crookedtreehouse's review against another edition
5.0
A few years ago, I made a chronology for how to read modern Batman. I was focused quite a bit on creating the order, as opposed to just reading the books for enjoyment, so now I'm going back to see how the chronology holds up.
Death By Design is easily my favorite Batman book this decade. [a:Dave Taylor|54990|Dave Taylor|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]'s pencils and occasional colors are gorgeous. And Chip Kidd's story about murder ,journalism, and espionage surrounding the architecture and construction communities in Gotham is the most original Batman story I've ever read.
I also very much appreciate that The Joker appears as a kind of low-level pain-in-the-ass villain who is utterly baffled by the Big Picture crimes happening around him.
I recommend this for all Batman fans, people who love architecture, anyone looking for a unique art style for a Batman book, snobs who don't usually read superhero comics, and people interested in learning how to properly draw how light falls on actual people.
Death By Design is easily my favorite Batman book this decade. [a:Dave Taylor|54990|Dave Taylor|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]'s pencils and occasional colors are gorgeous. And Chip Kidd's story about murder ,journalism, and espionage surrounding the architecture and construction communities in Gotham is the most original Batman story I've ever read.
I also very much appreciate that The Joker appears as a kind of low-level pain-in-the-ass villain who is utterly baffled by the Big Picture crimes happening around him.
I recommend this for all Batman fans, people who love architecture, anyone looking for a unique art style for a Batman book, snobs who don't usually read superhero comics, and people interested in learning how to properly draw how light falls on actual people.
raeallic's review against another edition
4.0
good story with a retro feel, and the artwork was brilliantly done
stilldirty's review
4.0
The author of 'Batman: Death by Design' is a "famous" graphic designer, well-known for his book cover design, and love of Batman. That was all reason enough to pique my interest in the book.
The story is nostalgic and a little heavy-handed in its tone of a golden age Gotham, which is perfectly appropriate here. And the art you see is completely graphite—no ink—which is distractingly impressive at times.
I managed to find this for 50% off at Comic Con, and I feel I got my money's worth for sure. But that might just be me.
The story is nostalgic and a little heavy-handed in its tone of a golden age Gotham, which is perfectly appropriate here. And the art you see is completely graphite—no ink—which is distractingly impressive at times.
I managed to find this for 50% off at Comic Con, and I feel I got my money's worth for sure. But that might just be me.
mpetruce's review against another edition
3.0
I'm a fan of architecture, the designs of Hugh Ferriss, noir, and pre-Dark Knight Returns Batman, so I figured, what's not to like? Overall, I enjoyed this book. I wish there had been fewer word balloons to better show off the art. But I liked the story well enough, although there was a bit too convenient of a plot device (which was, quite literally, a device) used to get Bats out of a tight spot. And the motivation of one of the characters didn't seem like a good reason for the extreme nature of that character's actions (and his ultimate fate), so a star off for that. But still, a good showcase for architecture and it's use as a a driver of a story.
vanlyn87's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
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.