Mike Allred's SOLO Cover.

[Blake Sims]

Yeah, he also did Hourman.

I actually liked the Mr Miracle one best.

me too

[TheKraken]

I say it every time a new issue comes out, but SOLO is one of the best things DC (or any company) has come up with in ages. It's always a great read, it presents a really diverse range of work and the creators featured are always top-notch. Allred's was one of the best so far...

[sonnylarue]

SOLO is a great great book . I thought Darwyn Cooke's was pretty spectacular , and Allred's belongs right along side of it.

I don't understand DC trepidation of homages to their swinging 60's period,

The Teen Titans project sounded great.

[NickT]

why deny any part of batman's past as a pop icon of the 60's / 70's? DC and Warner are taking batman too seriously if they really want to push aside the goofy stuff we loved as kids to focus on the batman begins generation of readers.

long live peace, love, hippies, beatniks, and bat-shark-repellant!

It confuses me too. Is the cover to one comic going to convince the world that the TV show is like the comics, ignoring the movies or cartoons?

[MattJohnson]

I still have to get this. I agree with everyone who has said that Solo is a fantastic project.

[SteveFlack]

While I'm pretty sure there was also some sort of inside DC politics over the cover, I'm pretty sure DC could not legally publish that cover, since it is obviously the Adam West Batman, something DC Comics does not actually own. Y'see Fox owns the Batman TV show, not Warner Bros. This has been a point of contention for years, which is why "Batman" is not on DVD.

So, it was never gonna happen, guys. Legal would have struck it down.

Now, I know you're all gonna say "but the Batman inside looks like the TV Batman." Well, cover's are different. They're noticeable. You could hide whatever the fuck you want inside of comic books, nobody's really going to pick them up.

-Steve!

[The Roman Candle]

While I'm pretty sure there was also some sort of inside DC politics over the cover, I'm pretty sure DC could not legally publish that cover, since it is obviously the Adam West Batman, something DC Comics does not actually own. Y'see Fox owns the Batman TV show, not Warner Bros. This has been a point of contention for years, which is why "Batman" is not on DVD.

So, it was never gonna happen, guys. Legal would have struck it down.

Now, I know you're all gonna say "but the Batman inside looks like the TV Batman." Well, cover's are different. They're noticeable. You could hide whatever the fuck you want inside of comic books, nobody's really going to pick them up.

-Steve!

The Adam West Batman is what Batman actually looked like in the comics during the 1960's.

[SteveFlack]

The Adam West Batman is what Batman actually looked like in the comics during the 1960's.

No. There are actually certain little things in the face that differentiated that Batman from the TV Batman. Most importantly, his eyes are revealed. With the exception of his live action adventures (and Alex Ross illustrations), Batman's eyes have always been obscured. It's little things like this that start lawsuits.

-Steve!

[Bill Nolan]

Yeah, but the facial detail of the Batman picture is still printed on the back cover. I think the fact that the original cover had him doing the Batusi, which is straight out of the TV show, was probably the bigger problem, or at least a combination of both.

- Bill

[dEnny!]

It confuses me too. Is the cover to one comic going to convince the world that the TV show is like the comics, ignoring the movies or cartoons?

And let's be honest...is the mainstream audience even going to see SOLO?