POLL: How do you rate the "Hush" story arc?

[skywatcher]

Read my post again, (not your edit of it ) I said there was a variety of age groups making critical comments back in 2003

Leaving aside everything else for the moment, be fair: I did not edit your post. YOU edited your post after I began typing my response quoting it.

I have no memory of editing the post at all and there is no reference to an edit on the post itself from the forum software. All I know for certain is that your "quote" of my post is inaccurate.

[SouthtownKid]

Read my post again, (not your edit of it ) I said there was a variety of age groups making critical comments back in 2003

Leaving aside everything else for the moment, be fair: I did not edit your post. YOU edited your post after I began typing my response quoting it.

I have no memory of editing the post at all and there is no reference to an edit on the post itself from the forum software. All I know for certain is that your "quote" of my post is inaccurate.

That is indeed odd, especially since is was such a short time ago. And of course if you don't remember doing it, you have no reason to take my word for it, and probably some reason not to, so whatever. I noticed it not long after I posted and thought, "That is weird." I thought about editing my post to reflect your edit, but decided, "Eh, F it." And the forum software doesn't record the fact someone edits a post if they do it within a certain time limit after posting.

[skywatcher]

the forum software doesn't record the fact someone edits a post if they do it within a certain time limit after posting.

That's not true. The forum software records only edits which take place after someone has replied to that particular post. I'll accept that you may have been in the process of replying to my post while I subsequently edited it; having realised my omission would elicit the type of reply you gave.
(No death threats from me! )

[Lorendiac]

that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. .

The discussion I saw was definitely constructive criticism rather than "bashing and nitpicking". I think most were disappointed mainly that Hush didn't turn out to be Jason Todd, anger that was compounded when Todd was resurrected some time later. Nowhere was the arc advertised as being for new or younger readers and there were plenty of adults and younger readers criticising Loeb's plotting skills, just as there are now.
Do you also like Chuck Austen's work?

As to SouthtownKid's point, quoted above -- I think it would be more fair to say in general terms: "That's what people on the Internet do. They complain about the stuff they dislike!" There are many different ways for people to complain, and all of them get thorough workouts on the Internet!

As to skywatcher's point about disappointment over the "Jason Todd" thing in "Hush" -- I was buying those issues as they came out, and my intial reaction was the opposite of what you describe. I remember being shocked and horrified at the idea that DC might have given Loeb the green light to bring back Jason Todd. If ever there was a lame idea for reversing a high-profile death which actually had lasting consequences . . .

But then I caught my breath and said: "Wait, wait -- this is the final page of Part 10 of 12. That's at least one issue too early for the 'big revelation.' Therefore, this is a beautiful False Alarm so this issue can end with a misleading cliffhanger!" That thought comforted me immensely! A month later, I was delighted to see that yes, it had all been a false alarm!

Then, of course, I got angry when DC later allowed Winick to really bring back Jason Todd -- which was asinine enough -- and furthermore to rewrite that portion of "Hush" on the fly in an attempt to reveal that Jason "had really been there" in the graveyard after all, except that Batman was far too dense to notice he was fighting two different guys in trenchcoats who were tag-teaming him! (After all, Batman is only the world's greatest detective, so who would expect him to ever have a clue about a thing like that?)

[skywatcher]

As to skywatcher's point about disappointment over the "Jason Todd" thing in "Hush" -- I was buying those issues as they came out, and my intial reaction was the opposite of what you describe. I remember being shocked and horrified at the idea that DC might have given Loeb the green light to bring back Jason Todd. If ever there was a lame idea for reversing a high-profile death which actually had lasting consequences . .

The problem was not so much that it wasn't Jason Todd (and I agree his later resurrection was poorly written too), but that Hush turned out to be Tommy; a character only introduced in the first episode of the story. It was like Loeb decided to pull back from anything too controversial. I can remember making some long posts about other faults, but it's a long time since I read the comics and I don't really want to re-visit the discussions I had six years ago anyway.

[blaqlantern]

i really liked this book alot i loved how all the major villlans had a role in it, and it was a good mystery a good bat story, of course beautiful art, I remember actually first getting it lol i came back the next day to get the 2nd trade,

my only complain would have to be riddler been behind it all i dont know y til this day it realy bugs me, guess im not a big nigma fan.

[ElijahSnowFan]

Huh. Lots of interesting opinions for what I thought was a solidly average arc.

Again, I said average -- not good, not bad. In the 10 years since -- wow. It's been that long? -- I've read it once. If it was bad, I wouldn't have read it again; if it was better than average, I would have read it more. For instance, I read JLA's Crisis of Conscience arc every couple of years, stuff like that.

I will say this, though: Jim Lee draws the best Batman, ever. I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone, and I truly, truly respect the artists who have drawn Batman over the years.

But for my tastes, Jim Lee's Batman is FRIGGING INCREDIBLE.

[skywatcher]

, I said average -- not good, not bad. In the 10 years since -- wow.It's been that long?

2002-2003 is nowhere near ten years! Perhaps you should read the entire thread before posting?
Incidentally, many in the poll rather agree with your assertion that this was an average arc.
I already mentioned Jim Lee's contribution to the success of this story, in fact I think it's the PRIMARY reason for it's success.

[ElijahSnowFan]

, I said average -- not good, not bad. In the 10 years since -- wow.

2002-2003 is nowhere near ten years! Perhaps you should read the entire thread before posting?
Incidentally, many in the poll rather agree with your assertion that this was an average arc.
I already mentioned Jim Lee's contribution to the success of this story, in fact I think it's the PRIMARY reason for it's success.

Whoa! Easy there, killer! I will admit to not reading every word of the thread, and I saw that you mentioned Jim Lee's contribution; I agreed with that and made the sweeping statement that Jim Lee's Batman is the BEST EVER.

Now, I've seen you tend to pick fights every once in a while, but my post really is no reason to do so.

[skywatcher]

I will admit to not reading every word of the thread, and I saw that you mentioned Jim Lee's contribution;

Nothing to do with Jim Lee, it was the idiotic repeat of the thought that 2003 was ten years ago! A simple Google search would bring up the date, but reading the thread properly would have too!
I'm not picking a fight, nor am I the one sending "death threats"!

[Arion]

Good. I think the story's only really let down by the ending and Tommy being Hush all along. His motivation didn't make much sense, since it was supposedly about how he was mad Bruce stopped him from getting wealthy as a kid. Tommy got rich anyway, so it seemed illogical. Heart of Hush "fixed" that with it being about how his mother was always comparing them, but at the time...yeah.

I think the last 2 issues are just bad . You can't possibly defend them. Now the rest of the saga is not terrible but the conclusion ruins everything. And yet some people consider it great ...

[Zetaomega00]

I enjoy it, like to see more Hush

[Bandito]

I liked "Hush" as a stand alone story, but I also hold it responsible for a lot of problems in Batman continuity that followed in the next couple years. I think the whole saga would have worked better as an All Star Batman tale. Then some (not all) of the flaws would not have seemed so bad.

The problems I had with it:

Loeb's over-reliance on Batman rogues. It worked wonderfully in The Long Halloween, a little less so in Dark Victory; in "Hush" it just felt gimick-y. BUT this can be forgiven if you look at the story independently, like an All Star Batman story.

The Batman/Catwoman romance. I've always loved their sexual tension and I've always hated the notion that they would ever hook up. Catwoman is a criminal; she is Batman's enemy. He might grant her some latitude now and then, but they aren't friends or lovers. HOWEVER, as said before, I could let this slide in an out-of-continuity story.

The Harvey Dent/Two-Face subplot. This was just dumb.

Bringing back Jason Todd. Okay, yeah, it wasn't really Jason Todd, it was Clayface. But this story planted the seeds of Jason's resurrection and whether Loeb orchestrated the dead sidekick's return or not, "Hush" directly precipitated Jason Todd's comeback.

Hush. I didn't care for the criminal mastermind.

The Riddler's discovery. Out of continuity, this would be a fantastic climax: to have a villain know Batman's secret without being able to capitalize on it because of his own psychosis. In reality, though, this just led to another snafu in the following years. The Riddler has been wasted and unbearable ever since.

Harold. Really? That was... abrupt.

Now, having said all this, I still enjoyed the story. I loved Jim Lee's art, and the Superman/Batman chapter was as good as crossover appearance I've ever seen/read, so that means something. For me, the story works well under certain conditions. For that, I gave it a Good rating.

[Robin_Goodfellow]

I read Hush in trade format about four years ago. Dunno if that makes a difference.

The story works well as an introduction to Batman supporting characters, and gives nods to several classic moments in Bat history (Todd’s death, a fight with Superman, the Bat/Cat romance, Batman almost crossing the line with the Joker etc).

But as a mystery story it sucks.

The revelations are either incredibly obvious (as soon as Tommy is introduced he is the *only* possible candidate to be Hush, despite his 'death' at the Joker's hands) or impossible to predict (Harold’s sudden return, betrayal and demise in the space of a few pages. WTF?)

Also I'm still not clear what Hush was trying to achieve. Obviously it wasn't to kill/cripple Bruce, as Tommy could have done that during the surgery. I don't accept the ‘messing with his head’ explanation either, as Tommy could have messed with Bruce’s head whilst up to his elbows in skull fragments (some gadget to alter Bruce’s memories/mess with his perceptions seems the obvious choice).

So, what exactly was Tommy trying to achieve?

[skywatcher]

I read Hush in trade format about four years ago. Dunno if that makes a difference?

Yes, you don't think it was ten years ago!

[RogueSmurf]

I liked Hush, and especially loved the art. This was actually the one of the earliest storylines I read in DC. I used to be strictly Marvel, but around the time of Hush I was really broadening my comics reading experience, and Hush and the Batman-verse at the time were my entry point. I'd never read much, if any, Batman, and I thought Jeph Loeb did a fantastic job getting into Batman's head.

I even liked when he revealed his secret identity to Catwoman.

[Lorendiac]

But as a mystery story it sucks.

The revelations are either incredibly obvious (as soon as Tommy is introduced he is the *only* possible candidate to be Hush, despite his 'death' at the Joker's hands) or impossible to predict (Harold’s sudden return, betrayal and demise in the space of a few pages. WTF?)

I was buying it as it came out, and I tend to agree. I wasn't 100 percent convinced that Tommy was the Big Mystery Villain at first (although I voted for him in a "Who is Hush?" contest on DC's website right after Part 10 of 12 came out). But I was sure, from early on, that all those Childhood Flashback Scenes featuring Bruce and Tommy had to be laying the foundation for some Big Dramatic Scene in the present. Just having Tommy get shot dead all of a sudden, in the middle of the arc, didn't qualify as justification for so many Childhood Flashbacks -- so I knew that one way or another, Tommy was still going to be important to the Grand Finale!

As for Harold -- I recognized him when I read his scene in Part 11, but I felt cheated because there'd been nothing happening to make him a suspect. I'd been reading the Bat-titles regularly for a few years before "Hush" came out, and I sure hadn't realized Harold still had access to the Batcave, etc. He'd been nowhere in sight in those stories!

(I was later told online that this was the first time in five years that Harold had been seen anywhere near Batman or the Batcave in any title. If he was going to be a traitor unmasked in Part 11, shouldn't it have been made clear that he still participated in Batman's activities in some earlier chapter, so that he was at least viewed as a possibility? I mean, in stories where it turns out "the butler did it," the author at least lets you know there's a butler in the household before the Final Revelation!)

[skywatcher]

this was the first time in five years that Harold had been seen anywhere near Batman or the Batcave in any title. If he was going to be a traitor unmasked in Part 11, shouldn't it have been made clear that he still participated in Batman's activities in some earlier chapter, so that he was at least viewed as a possibility? I mean, in stories where it turns out "the butler did it," the author at least lets you know there's a butler in the household before the Final Revelation!)

This is just further evidence (if any were needed) that the story's faults aren't due to it being aimed at younger or "new" readers. New readers would have been totally flummoxed as to who on earth Harold was, and it certainly came out of "left field" even for those who were aware of the character.

Lazy storytelling.

[Arion]

[q that's what people here on the internet do. They bash and nitpick. .

The discussion I saw was definitely constructive criticism rather than "bashing and nitpicking". I think most were disappointed mainly that Hush didn't turn out to be Jason Todd, anger that was compounded when Todd was resurrected some time later. Nowhere was the arc advertised as being for new or younger readers and there were plenty of adults and younger readers criticising Loeb's plotting skills, just as there are now.
Do you also like Chuck Austen's work?

Many Loeb fans are also Chuck Austen's fans . I read that somewhere .

[SouthtownKid]

but HUSH was the first trade I read when I got back into comics a few years back. At the time I enjoyed it

Good. Definitely 7 to 8 of 10.

Got me back into comics and into Jim Lee's art.

i thought it was good. unfortunately i read other loeb books after this one though thinkin the same thing would be true. got me into batman though.

I liked Hush, and especially loved the art. This was actually the one of the earliest storylines I read in DC. I used to be strictly Marvel, but around the time of Hush I was really broadening my comics reading experience, and Hush and the Batman-verse at the time were my entry point.

People just from this short thread, for whom Hush was either their gateway back into comics, their introduction to Batman, or their introduction to DC in general.

Many Loeb fans are also Chuck Austen's fans . I read that somewhere .

You don't have to be a fan of someone to admit they have written something good. I just dislike people who blindly jump on a bandwagon and assume that because a particular writer is a popular punching bag of the mob mentality, that nothing that writer has written could ever possibly be good. Most writers have both good and bad stories to their name; it's just a question of ratio. What Austen did with exploding Catholic wafers was mind-numbingly bad. But Superman: Metropolis was great; particularly issues #1-6. If someone misses out on reading Metropolis because they've made up their mind before seeing it, or because they have lazily adopted someone else's view of the writer and don't want to go against the group by bucking popular opinion, that is sad.