The Cheese Monkeys|Chip Kidd|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1167956353s/28756.jpg|1363319] was about, I was entertained by the way the book was made. Also, you called it The Cheese Monkeys.
As for you, Aaron Diaz. I can't criticize, but that's largely because it takes so long between pages I can't remember what the heck went on before. You will note that I wrote most of this review entirely because of poor memory. You do draw pretty, though. Don't get me wrong there. You keep on keepin' on, man. If you gots to read terrible superhero comics to fill up that creative gas tank, don't you pay me no nevermind.
OK NOW THE END FOR REAL.
sarahc_98's review against another edition
4.0
Great little piece of noir fiction, with an interesting retro feel.
jmanchester0's review against another edition
4.0
What an interesting and intriguing story! And the art? Wow!
And that‰ЫЄs the perfect title.
And that‰ЫЄs the perfect title.
conico's review against another edition
4.0
Batman: Death by Design isn't like your typical Batman story. Honestly I'm not sure there's another graphic novel that's like it. The story takes place in the 1930's, during the golden era of comics. Everything -- well, almost everything -- comes together to put Death by Design in the time and place of 1930's Gotham City (aka NYC) but this book does have a few problems.
The first issue is that Death by Design is too short. Most reviewers will probably say that this book is boring and dull, and they're not exactly wrong, but the real issue is that this book isn't long enough to give it heft and substance. It starts off really slow and wordy then zips through the middle and ending -- mostly with pictures -- leaving characters that were probably important in the original conception of the story as mere footnotes.
That leads me to the next problem, the inclusion of characters that aren't really used to move the story forward, namely Penguin and Joker. They took up precious space that could have used to strengthen the story. Penguin has a random one-page panel at the end of the book that has nothing to do with the story, architecture, or corruption and it was never suggested that Penguin had any connection to the crime that Batman is investigating. In fact, Penguin is not mentioned, thought of, or seen anywhere else in the book.
Like Penguin, it seems that Joker was thrown in the book as an afterthought. However, unlike Penguin's appearance, Joker is introduced early on in the story, just as the plot is beginning to thicken. The problem with the Joker's inclusion is that as the plot moves along, the Joker is little more than a two-bit crook taking advantage of the situation instead of being the mastermind or coconspirator of the crime. This Joker is a throwback to the early days of Batman rather than the homicidal maniac we know him as now but the story would have been better without his thieving ways muddying the plot.
There also are a few things that are just too modern for the 30's. First, Bruce Wayne talks to Alfred remotely with a device that I can only imagine is like a microscopic blue tooth. There's also the mention of reducing the carbon footprint during construction. Something that didn't become en vogue until the past decade or two. Finally, there's the usage of the word "exactamundo" which wasn't much used before the 50's. While I understand that they're used as literary devices, they stood out like a big flashing neon sign.
Despite the problems with Death by Design, it is truly elevated by the artwork. Because it's done almost entirely in pencils, it looks like an aged black, white, and grey newspaper comic with a few hints of color. That's perfect too because the central character is a reporter that's covering the story of the century: the incredible destruction of Wayne Tower. I would cautiously recommend this book to Batman fans but to people who don't usually read superhero comics, this will likely be a big hit.
The first issue is that Death by Design is too short. Most reviewers will probably say that this book is boring and dull, and they're not exactly wrong, but the real issue is that this book isn't long enough to give it heft and substance. It starts off really slow and wordy then zips through the middle and ending -- mostly with pictures -- leaving characters that were probably important in the original conception of the story as mere footnotes.
That leads me to the next problem, the inclusion of characters that aren't really used to move the story forward, namely Penguin and Joker. They took up precious space that could have used to strengthen the story. Penguin has a random one-page panel at the end of the book that has nothing to do with the story, architecture, or corruption and it was never suggested that Penguin had any connection to the crime that Batman is investigating. In fact, Penguin is not mentioned, thought of, or seen anywhere else in the book.
Like Penguin, it seems that Joker was thrown in the book as an afterthought. However, unlike Penguin's appearance, Joker is introduced early on in the story, just as the plot is beginning to thicken. The problem with the Joker's inclusion is that as the plot moves along, the Joker is little more than a two-bit crook taking advantage of the situation instead of being the mastermind or coconspirator of the crime. This Joker is a throwback to the early days of Batman rather than the homicidal maniac we know him as now but the story would have been better without his thieving ways muddying the plot.
There also are a few things that are just too modern for the 30's. First, Bruce Wayne talks to Alfred remotely with a device that I can only imagine is like a microscopic blue tooth. There's also the mention of reducing the carbon footprint during construction. Something that didn't become en vogue until the past decade or two. Finally, there's the usage of the word "exactamundo" which wasn't much used before the 50's. While I understand that they're used as literary devices, they stood out like a big flashing neon sign.
Despite the problems with Death by Design, it is truly elevated by the artwork. Because it's done almost entirely in pencils, it looks like an aged black, white, and grey newspaper comic with a few hints of color. That's perfect too because the central character is a reporter that's covering the story of the century: the incredible destruction of Wayne Tower. I would cautiously recommend this book to Batman fans but to people who don't usually read superhero comics, this will likely be a big hit.
erutane's review against another edition
3.0
The architecture theme is fascinating to read, and the designs looming in the background are impressive, but Batman-- and worse, Bruce Wayne-- is not convincing. Bruce Wayne's interaction with the one female character is so cringe-worthy and awkward, I was embarrassed to read it. The woman initially presented herself as intelligent and well-spoken but she quickly retreated to an inner-voice in which she regarded Wayne as 'cute' and used words like 'duh'. Lastly, Batman is uncharacteristically forgiving towards a fellow costumed vigilante who had few qualms about murder and attempted it several times over the course of the story. I understand that perhaps this Batman was likened more to the lighter, classic Batman but his darker, grim side poked through occasionally, leaving me confused.
pantsyreads's review against another edition
2.0
This seemed like a fun Elseworlds-esque experiment (what if Batman/Bruce Wayne existed in the 1930s?), but this was ultimately a flop for me.
Gotham is undergoing an architectural boom and Bruce Wayne is spearheading the renovations of an old train station his old man had built decades earlier. However, accidents begin happening - faulty machinery, collapses, etc - that are too frequent to be accidents.
Sadly, the underlying mystery I've described above is just *boring*. The Joker makes several appearances in this story that felt our of place and like he was thrown in simply because he's a popular villain, and it was easy to guess how everything would wrap up.
Another problem I had is with how Kidd wrote Bruce Wayne. For some reason, he's written as wry and self-deprecating which didn't feel right at all. The Bruce I know is a broody pile of angst. I can appreciate Kidd trying to go for a different interpretation, but this felt like a completely different person to me.
Lastly, I honestly didn't find the art to be that great. The soft pencils certainly fit the period and atmosphere, and Taylor is obviously good at drawing architectural elements, but the way he draws people looked.. off. I also found that Bruce's face was drawn very inconsistently - he would have a hard, chiseled jaw one moment, then a rounder and softer face in the next panel. He often didn't even look the same page-to-page. Mileage may vary on this point, but I was personally disappointed on this front.
(Also, this is kind of a stupid complaint, but that whole scene on the giant glass floor that's like a million stories up? that was the dumbest looking club I've ever seen in my life, even for something that is complete fiction. There were no walls!! Perhaps could easily fall hundreds of feet to their death if they weren't careful and it was supposed to be a CLUB. Just, why???)
Gotham is undergoing an architectural boom and Bruce Wayne is spearheading the renovations of an old train station his old man had built decades earlier. However, accidents begin happening - faulty machinery, collapses, etc - that are too frequent to be accidents.
Sadly, the underlying mystery I've described above is just *boring*. The Joker makes several appearances in this story that felt our of place and like he was thrown in simply because he's a popular villain, and it was easy to guess how everything would wrap up.
Another problem I had is with how Kidd wrote Bruce Wayne. For some reason, he's written as wry and self-deprecating which didn't feel right at all. The Bruce I know is a broody pile of angst. I can appreciate Kidd trying to go for a different interpretation, but this felt like a completely different person to me.
Lastly, I honestly didn't find the art to be that great. The soft pencils certainly fit the period and atmosphere, and Taylor is obviously good at drawing architectural elements, but the way he draws people looked.. off. I also found that Bruce's face was drawn very inconsistently - he would have a hard, chiseled jaw one moment, then a rounder and softer face in the next panel. He often didn't even look the same page-to-page. Mileage may vary on this point, but I was personally disappointed on this front.
(Also, this is kind of a stupid complaint, but that whole scene on the giant glass floor that's like a million stories up? that was the dumbest looking club I've ever seen in my life, even for something that is complete fiction. There were no walls!! Perhaps could easily fall hundreds of feet to their death if they weren't careful and it was supposed to be a CLUB. Just, why???)