There hasn't been much real news. Not relevant to my tastes, there's going to be new Sandman series by Neil Gaiman. Very relevant to my tastes, Duane Swierczynski (who writes the New 52 Birds of Prey) and Nelson Daniel are doing the IDW Judge Dredd. But SDCC is hardly about comics ...
Yeah saw that in the new xbox mag yesterday.. will be very interested.
Eager by the comment that every ones favourites will be available either in game or by DLC. Thats a lot of characters to cover, even if they just mean those who have comic titles.
Mannahnin wrote:I never pop into this thread, but I somehow decided to a moment ago, and noticed...
Manchu wrote:Not relevant to my tastes, there's going to be new Sandman series by Neil Gaiman.
Spoiler:
Only a 6-issue limited series, sadly. I anticipate that it will be the prequel he supposedly pitched for the 20th anniversary, only for DC to turn him down. Whatever it is, I trust it will not disappoint.
Mannahnin wrote:Limited series is best series! It's been years since I spent money on comic books. Having a limit to it is ideal.
And here's the writer of the only decent episode of Doctor Who last year to explain (or, more accurately, to drop vague hints) in his own words. I'd lay good odds that the title will in fact be A Handful of Dust.
Of course, since I don't understand all this newfangled embedding Youtube sorcery, you might as well go to his journal instead.
Mannahnin wrote:Nice, thanks! T.S. Eliot reference FTW.
The girlfriend and I were just arguing over whether it was a quotation from Eliot or Evelyn Waugh. Needles to say say I was right (Waugh's Handful of Dust is presumably itself referential of Eliot.).
Not uncoincidentally, it was also the tagline Gaiman used to accompany The Sandman's initial promotion.
English Assassin wrote:(Waugh's Handful of Dust is presumably itself referential of Eliot.)
Correct -- although the title was actually forced on him.
I really don't like Deadpool nowadays. Comics are too influenced by internet culture, which is to say anti-culture. I really enjoyed War for Cybertron and am immensely looking forward to Fall of Cybertron so it is hard to wish harm on High Moon. But any repudiation of a Deadpool that says "internets" is welcome.
I'm also pretty disturbed by the voice-over for the Man of Steel teaser trailer: "What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society intended? What if a child aspired to something greater?" Superman versus society? Looks like Clark is the special snowflake that all of our moms saw in us. Oh man, I hope we see better stuff soon. Snyder has the correct attitude toward the business landscape with this franchise, however:
Of the possibility that Warner Bros. could go the route of Marvel Studios, using "Man of Steel" to branch out into a Superman/Batman film or to enter the Justice League (an idea that thrilled the crowd), Snyder maintained an air of mystery. "We know that Superman is the jewel in the DC crown," he said, "and really what we're trying to do is get his house in order. And then who knows what's possible."
Manchu wrote:I really don't like Deadpool nowadays. Comics are too influenced by internet culture, which is to say anti-culture. I really enjoyed War for Cybertron and am immensely looking forward to Fall of Cybertron so it is hard to wish harm on High Moon. But any repudiation of a Deadpool that says "internets" is welcome.
Deadpool has a... troubled history. His current stories from Daniel Way is what got me (back) into the character. It's funny, but he's completly insane i those, while his classic version is more of a troubled soul with deep emotional scarring.
... as near as I recall, as it is now Tim goes straight from being Tim Drake to being Red Robin in that there was no official period of time where he was Robin. We keep most of the origin in tact in that he was one of the few people who could get very close to learning who Bruce is...but it will be a much updated version of his origin.
Comic reactionaries everywhere will vomit blood over this, like Atrocitus (or his cat), but I like it. I fear that I have come to trust Scott Lobdell.
An annual is just an issue of a comic that is outside of the usual numbering scheme. It usually fits in with the current storyline and is often used as a means to deal with cross-title events. So, the Teen Titans annual had to do with the Culling crossover.
Anung Un Rama wrote:Thomas Jane made a little short film about a character he likes.
I liked some of this, but the fact that the working man's superhero doesn't know
how to wash his clothes in a coin laundry is something of a let-down. I'm referring
to the part where he goes in and puts his clothes in the dryer first.
... t'would seem he is an orphan.... raised in a Wayne Foundation Orphanage...
.... Bruce has got the stick as his knees/back/everything is fethed...
.. I'd be amazed if he didn't take over, even if only for a while.
A major point of this devising being how Batman , as a symbol, is far more important than the actual man.
Plus if Bruce is still broke -- thanks to bane and Co. doing a number on the stock exchange and the like -- he might well be too busy doing Wayne Foundation stuff too..?
I'm staying well clear of spoilers, but my expectation for the film is that it's a mashup of Knightfall and The Dark Knight Returns. Which could mash up surprisingly pretty well.
I dunno, they seem to have almost opposite conclusions about Batman. In TDKR, Miller justifies an incredibly violent Batman. In Knightfall/Knightquest/KnightsEnd, escalated violence is thoroughly repudiated.
I'm looking at it from a plot standpoint and not a thematic standpoint. Both involve Batman "rising" as it were, and you could craft a story from elements of both.
It's true that both books have Batman coming out of retirement, which seems to be a plot point of Dark Knight Rises. But is that really a mash up of TDKR and the 90s Dixon/Kelly run?
The horrifying physiological and psychological consequences of being Aquaman
Aquaman may not be everybody’s favorite superhero, but since his creation in 1941, he has been among DC’s most enduring icons. During the Golden Age of comic books, he held his own against Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Silver Age Aquaman was a founding member of the Justice League. His powers, tied to the ocean, forced writers to create a compelling, complex hero with explicit limitations. In the early days, when Superman’s strength was practically infinite, and Batman’s brilliance was unmatched, Aquaman had to become more than just a superhero, he had to be a person.
If Superman existed to show us how high the human spirit could fly, and Batman to show us the darkness within even our most noble, Aquaman is here to show us the world that triumphs in our absence. The ocean is not ours, and no matter how great our technology, we will never master it as we have mastered land, but Aquaman has. Through this lonely ocean wanderer, we can experience a world that we can never truly command. In many ways, Aquaman was stronger than the Man of Steel and darker than the Dark Knight. He knew loneliness that the orphan and the alien exile never could.
Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean – roll!
Ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain;
Man marks the earth with ruin – his control
Stops with the shore; — upon the watery plain
The wrecks are all thy deed, not does remain
A shadow of man’s ravage, save his own,
When for a moment, like a drop of rain,
He sinks into thy depths with bubbling groan,
Without a grave, unknell’d, uncoffin’d, and unknown.
Byron
Even though Aquaman had to fight harder, endure the jokes of other, less limited heroes, and find relevance in an ecosystem hostile to the humans that had to empathize with him, Aquaman was never forced to confront the truly horrifying consequences of life in the ocean.
The penetrating cold
Aquaman is, for all intents and purposes, a marine mammal. And, with the exception of a healthy mane in later incarnations, he is effectively hairless. As a human, we would expect his internal body temperature to hover around 99°F, or about 37°C. Even at its warmest points, the surface temperature of the ocean around the equator is only about 80°F/27°C. At the poles ocean temperature can actually drop a few degrees below freezing. In the deep sea, ambient temperature levels out around 2 – 4°C. The ocean is cold, and water is a much better thermal conductor than air. Warm blooded species have evolved many different systems to manage these gradients, including countercurrent heat exchangers, insulating fur, and heavy layers of blubber. This is what a marine mammal that can handle cold waters look like:
Elephant Seal. NSF, photo by Mike Usher
Aquaman. DC Comics. This is not a man familiar with the term “blubber”.
Aquaman is not just a human, he is an incredibly buff human. Look at his picture. If the man has more than 2% body fat, I’d be shocked. In contrast, warm-water bottlenose dolphins have at least 18 to 20% body fat. Anyone who SCUBA dives knows that, even with a 12 millimeter neoprene wet suit, after a few hours in 80°F water, you get cold. Aquaman, lacking any visible insulation, should have slipped into hypothermia sometime early in More Fun Comics #73. He is better built for the beach than the frigid deep.
Concentration gradients are not for the faint of heart
This raises the next issue with life in the water, osmotic pressure. The human body is hypotonic compared to seawater. That means that there are more molecules in seawater than in our cells. Assuming Aquaman is drawing seawater into his lungs, sinuses, and other air chambers, he must maintain internal equilibrium within his body for his cellular transmembrane proteins to function. So his cells begin expelling water to increase their internal molecular density. As he loses water, his cells shrivel and begin to lyse. The kidneys, likely, will be the first to go, but most of his internal organs, especially those in the respiratory and circulatory system will fail. If he hasn’t frozen to death, he will dehydrate, ending his Justice League tenure as shriveled human jerky.
Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
The only silver lining for this Silver Age hero is that without efficient ion-exchange pathways, his brain will shut down as his blood becomes saturated with sodium.
And then you get bent…
Let assume that, through the magic of comics, Aquaman has managed to overcome the challenges of temperature and osmotic pressure. He still must face the dreaded threat of all divers – decompression sickness: the bends. Aquaman has gills, which means that he is extracting oxygen from seawater and pumping is across a membrane. At pressure, such as what you might experience a few hundred feet beneath the surface, oxygen is toxic, even fatal. Divers breathing pure oxygen suffer traumatic injuries. Even if he somehow manages to extract an appropriate mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, Aquaman still must contend with the crippling effects of gas expansion in his blood stream. As he changes depths, bubbles of nitrogen come out of solution, clogging his circulatory system and causing possibly fatal embolisms.
A spherical lesion found in a rib of a dead sperm whale that beached on Nantucket was likely caused by nitrogen bubbles that formed when the whale rose too rapidly from high-pressure depths. The bubbles obstruct blood flow and lead to bone damage. (Photo credit: Tom Kleindinst)
Even deep-diving marine mammals suffer from the bends. Sperm whales cope with gas accumulation by depositing excess gasses in their bones, creating a porous, brittle skeleton, riddle with osteonecrosis — patches of dead bone. For a superhero, bones that snap like a sponge are not conducive to fighting evil. And Aquaman fights, and swims, and pushes his body to its supra-physical limits.
Calories out must equal calories in
Aquaman is one of the fastest swimmers in the ocean. He chases German U-boats, out-swims dolphins, can even catch up to a torpedo. The Justice League reports that Aquaman can swim at 10,000 feet per second. 10,000 feet per second is more than 3 kilometers per second, or 6,800 miles per hour. We’re talking Superman speeds, here. For comparison, Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps can sustain a speed of 4.7 miles per hour. To maintain that pace, Phelps burns about 1,000 calories per hour while racing, up to about 6,000 calories a day. If Aquaman were to spend an hour swimming at full speed, he would burn 1.4 million Calories. Even to survive a day strolling at a leisurely 10 miles per hour, enough to travel from Beaufort, North Carolina to Bermuda in about 3 days, Aquaman would need to replace 48,000 Calories each day.
Th ocean is full of food. Tuna contain a hearty 1440 Calories per kilogram, so Aquaman could get away with eating a bit more than 33 kilos of tuna per day. Unfortunately, tuna are fast. Aquaman would have to burn even more energy chasing them down. And that’s assuming he wants to eat a dense, energy rich fish. Knowing Aquaman, he probably understands tuna over-fishing better than most. Odds are, our hero is eating from the bottom of the food chain. Actually, Aquaman may not have a choice in the matter because, as the ocean acidifies, the enamel in his teeth will literally begin to dissolve. Since he won’t be digging his pearly whites into anything substantial, it looks like plankton soup is on the menu. This means that, just to stay alive (let alone do battle with the Legion of Doom), Aquaman must eat pretty much continuously.
The constant eating would also contribute to the single most horrifying aspect of being Aquaman…
The constant, unceasing screams of dying marine life
Golden age Aquaman can talk to sea life. Modern iterations can communicate telepathically with ocean creatures. Even excluding humans, the ocean is a brutal place. Aquaman, alone is consuming untold thousands of animals to sustain his svelte, 48,000 Calorie-per-day, figure. Seeing as he must continuously eat, there’s little time for cooking, or even humanely killing his prey. He is surrounded by the psychic screams of every zooplankter that enters his cold-hearted gullet, each one, begging for mercy as it plunges into his hypertonic stomach.
His victims aren’t the only ones he is forced to hear. Throughout the ocean, predators stalk their prey, parasites consume the eyes, tongues, and gonads of their unwilling victims. Superman avoids the screams of the suffering by being a callous jackass with some hyper-narcissistic code that forbids him from “interfering” with the path of human history (which is why he’ll swoop in to stop a mugger, but has no problem letting Adolf Hitler march across Europe). Aquaman, however, loves the ocean with every porous, necrotic bone in his body. He is its protector. Which means that every dying sea creature breaks his tachycardic heart.
And we haven’t even touched the consequences of an ocean exploited by human beings. Aquaman can see the scars left by every trawl, can feel the life being sucked out of the ocean, knows the name of every fish, dolphin, and crab whose life has been taken by our nets and lines. His life is the constant, horrible drone of unspeakable, unstoppable death.
You know, when they recommended sports illustrated, I
dont necessarily think they meant the swimsuit edition. The
female athletes ARE different from the bat woman sketch.
However, then the image might be smaller with smaller boobs.
I genuinely despise that "durr let's apply REAL SCIENCE to comics" mumbo jumbo. Also, who the feth cares about this "realistic anatomy" gak? It's good, however, that these two things have come up in such close proximity (thanks reds8n!) because it highlights that the same misguided obsession with "realism" -- what I'll call, to borrow a phrase, the mind killer -- underlies both.
Even aside from the irrelevant (though interesting and educational) physical stuff, the point about Aquaman being a guy who's acclimated to a vast, cold wilderness devoid of humanity does give a different perspective on the character.
Manchu wrote:I genuinely despise that "durr let's apply REAL SCIENCE to comics" mumbo jumbo. Also, who the feth cares about this "realistic anatomy" gak? It's good, however, that these two things have come up in such close proximity (thanks reds8n!) because it highlights that the same misguided obsession with "realism" -- what I'll call, to borrow a phrase, the mind killer -- underlies both.
“In Wetham’s diagnosis, then, children were too underdeveloped to separate the outlandish fantasy in their comic books from everyday reality, and this made them vulnerable to barely concealed homosexual and antisocial content.
I tend to believe the reverse is true: that it’s adults who have the most trouble separating fact from fiction. A child knows that real crabs on the beach do not sing or talk like the cartoon crabs in THE LITTLE MERMAID. A child can accept all kinds of weird-looking creatures and bizarre occurrences in a story because the child understands that stories have different rules that allow for pretty much anything to happen.
Adults, on the other hand, struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know HOW Superman can possibly fly, or HOW Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it’s not real.”
—
—Grant Morrison, Supergods.
.. sa for the Batwoman thing..
..hmm.. whilst I'm aware that comic books have unfeasible physiques for both male and female participants, I do think the description of her as being too fat and not " top heavy" enough was somewhat telling. There's a far wider variety of ( in comic book terms) acceptable and diverse male body types in comic books than there are for females it's seemed generally. This really just seems to suggest that this slim focus ( excuse the pun) is quite deliberate.
And I don't think that's healthy either in a wider societal context or for the industry itself perhaps.
For reasons I can't quite explain I want to read Red Lanterns, even though I haven't read anything Lantern related for years. Is it worth it and can I read it on its own? There's a TPB.
Also just bought Avenging Spider-Man #1 and Kick-Ass 2.
@reds8n: That's probably my favorite quote from SuperGods. I have this whole huge argument about how fundamentalist our culture is and how this is reflected in the comic book fandom among other things. I'm thinking of writing a book called something like "iPad Thumpers."
reds8n wrote:There's a far wider variety of ( in comic book terms) acceptable and diverse male body types in comic books than there are for females it's seemed generally.
But I definitely disagree with this. Sure, we've got Moleman in addition to Superman. But non-majestic male bodies are almost always portrayed as evil, hideous, and otherwise vile. Of course there are skinnier guys versus more muscular guys just like their are gamine ladies versus more buxom ones.
I'd also point out we get 9 top of my head) The Thing, Hulk, Harvey Bullock, James Gordon, Plastic Man, Elongated Man...
.. hell go to some of the..wackier.... elements from the LoS -- Bouncing Boy ? matter eater Lad ? --- and they're still heroic often despite their build ( or the ludicrousness of their powers.. but that's a whole other argument ) .
Alfred the butler normally has his moment in the spotlight in each and every big story-arc
IIRC there was an ongoing story back in the day about Blue Beetle being a bit fat and his efforts to lose weight.
.. now compare that to the female characters...
... we used to have Amanda Waller
who used to look like
-- great character, used to full affect in many memorable stories
and now.. well
oh look ! Supermodel build.
.. I appreciate this ( perhaps) is to do with the Gl film -- what a success that was eh ? -- but.. where are the even slightly non supermodel type female characters ?
Last one I can recall was Monstress
and that turned out well eh ?
Spoiler:
I appreciate that -- see above ! -- we're in the realms of fiction and that people who are active, out and about, fighting crime etc etc are hardly going to be lard arses but some variety would be both nice and desirable perhaps ?
..that said I guess we wouldn't have Femforce et al if this was true eh ?
reds8n wrote: I'd also point out we get 9 top of my head) The Thing, Hulk, Harvey Bullock, James Gordon, Plastic Man, Elongated Man...
Um ... you mean a bunch of monsters and a crooked, slobby cop?
Also, I think this "super model" ideal is a bit silly. Men go crazy for both Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe. Kitty Pryde, She Hulk, Wonder Woman, and Batgirl are generally portrayed as having different body types. Just because they're all attractive doesn't mean that they're the same. The idea that a given female comic reader should recognize her own actual body type in her favorite comics is a strange idea. Certainly men have never requested the same. Most comic book characters, male and female, have attractive bodies where "attractive" has a fairly narrow definition for each sex.
reds8n wrote: I'd also point out we get 9 top of my head) The Thing, Hulk, Harvey Bullock, James Gordon, Plastic Man, Elongated Man...
Um ... you mean a bunch of monsters and a crooked, slobby cop?.
.. all of whom are viewed as heroic despite not being good looking, a far cry from " evil, hideous, and otherwise vile.".
.. the female counterpart to this is..... ? ...
..maybe Lady Frankenstein I guess one could argue ? And even then -- physical additions and oddities aside ( plus the whole technically dead thing) -- she's pretty svelte.
Well, that's the trouble. You can still find a person who is eight foot tall and bright green attractive. The only one of those guys who is genuinely unattractive (I mean repulsive) is Harvey -- and he is portrayed as pretty vile. Anti-hero vile but still. But with the rest, even the Thing, we're talking about characters that are trim or beefy.
Does Skitter from Teen Titans count as too attractive for this contest?
There have been other monstrous female characters over the years and many of them have been at least somewhat sexy. Monstress is a good example. The problem is that this debate is meaningless from the beginning because it assumes that the sexualized portrayal of men and women should be the same. That's ridiculous. Men are generally sexy in a different way from how women are sexy.
Oh and if you're going to go on about Alfred and Jim Gordon, what about Aunt May? These guys aren't ugly or representative of diverse body types. They're just older.
I saw the original art for this in Boston and wanted to pick up since it was the first page I ever pointed out to my wife from Invincible. I said something about Eve getting fat now, I got yelled at and told “She’s not fat!”
Wow, just saw the Man of Steel teaser... normally I'm not a big fan of Superman, but for some reason, the hairs of the back of my neck stood up at the end.
Interesting, with Zod as well.. I'll be off to the cinema next year.
What was that talk about the new Tim Drake never been Robin before? I just looked into Teen Titans #1 and he has a picture of him as Robin with Batman.
I picked up Batman and Robin and Supergirl, typically they are short of her issue 6, so have to wait to read the rest until they get it.
However, really enjoyed the first five issues of Supergirl.
Batman and Robin is a case of what was I thinking not getting them from the off. I love the back and forth between Damian and Bruce, and the Damian challenge to the previous Robins bit is one of my fave bits in DCNU so far.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Wow, just saw the Man of Steel teaser... normally I'm not a big fan of Superman, but for some reason, the hairs of the back of my neck stood up at the end.
Interesting, with Zod as well.. I'll be off to the cinema next year.
The DKR-packaged teaser for MoS seemed better than the one shown at SDCC alright. (Was that music from Lord of the Rings?) But after seeing DKR, I'm a bit worried for MoS -- which seems to share the same aesthetic and, I fear, ambivalent morals.
Manchu wrote:The DKR-packaged teaser for MoS seemed better than the one shown at SDCC alright. (Was that music from Lord of the Rings?) But after seeing DKR, I'm a bit worried for MoS -- which seems to share the same aesthetic and, I fear, ambivalent morals.
I think you might be on to something there - especially as recent quotes I've read indicate a desire to move away from the "Big Blue Boy Scout" perception that may or may not actually exist.
I think it is a mistake to make a less morally clear version of Superman, but I've got high hopes that eventually they'll get it right, or right enough...
Superman's real super power is moral clarity. This is why Lex Luthor is his nemesis -- Luthor's super power is moral relativism. You can see this symbolized by Superman's relationship to the Sun, a symbol of light and truth and reason. His weakness, kyrptonite, is a radioactive element: it warps and bends and mutates.
Moral clarity, however, is not a good thing if you sponsor bad morals. Snyder's 300 has exceptional moral clarity, for example ... just like those Nuremberg rallies in the 30s were morally clear ... Morrison summed up Superman perfectly when he said that Superman teaches us that it's responsible use of power rather than power itself that we should aspire to. It is the gentleness with which Superman exercises his might that makes his authority irresistible. If it were any other way, Luthor would be right about him.
In DKR, the question comes up several times "why does Batman want to save Gotham?" Nolan never has Batman answer the question explicitly. To me, there are two possible answers: either (1) because Gotham deserves to be saved or (2) because Batman is good no matter how bad Gotham is. This is a powerful ambiguity. In fact, this is the issue at the heart of the Reformation: should we be saved because we are good or because our savior is good? You can see that the question is still not resolved in the popular consciousness 500 years later when you watch movies like DKR. Do we even dare to hope that the answer might be "both"?
Well, that is the answer that Superman offers. To phrase it in Nolan's idiom, he is both the hero we need and the hero we deserve -- meaning we need quite a lot but we also deserve quite a lot. It's a tall order for any creative team. The creative team at hand is ... well, at least they're publicly quoting Morrison!
I do love what Manchu brings to discussion of comics and movies - this place would not be the same without him, or his words!
And let's hope the new Superman movie figures out that "Superman teaches us that it's responsible use of power rather than power itself that we should aspire to"!
I don't know a lot about Superman. Well, I'm a comic geek like most of us, so I guess I do know a lot of stuff. But I haven't read a lot of Superman stories and didn't really like most of them anyway.
Everbody always says how All Star Superman is the best Supes story ever written. I thought it was boring and ridicolously siver age-y. And this comes from someone who loved the Brave and the Bold cartoon.
My favourite Superman story is Red Son, because here we see that it doesn't have anything to do with his upbrining that he is the way he is. Superman is a genuenly good guy who tries to better everyone's life.
I don't think I ever read a Superman story where he was unsure about himself and his powers and didn't know what do to with them. That at least, always seemed perfectly clear.
It's actually Red Son I was thinking of as I wrote about Luthor's super power being moral relativism. Remember how Brainiac advises Superman not to speak to Luthor under any circumstances?
As for a great, non-All Star Supes story from recent times:
My favorite Superman story is also Red Son but obviously it's not a normal Superman story. Superman makes a more interesting Villian than hero I guess.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:My favorite Superman story is also Red Son but obviously it's not a normal Superman story. Superman makes a more interesting Villian than hero I guess.
Not really, but that seems to be the popular, conventional wisdom these days.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:My favorite Superman story is also Red Son but obviously it's not a normal Superman story. Superman makes a more interesting Villian than hero I guess.
Not really, but that seems to be the popular, conventional wisdom these days.
Kinda sad, actually.
Well, I think for people like me and Anung Superman is kind of damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I also don't want to be morally ambiguos Superman. He should be a paragon, but that kind of makes him boring for long serialized fiction (good in contained stories). He should be a symbol but symbols make poor characters.
Manchu wrote:The DKR-packaged teaser for MoS seemed better than the one shown at SDCC alright. (Was that music from Lord of the Rings?) But after seeing DKR, I'm a bit worried for MoS -- which seems to share the same aesthetic and, I fear, ambivalent morals.
Man of Steel was completely off my radar until I had the two trailers pop up in my email today. Because really, who gets excited over Superman movies? They traditionally have been "Meh" since the first Superman movie appeared.
But really. The character's essence was beautifully distilled into those two teasers.
Jonathan Kent:
"One day, you're gonna have to make a choice. You have decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. ... Whoever that man is, good character or bad, is gonna change the world."
Jor'El:
"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They'll race behind you, they will stumble. They will fall. ... But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."
Anung Un Rama wrote:I don't know a lot about Superman. Well, I'm a comic geek like most of us, so I guess I do know a lot of stuff. But I haven't read a lot of Superman stories and didn't really like most of them anyway.
Everbody always says how All Star Superman is the best Supes story ever written. I thought it was boring and ridicolously siver age-y. And this comes from someone who loved the Brave and the Bold cartoon.
My favourite Superman story is Red Son, because here we see that it doesn't have anything to do with his upbrining that he is the way he is. Superman is a genuenly good guy who tries to better everyone's life.
I don't think I ever read a Superman story where he was unsure about himself and his powers and didn't know what do to with them. That at least, always seemed perfectly clear.
FWIW, Henry Cavill said he looked to Red Son in particular for inspiration.
I don't get the impression that they're going to portray Superman as a moral relativist. I get the sense (from the trailer and past rumors about the movie) that his primary dilemma is whether he wants to assume the role. And really, who would want to take that on? Wouldn't it just be easier and happier to enjoy your powers privately and just fit into society? Although I'm guessing that with Zod on board, Kal-El will have some decisions to make. Hopefully it's a more nuanced Zod that we're accustomed to seeing.
One of the things I like most about the current reimagining in the comics under Morrison is the notion that he's a crusader of sorts for positive change and the moral center for the Justice League. The scene where he disappointedly tells the JL to give him a call if they encounter a space monster was subtle but really powerful, I thought. With him apparently walking the earth, maybe we'll see a little of that guy in the movie.
I really liked the concept of the two trailers, each featuring a father that helped mold him into the person he is. It's always been interesting to me that he would have been a prince of sorts under his father on Krypton, while his upbringing under Jonathan and Martha was obviously very humble. But take either father out of the equation, and you wouldn't get Superman.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:He should be a paragon, but that kind of makes him boring for long serialized fiction (good in contained stories).
It'd be presumptuous to simply point to 80+ years continuously in print, I suppose. The current dominant form in modern American storytelling holds up the arc as the summum bonum. The rise of arc-as-all runs parallel to the rise of libertarianism -- the narrative of the individual's effort to overcome his community. In popular culture terms, we're talking about the transformation of Survivor into Lost and the mode of Lost proliferating across the other networks and into film. The destruction of the planet Vulcan by J. J. Abrams is its ultimate expression for us geeky types.
The whole process is about cycling dramatic energy up and up and up with twists and turns until the protagonist is raptured away into self-actualization. Events cannot be repeatable in this form because everything is directed toward the protagonist's contingent but imminent destiny: the whole world of the story exists only for his transcendence. The endless soap opera with its interminably retiring and arriving cast suddenly becomes deadly finite. In other words, the story takes history (or at least the phantasmagoria of history) as seriously as gravity (again, more specifically, the phantasmagoria of gravity). And all these arc-is-all stories have a heavy emphasis on the "realistic" (e.g., the Nolan Batman films).
There are some problems. First, we don't tell stories for the same reason that we study history. There's a lot of confusion about that (the whole "those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" deal) and most people are deeply devoted to the idea of history just being a series of stories that we tell in order to make sense of reality. We do that, too. We do that in novels and films and even comic books and video games. And our most persistent form of storytelling is myth. It seems to me that DC is always trying -- and failing -- to be slick and with-it which is funny when their characters are thousands of years old. Marvel is the opposite -- Marvel is eternally contemporary rather than being eternal in contemporary times. Marvel is always on the cutting edge of the current culture, which is one of the reasons they do so much better at the box office than DC (and, to be fair, why they usually sell more comics). But to say that "symbols aren't good characters" is a little too glib, a little too naive. Arc-as-all is the style of now, not of forever and ever amen.
And the age of the libertarian is ultimately morally and practically unsustainable. When this latest Tower of Babel topples, the pantheon of DC will still be there. Superman will be waiting, as always, to save the day. I think that that safety net is why we can take so many liberties with super heroes, from Watchmen to Kick Ass. On the page, they cannot die. Bullets bounce right off of Superman's chest. They never seem to find Batman at all. And in the real world, we can't kill them, either. All the fads come and go, and Superman still stands for truth and justice. And somehow, darkly, so does Batman.
gorgon wrote:As told by two Jewish men.
You mean like all the guys who wrote the gospels? Who else but a Jewish man (or rather two of them) could tell the story of the Messiah coming at last?
KamikazeCanuck wrote:So....did anyone like Superman Returns? Just throwing it out there. Speak up, don't be shy.
It had some beautiful moments but bad casting and the cuckold twist ruined it.
Superman Returns was, as a parody of Batman once very eloquently put it, "two hours of him lifting stuff". I understand that there is more to a superhero movie than fighting stuff, but Returns could've really used some of that. The casting was good though.
Yeah, Bosworth as Lane...I have no idea what they were thinking.
I personally found SR vaguely creepy, as only a sequel-of-sorts-to-a-film-25-years-old-using-a-guy-who-looks-a-lot-like-the-dead-actor-from-the-original type film can be.
Pre-crisis, everything from Krypton was somehow indestructible. But I tend to think that his costume and cape in this iteration are more specifically a hyperadvanced material thing, although I don't think he's made that clear.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:He should be a paragon, but that kind of makes him boring for long serialized fiction (good in contained stories).
It'd be presumptuous to simply point to 80+ years continuously in print, I suppose. The current dominant form in modern American storytelling holds up the arc as the summum bonum. The rise of arc-as-all runs parallel to the rise of libertarianism -- the narrative of the individual's effort to overcome his community. In popular culture terms, we're talking about the transformation of Survivor into Lost and the mode of Lost proliferating across the other networks and into film. The destruction of the planet Vulcan by J. J. Abrams is its ultimate expression for us geeky types.
The whole process is about cycling dramatic energy up and up and up with twists and turns until the protagonist is raptured away into self-actualization. Events cannot be repeatable in this form because everything is directed toward the protagonist's contingent but imminent destiny: the whole world of the story exists only for his transcendence. The endless soap opera with its interminably retiring and arriving cast suddenly becomes deadly finite. In other words, the story takes history (or at least the phantasmagoria of history) as seriously as gravity (again, more specifically, the phantasmagoria of gravity). And all these arc-is-all stories have a heavy emphasis on the "realistic" (e.g., the Nolan Batman films).
There are some problems. First, we don't tell stories for the same reason that we study history. There's a lot of confusion about that (the whole "those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" deal) and most people are deeply devoted to the idea of history just being a series of stories that we tell in order to make sense of reality. We do that, too. We do that in novels and films and even comic books and video games. And our most persistent form of storytelling is myth. It seems to me that DC is always trying -- and failing -- to be slick and with-it which is funny when their characters are thousands of years old. Marvel is the opposite -- Marvel is eternally contemporary rather than being eternal in contemporary times. Marvel is always on the cutting edge of the current culture, which is one of the reasons they do so much better at the box office than DC (and, to be fair, why they usually sell more comics). But to say that "symbols aren't good characters" is a little too glib, a little too naive. Arc-as-all is the style of now, not of forever and ever amen.
And the age of the libertarian is ultimately morally and practically unsustainable. When this latest Tower of Babel topples, the pantheon of DC will still be there. Superman will be waiting, as always, to save the day. I think that that safety net is why we can take so many liberties with super heroes, from Watchmen to Kick Ass. On the page, they cannot die. Bullets bounce right off of Superman's chest. They never seem to find Batman at all. And in the real world, we can't kill them, either. All the fads come and go, and Superman still stands for truth and justice. And somehow, darkly, so does Batman.
[
Jesus Christ Manchu, I have no idea what you're talking about. The comic book "Superman"...... I find it boring. I find him a boring character...that's all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anung Un Rama wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Anung Un Rama wrote:The casting was good though.
Wha? I mean, I think Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey were 100% perfect. But Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth? No way those were good choices.
To be honest, I don't remember Lois that much. But I thought Brandon Routh was a great Superman and Clark Kent and I liked Spacey.
I agree.
Anyways, I liked Superman Returns. That's right, I said it. I only know two people who liked it and I'm one of them.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I find it boring. I find him a boring character...that's all.
Have you ever come to a point in your life where you felt compelled to ask "why do I think the things that I think?"
Yes, but Superman and comics aren't one of those things. Sometimes I just want to be entertained by an entertaining story. In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
Oh, this could be a very interesting debate. I'm a bit torn over the issue. I really enjoy reading things like Manchu wrote and I enjoy thoughtful analysis of movies and game etc.
On the other hand, I doubt I love Batman: Hush, Deadpool: Suicide Kings or Frankencaste for its social commentary.
In my view, we all do this analysis on some level. It has to do with how we read narratives. There is this concept of reading in one moment, finishing that, and then thinking about it. Like you go into the theater and while the movie is playing, you're doing nothing but watching it -- you know, "receiving" it. And then you leave the theater and that's when you can start reflecting. No, I don't think that's how it works in reality. You're thinking while you're watching or reading. That's what makes you like something or not. You can ignore the fact that you are thinking but you still are, like breathing. Unlike breathing, being conscious of your thinking (the quality of self-awareness) can make the experience more meaningful.
I think I know what you mean and as I said, I enjoy a good analysis, but the way you say it, sort of undermines the simple joy things liek Batman punching Superman.
I try to think more about why I like the things I like and sometimes I come to some interesting conclusions.
Hey, no one is going to pay me for writing this stuff. I know my writing is not that good. It's conversational. I'm telling you guys what I think quickly, and that isn't always very clear and it isn't always completely thought-through. Right, because it is a conversation? Not a final draft, as it were. I'm not saying, oh here is the secret meaning that you have to come to. No, this is just my argument.
Also, you won't be surprised, but I don't believe in "simple joys."
I don't follow Superman comics, but I'm intrigued by the
Jesus Christ analogy. Which storyline, would you say, is the
one where Superman is betrayed and sacrificed?
Like I said, I don't read much superman, so this interests me. I'd
be interested enough to pull the storyline in question.
Whoa brother. I didn't say Superman = Jesus, like some completely literal one-off prestige edition. I said Superman is a story about Jesus. It's a reworking of John 3:16. Here's a little baby that is actually the mightiest being on the planet raised by simple rural people, Mary and Joseph -- er, I mean Jonathan and Martha. And he grows up and realizes that he has to save people because only he can do it. He doesn't necessarily want to but tht's his duty. So he gives it a shot and it's terrible. He's reviled by the authority of his times, a.k.a., Lex Luthor, who will save the world through science and finance (you know, the things that are killing it). And even though he's doing good things, the people always turn against him. In story after story, Superman is stamped down and seemingly defeated and then, because he's true to his mission, he manages to do the impossible thing and save us all.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:In fact, the essence of being bored may be that what your reading is not generating any thoughts like that.
I agree. If a story doesn't inspire me to reflect on it (i.e., is boring), it's not really worth my time. The reason I like comics and think they are valuable is because they encourage me to reflect on, among other things, what is going on with us culturally and socially.
Don't take this the wrong way but it's just that last analytical post made me laugh a bit. It's some kind of super-meta-analysis but honestly if I closed my eyes and randomly grabbed 10 comics of the shelf your post would probably have more thought put into it than 8 of those comics. You know how sometimes a cigar is just a cigar? Sometimes Superman's just punching a giant robot.
I'm not so sure. Anyway, we've discussed how we all view fiction through or own cultural experiences and I must say I've never thought of Superman as Jesus. He seems a lot punchier than Jesus. There's no biblical equivilant to Krytonite that I can think of. I don't seem the similarities between the two personally.
Whenever I think about Superman, I just remember "Hush".
Batman wrote:
The boy is trembling. Not much older than I was when...
He's probably just as terrified of me as he is of what's happening.
It makes me think about Clark and how he'd handle the situation. Not just the bending steel and flying out.
Clark could smile. That Boy Scout thing. And then say something homespun to put the boy at ease.
But, the boy doesn't have Clark.
He has me.
In my city. Gotham City.
It is better that way.
It fits, in my mind, what a few of the writers over the years have said. That Gotham is the dark side of Metropolis, the flip side of the same coin.
The cities need their own distinct protectors.
Metropolis has a bright, shining hero who makes them proud and uplifts their spirits.
Gotham has an avenging shadow, who makes the innocent feel safe and the guilty afraid.
Both of those heroes have their own trials and tribulations, but when it comes down to it...Batman was shaped by a completely different life experience than Superman was.
Batman became who he did through tragedy. He shaped himself into a weapon, shaped himself into something more than he could ever have been as Bruce Wayne the billionaire philanthropist. He does what he does because he feels he needs to do it.
Superman chose to become who he is because he was raised in a loving home with an emphasis placed upon the needs of others rather than just selfishness. Like Bruce, he does what he does because he feels he needs to do it.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm not so sure. Anyway, we've discussed how we all view fiction through or own cultural experiences and I must say I've never thought of Superman as Jesus.
Virgin birth.
Came " from above".
Died and came back...
... I would suggest it's something to do with the construction of his story tapping into several "mythological"/religious archetypes. Which is, possibly, why the character is so successful.
Possibly.
.. when Rush was droning on about how the new Batman film is an attack on Republicanism/Romney I was waiting for someone to point out that Supes is, essentially, an aillegal immigrant.
-- he's not of course, he's been granted full USA citizenship several times, pays his taxes and even has a social security number.
.. well Clark has the latter anyway, Mark Waid has it memorised.
He seems a lot punchier than Jesus.
.. well it's a modern American Jesus.. be grateful he's not using a six shooter.
There's no biblical equivilant to Krytonite that I can think of. I don't seem the similarities between the two personally.
I would suggest sin or evil perhaps ? Especially some of the more interesting affects some of the different coloured types have.
In light of the recent events in Aurora, and in consideration of the victims and the families of the shootings, DC Comics has decided to postpone the release of the third issue of Batman Incorporated because the comic contains “content that may be perceived as insensitive in light of recent events”. They are asking any retailers who do receive copies not to put them out for sale.
The comic was originally intended to go on sale on July 25th. The sale date has now been postponed until August the 22nd.
"Comics don't kill people. People Guns kill people." Keep passing the buck ...
In other news:
Do comic book company execs care about enraging their fanbase? There's been a nasty rumor ever since OMD that Marvel intentionally tries to make their fans angry because "angry fans are more likely to buy issues than happy ones." I know that's nonsense. But I can't help but sarcastically think the same is true for DC. Do any DC execs or editors actually CARE about upsetting fans? Because at this point it seems like they couldn't give two gaks about their fanbase.
Gail Simone wrote:Hmm.
This answer is a little complicated.
Okay, no, they don’t want to enrage the fanbase, I have never heard that. However, there is definitely a line of thinking that some people have, and it’s not just publishers, that the more people are talking about a book, good and bad, the better it sells.
It’s hard to argue with, in some ways. I don’t agree with it, but everything that has INFURIATED the internet fanbase lately has sold really well…the New52, like it or not, reinvigorated the entire industry…even other publishers came up and said that it gave retailers the resources to support other publishers. The AvX thing that everyone was pissed about is Marvel’s biggest hit in years. The Harley stuff that made people so mad is actually making Suicide Squad one of the only books trending UP in sales.
It’s the flip side of things like the One Million Moms’ failed boycotts, that only made sales of the targeted books stronger.
I don’t agree with this thinking, and even if I did, I think it’s a mistake to deliberately upset loyal readers, it’s uncalled for. But some people do believe it.
The thing that I do believe, and this upsets people every time I say it, but the vocal contingent on message boards and social networks sadly do not seem to reflect the readership at all. I’m not sure if they ever did. I know this is sometimes sad to hear, but it’s true, it’s absolutely true.
If it were true, the best-selling books at DC would be Batgirl and Secret Six and at Marvel, they would be X-23 and Young Avengers, and so on.
If it were true, the top ten books, with a few exceptions, would sell almost nothing.
I know it stings a bit. But the vocal internet community is an elite part of the readership. They are like gourmet readers, in my view. They have very good taste as a rule…but the books they love the most sell nothing and the books they hate are huge hits.
We have to address it, we have to quit kidding ourselves. Critical acclaim is lovely, but Tumblr buzz bears no relation to a book’s actual success, in general (I’m sure there are exceptions).
So, I think we have trained publishers not to take internet upset too seriously at this point. If we are outraged and disgusted by crossovers, and they continue to sell like hotcakes, eventually, publishers listen to numbers and not to bloggers.
I wish this weren’t the case…I don’t know if it’s the same for prose and film and music, but in comics, people will rave and rave about a book, it sells nothing, and then because they have raved about it so much, the poster or blogger feels that the company hates them personally because that book was so loved.
But no one bought it.
I don’t like talking about sales, I have never taken an assignment for sales. I don’t keep track of sales issue by issue like some writers do. I don’t find out what an issue actually sold til months after it has been out. To be honest, I am sad even to bring up this topic at all.
But realistically, if a book didn’t sell with a great creative team, the odds are not great of it EVER selling with the same or similar team. And there are people at each company who have to watch over that stuff. They have my sympathy, sometimes it means they cancel their own favorite books, or books by their good friends.
But eventually, books have to make enough money to continue publishing them.
I’m not sure if you are asking about the Steph thing. But if you are, I’m disappointed, too. When BQM told me he got Steph in Smallville, i was delighted, and I did my best to promote the book without giving away the secret. It makes me sad they took her out…best case scenario is they want her to make a debut somewhere else, worst case scenario is some arcane thing I don’t understand yet, I guess.
Anyway, hope that makes sense. If the only place you get comics intel is Tumblr and message boards, you are almost guaranteed to get a skewed version of what’s actually popular. That’s why I also talk to retailers as often as possible, to find out what people are actually buying, you know?
It sucks, but we (tumblrs and message boarders) are kind of the elite, and as such, our tastes are always going to differ some from the mainstream taste. It’s a good thing, and sometimes a sad thing.
.. I had a whole thing about how Krypton could also represent a (secular) Garden of Eden.. a scientific land of perfection and plenty, destroyed through ignorance and an unwillingness to confront the unknown.
How he can never, ever return there -- except in imaginary stories in the the future when he's done X/Y/Z -- much like "we" can never return to Eden/our sinless state.
In fact if he does go there or come near it then it's affects are fatal ( or they change him), much like how the light of heaven, or even the mere presence of God is too much for mortals to bear.
Then there's the whole "..el " thing that echoes through the superman mythos.
In classic Judaic/Christian theology the letters " ..el " normally symbolising the angelic or those " from the lord " ( IIRC it does translate as " the shining ones" in... err... some language from around that area of the world :
Michael Raphael
-- Ariel, Azrael, Chamuel etc etc and so on.
Then you come across the peculiar number of L L characters in the books -- Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Lori Lemari ( although alliterative names are common in comics, often ( according to Stan Lee) as they're easy to remember or recall ).
Of course Lex Luthor -- a mortal man, who who through science and ego could, perhaps, achieve dominion over the mortal world... if that dratted Superman -- who never kills Lex as he believes that, ultimately, deep down inside him, there is something good, someone (.. or something dun dun duh! ) that's worth saving.
And his name starts with a reversion of the "heavenly" "el", so it suggests that he is the opposite of the angelic/superman.....
Lex Luthor is the pharisee to Superman's Christ. Like the pharisees, Luthor can claim to be a learned authority on the values of our society. Like the pharisees, Luthor is always trying to trap Superman in moral conundrums that will force his hand. And like the pharisees, Luthor is ultimately shown to be a morally bankrupt manipulator time and time again.
See John 8:3-11 for a great Superman story. If I were going to write a Superman story, I would start with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: TBH, I think one of the reasons I'm so tough on Alan Moore is because that -- in a classic Cobra Commander move -- he killed off Krypto (as well as everyone else!) in Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? Honestly, what kind of fether kills off Krypto? It's like something Disney would do -- emotional manipulation.
I know Morrison really likes the Moses thing, what with the ship leaving Krypton. But Moses was found by and raised as royalty -- the opposite of Superman. And the key significance of Moses is that he formed this people Israel and led them out of Egypt. Superman does nothing like this. So I've always thought that was stretch.
I've heard some people wondering if the dog in the new trailer is "Krypto" -- not Krypto the super-powered dog from Krypton, but a regular canine with that name.
I think the -El thing is almost certainly from Siegel and Shuster's religious background. Never thought of the colors of Kryptonite as the seven deadly sins, or something like that. That's an interesting thought.
Despite all the time travel and powers he can never go back and prevent the destruction of Krypton/The fall.
Despite all his powers he can't destroy kryptonite/evil.
It can alter people in many ways, even good people... and yet the staunch everyday man or woman is capable of resisting it in a way that Superman can't, its mere presence often an anathema to him.
.. well... maybe anyway
sometimes a plot device is just a plot device after all.
Ahtman wrote:Siegel and Shuster weren't thinking of Jesus when they wrote Action Comics #1.
I'm not so sure. And anyway, the emphasis is on Christ rather than Jesus; on the Messiah rather than on the particular, literal elements of an individual biography. But even in that case, it's difficult to ignore the stark similarities in those particular terms between the story of Jesus and the myth of Superman.
reds8n wrote:sometimes a plot device is just a plot device after all.
This is the great mystery of storytelling -- that things tie back into narratives that have always existed and forward into ones that don't yet exist. It's hard to believe in coincidence once you've had a taste of literary criticism.
You can relate anything back to the Bible for better or for worse.
The truth is Superman and almost all Superheroes have a much simplier origin: They are Mary Sues. I don't consider Mary Sue to be an automatic pejorative like everyone because of the fact it basically spawned the superhero genre, which I like.
Superman is an awkward outsider that is actually an incredible godlike being. If only he could show the girl he's been pining over for years (also not bibllical) the real him she would love him back. But he can't because he is a noble yet tragic figure.
Batman is millionaire who can make whatever he wants and has unlimited resources. He has a tragic past but just that drives but him to get the things down us regular folk can't.
Spider-Man is an actual geek high-schooler who has a super powered secret identity.
That's all it is. "I wish I had a secret identity and superpowers, cuz that would be figgin' awesome". Comic creators tend to be geeks themselves so its only natural but if these characters where created today the internets would have called them Sues. Fortunately, they weren't and a cool genre was spawned by Superman. There's nothing wrong with a little wish fulfillment in a picture book.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You can relate anything back to the Bible for better or for worse.
Sure, if you don't know much about the Bible or the thing you are relating it to ...
KamikazeCanuck wrote:The truth is Superman and almost all Superheroes have a much simplier origin: They are Mary Sues.
Okay, now I'm just at the point of wondering why you even read comics.
Manchu, God hates gay people. Actually people have been taking parts of the bible to make their arguement whatever it may be forever. It's a big book and you can make any arguement you want with it.
As for the second part: if you quote the entire post you get some context there. You reaction is so visceral you are totally being an "internet person".
Good example of how not everything can actually be related back ... no matter how hard some people want it to be the case.
As for the second part: if you quote the entire post you get some context there. You reaction is so visceral you are totally being an "internet person".
I don't know KC: in the great debate over whether things are complex and meaningful versus things being superficial and facile, it seems to me the former will always win over the latter. In fact, it's hardly a debate.
EDIT: Also, just because I didn't re-post your entire post doesn't mean I didn't read it and react to it.
Good example of how not everything can actually be related back ... no matter how hard some people want it to be the case.
As for the second part: if you quote the entire post you get some context there. You reaction is so visceral you are totally being an "internet person".
I don't know KC: in the great debate over whether things are complex and meaningful versus things being superficial and facile, it seems to me the former will always win over the latter. In fact, it's hardly a debate.
EDIT: Also, just because I didn't re-post your entire post doesn't mean I didn't read it and react to it.
Actually you didn't. I was basically saying stay calm and let me explain and then did. All you said was "I don't even know why you read comics". That's not a fair reaction
You said that comic book characters are Mary Sues. To emphasize this point, after giving a few examples, you said "That's all it is is." That's pretty clear. But you clarified further: "wish fulfillment in a picture book." So I'm just addressing what you wrote, clarified, then re-clarified. And that's my honest reaction: if you think so very, very little of super hero comics, if they mean so little to you, if they're just "wish fulfillment in a picture book" then why bother with them?
He might just like seeing Hulk smash. Certainly there are plenty of books for people with that desire. But obviously, it doesn't mean that represents the entire medium just because it's the component of said medium that one enjoys most.
I agree. Hulk does smash. But behind that extremely superficial factoid, which anyone can detect at the merest glance with no familiarity with the character or the medium or the genre, is a story about a mild scientist who turns into a rampaging brute when angry. To say in response to some analysis of the actual story " oh no, it's just a big green dude and he's awesome cuase he punches crap" is not an equally valid viewpoint.
Manchu wrote:You said that comic book characters are Mary Sues. To emphasize this point, after giving a few examples, you said "That's all it is is." That's pretty clear. But you clarified further: "wish fulfillment in a picture book." So I'm just addressing what you wrote, clarified, then re-clarified. And that's my honest reaction: if you think so very, very little of super hero comics, if they mean so little to you, if they're just "wish fulfillment in a picture book" then why bother with them?
I said " I don't consider Mary Sue to be an automatic pejorative like everyone because of the fact it basically spawned the superhero genre, which I like. "
and I'm glad their works weren't shouted down in their time because "a cool genre was spawned by Superman"
I didn't say they are unimportant to me. It seems you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying I don't even think Mary Sueness should even be a pejorative because of comics.
Ahtman wrote:Siegel and Shuster weren't thinking of Jesus when they wrote Action Comics #1.
I'm not so sure.
It has been ahwile, but I recall an interview where one of them made specific mention of the Moses story being an influence. He wasn't supposed to be a stand in for Moses, but they were inspired by elements of the story.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm saying I don't even think Mary Sueness should even be a pejorative because of comics.
I hate the phrase "Mary Sue" because it doesn't clarify anything. For my own part, Mary Sue = bad. It's lazy story telling with the primary objective of author wish fulfillment. Wish fulfillment, in turn, is also not a good thing because our wishes are base as often as noble. Wishing to be good doesn't actually help you be good if you don't know what being good means. IMO, comic characters like Superman are not primarily about wishing to be good but about what it means to be good. It's not an escape so much as a lesson. It's not getting away from your problems -- it's facing them and solving them with wisdom and nobility. So that's my position clarified and, if I understand yours, I think it should be clear why we seem to disagree.
Ahtman wrote:He wasn't supposed to be a stand in for Moses, but they were inspired by elements of the story.
Yeah, finding Kal'El in the field is extremely evocative of Moses among the reeds. And of course, they find Moses with the cloth of Levites like how they find Kal with his cape.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm saying I don't even think Mary Sueness should even be a pejorative because of comics.
I hate the phrase "Mary Sue" because it doesn't clarify anything. For my own part, Mary Sue = bad. It's lazy story telling with the primary objective of author wish fulfillment. Wish fulfillment, in turn, is also not a good thing because our wishes are base as often as noble. Wishing to be good doesn't actually help you be good if you don't know what being good means. IMO, comic characters like Superman are not primarily about wishing to be good but about what it means to be good. It's not an escape so much as a lesson. It's not getting away from your problems -- it's facing them and solving them with wisdom and nobility. So that's my position clarified and, if I understand yours, I think it should be clear why we seem to disagree
That's why I'm asking you to seperate the visceral hate the internet has ingrained in you about the term. Superman is proof how Mary Sue like qualities are not automatically bad. It's not about wishing to be good it's about wishing to be powerful enough to do good for the world.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's not about wishing to be good it's about wishing to be powerful enough to do good for the world.
But that isn't simple wish fulfillment. That's a process, the ennobling process of growing and changing by reading stories and thinking about them, reflecting on them and wondering about how they apply to the world.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's not about wishing to be good it's about wishing to be powerful enough to do good for the world.
But that isn't simple wish fulfillment. That's a process, the ennobling process of growing and changing by reading stories and thinking about them, reflecting on them and wondering about how they apply to the world.
Wishing to be powerful enough to change the world is simple. How that power is actually applied and how people react to it? Well, perhaps that's the difference between a good comic and a bad one. Reading about that is what I enjoy about comics.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Reading about that is what I enjoy about comics.
Well ... that is indeed what we've been talking about all along. In fact, this is exactly my point as to why Superman is an exceptionally relevant character in the twilight of this "every man for himself" culture of libertarianism.
That's quite a discussion you have there. And still I am torn between a deep analytical approach and... well, Hulk smash. I'm not saying that there isn't more to the Hulk, but that's not why I want to read about him.
Just had another thought. Let me think about the characters I do like to read about and why. I've always enjoyed Spider-Man and superficially, this might be because Spidey has awesome moves and is really funny. But in the past few years I noticed something about me reading Spidey stories: I really enjoy it, when things, for once, are working out for him. Like his friendship with Tony Stark and the good he was doing right before gak hit the fan with Civil War and One More Day. And even more in USM post-Ultimatum. His life was good. He had friends, family, the city loved him.
And yet, when you think about it, Spider-Man has rarely been a character who has a good life. He deserves one, but most of the time it's one tragedy after another. When I heard that ultimate Peter was about to be killed, I was upset. Because I liked how his life was going so well.
Now, the point I'm trying to make here (I think) is, that comics are probably more than "simple fun" to me, if a character like Peter Parker can grow on me that much. This might have not much to do with the Superman vs. Moses debate, but it says, that something at some point made click with Spidey and me. And that is why I'm upset when his life is going down the drain again.
Yep, this is what I meant a few pages ago by saying that we don't read-and-then-analyse. We analyze as we read. Reading is an act of analysis. They aren't separate things. I think you'll find it's very difficult to look at an issue of Hulk and only think "Hulk smash."
I don't want to steal Red's thunder, but here's a bit of comic related news for a change: Grant Morrison is done with monthly superheroes for a while:
The "Action Comics" run concludes with issue #16, "Batman Incorporated" wraps up my take with issue #12, and after that I don’t have any plans for monthly superhero books for a while. "Multiversity" is eight issues and I’m 30-odd pages into a Wonder Woman project but those are finite stories.
Manchu wrote:Yep, this is what I meant a few pages ago by saying that we don't read-and-then-analyse. We analyze as we read. Reading is an act of analysis. They aren't separate things. I think you'll find it's very difficult to look at an issue of Hulk and only think "Hulk smash."
Manchu wrote:Yep, this is what I meant a few pages ago by saying that we don't read-and-then-analyse. We analyze as we read. Reading is an act of analysis. They aren't separate things. I think you'll find it's very difficult to look at an issue of Hulk and only think "Hulk smash."
Nope, I never have trouble not thinking.
....
I need someone to give me a quick update/Yes or No vote on the whole Avengers vs. X-Men series - worth reading?
Alpharius wrote:I need someone to give me a quick update/Yes or No vote on the whole Avengers vs. X-Men series - worth reading?
Here's what I know and it isn't much: My LCS accidentally put four issues of AvX titles in my box, which I duly bought without checking. I got home and found the mistake. At first, I thought I'd just let it slide and read them as part of KC's challenge that I read more Marvel (or at least less predominately DC titles). I read one of them and then immediately drove back to the store to return them. So it was just an impression but it wasn't a good one.
What if Oppenheimer had an evil twin brother who devoured
his body and took over at the Manhattan Projects? What if
the Manhattan Project wasn't just developing the nuclear bomb
and was instead developing all sorts of weaponized sci-fi
concepts?
He also wrote a self-contained super hero story called
Red Mass for Mars. Great read, and it condenses a story
that would take many comic book series years to tell.
I need someone to give me a quick update/Yes or No vote on the whole Avengers vs. X-Men series - worth reading?
I like it. Little behind on it right now though and of course you need to pick up some titles that are not the main title to totally know what's going on.
My take on AvX is that it's *very* dumb, but can be fun at the aforementioned "Hulk smash" level. Maybe it's only because of the "Vs" books, but I feel like it's not taking itself as seriously as, say, Siege or Fear Itself did. Both of which of course felt like a ton of buildup for a predictable and flat ending.
Having said that, I've only picked up a few of the books in this latest mega-event. If I'd purchased AvX-related 20 books to this point, it's possible I'd be angry and bitter about it, I dunno. If you think a series revolving around "who would win, [insert Avenger] or [insert mutant] could be fun, it might be worth paging through an issue or two.
gorgon wrote:My take on AvX is that it's *very* dumb, but can be fun at the aforementioned "Hulk smash" level. Maybe it's only because of the "Vs" books, but I feel like it's not taking itself as seriously as, say, Siege or Fear Itself did. Both of which of course felt like a ton of buildup for a predictable and flat ending.
Having said that, I've only picked up a few of the books in this latest mega-event. If I'd purchased AvX-related 20 books to this point, it's possible I'd be angry and bitter about it, I dunno. If you think a series revolving around "who would win, [insert Avenger] or [insert mutant] could be fun, it might be worth paging through an issue or two.
I feel like they've done a good job of making me go back and forth about which faction is "right." I'm not sure who I want to "win", though it's not even about that anymore. I think it's a heck of a lot better than Fear Itself. Is there a side you're pulling for?
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Saw the first Young Justice episode this morning, really liked it.
Young Justice really is the biggest reason I'm keeping Cartoon Network at this point.It really is that good.
Quoted for truth. IMO it's the best cartoon since The Last Airbender ended.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I feel like they've done a good job of making me go back and forth about which faction is "right." I'm not sure who I want to "win", though it's not even about that anymore. I think it's a heck of a lot better than Fear Itself. Is there a side you're pulling for?
It'll be another year until I read it. Why are the fighting anyway? It's not about who gets Wolverine, is it.
Enjoyed the first two issues of Avenging Spider-Man, definetly gonna keep reading it. Is Madueira always doing the art? Because I like his stuff. Though the monsters under the city look a lot like anything from Darksiders. What's a bit confusing is, that Avenging runs parallel to the regular Spider-Man series. In one he has his Spidey-Sense back, in the other he doesn't. I suppose that is cleared up in Spider-Island
Also read the first 4 issues of Kick-Ass 2, which I enjoyed more than the original. I really had some problems with the first one. I love Romita Jr.'s art, but I don't really enjoy the utterly brutal, yet erely realistic violence I read in a lot of Miller's books. Also, there is this thing, that the comic version of Big Daddy is a dispicable butt-hole. Kick-Ass 2 has more of a feel good vibe to it, at least until Ex-Red Mist shows up.
Never been much of an X-fan, so I guess I'm rooting for them to take a beating.
In some ways, AvX is kind of a mashup of Fear Itself and Civil War. It takes the power-ups and manga-style matchup approach from Fear Itself, and the hero-vs-hero-which-side-are-you-on aspect from Civil War. Which probably points to Marvel being mostly out of ideas at this point, LOL.
I picked up Captain America today for the first time in a little while. I figure I'll pick up the last arc of Brubaker's run. Which was mostly terrific, although I feel like it peaked a few years ago.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Saw the first Young Justice episode this morning, really liked it.
Young Justice really is the biggest reason I'm keeping Cartoon Network at this point.It really is that good.
Quoted for truth. IMO it's the best cartoon since The Last Airbender ended.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I feel like they've done a good job of making me go back and forth about which faction is "right." I'm not sure who I want to "win", though it's not even about that anymore. I think it's a heck of a lot better than Fear Itself. Is there a side you're pulling for?
It'll be another year until I read it. Why are the fighting anyway? It's not about who gets Wolverine, is it.
Enjoyed the first two issues of Avenging Spider-Man, definetly gonna keep reading it. Is Madueira always doing the art? Because I like his stuff. Though the monsters under the city look a lot like anything from Darksiders. What's a bit confusing is, that Avenging runs parallel to the regular Spider-Man series. In one he has his Spidey-Sense back, in the other he doesn't. I suppose that is cleared up in Spider-Island
Also read the first 4 issues of Kick-Ass 2, which I enjoyed more than the original. I really had some problems with the first one. I love Romita Jr.'s art, but I don't really enjoy the utterly brutal, yet erely realistic violence I read in a lot of Miller's books. Also, there is this thing, that the comic version of Big Daddy is a dispicable butt-hole. Kick-Ass 2 has more of a feel good vibe to it, at least until Ex-Red Mist shows up.
Let's just say it has to do with the return of The Phoenix.
I think Joe Mad does like 3 issues of Avenging Spider-Man then calls it quits. I seem to recall Avenging Spider-Man being way after Spider Island but I could be wrong
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:Never been much of an X-fan, so I guess I'm rooting for them to take a beating.
In some ways, AvX is kind of a mashup of Fear Itself and Civil War. It takes the power-ups and manga-style matchup approach from Fear Itself, and the hero-vs-hero-which-side-are-you-on aspect from Civil War. Which probably points to Marvel being mostly out of ideas at this point, LOL.
I was going for Avengers at first too but now I don't know. When the question is who would you rather have in charge of the world Scott Summers or Steve Rodgers? Rodgers was my first reaction but now I don't know. I think it's better than Civil War because eventually the Pro-Registration side just became the bad guys so it just devolved into good vs. evil again. Little behind on the story by about 3 weeks right now though so who knows maybe that changed and Satan is part of the X-Men now or something.
Heh, seen three episodes now, is very quickly become a fave. The only mess up is the UK Cartoon network has messed up the scheduling. They are showing them in twos, but back to front.
I missed episode 2, and assumed episode 1 was the first showing. However, today they just had episode 4 followed by episode 3.
Just set up the sky box for the rest of the series, going to tape them and then watch in the right order.
Read a few Oor Wullie comics when I was a bairn -- Ennis did a whole riff on it in his "highland Laddie" arc which tickled me no end but I can only assume left overseas readers as baffled as they were when/if they picked up that Knight and Squire series
Good choices, the Milligan written trilogy -- Dark Knight, Dark City -- is superb, very dark mind, even for a Batman tale -- and well worth checking out.
Looking at that I'd forgotten quite how cool the DC 1Million stuff was.. gonna have to either dig those out ( not happening if I'm honest ) or grab some trades which I'm sure were done at some point or other.
.. Amalgam stuff had its moments too.
.. which leads me nicely to...
Right then chaps : your most underated or deserving of higher praise arcs/characters/series then...
I'll start off with Messner -Loebs run on Dr. Fate which he took and ran with for a good few years, in many ways -- age and nostalgia perhaps -- the era of that series represents something of a golden age in DC comics for me. Oh to be young again.
-- and totally made it his own. He goes in a different tack but the stories overall are funny, heart warming and just work.... I'm going to have to dig'em up when I'm on vacation in a couple of weeks now. It's only about 16 issues or so IIRC before the series ends...
.. but the ending... especially the bit with .. aahh.. no spoilers I think still brings a smile and a slight tear to my cynical mug to this very day.
Art worked well for me, YMMV of course, but some of the covers especially were great -- #s 35 and 39 especially.
plus... well.... I just think Dr. fate is a cool character, costume works, the mask/helmet is pretty funky and magic in superhero comics is just cool.
Wasn't keen at all on the mercifully short lived "Fate/Jared" era or character .. but I had a mate who loved it and we spent many a happy hour shooting the breeze back and forth and writing rules for the character for our RPGs.
.. good times..
I'd imagine the Dr. fate issues can be picked up quite cheaply, they were certainly cheap as chips a ( fair) few years back when I filled in a few holes in the run.
.. anyway enough from me... I'm sure I'll bore you all some more soon with further haranguings ... I'll even go out on a limb and say there's some Marvel runs/series I want to go on about as well !
Spoiler:
AS well as how fething awesome the Bart Sears era Jutice League Europe era was... those issues with the original -- and best -- Extremists are wickedly good
I love the Red Rain/Blood Storm/Crimson Mist cycle.
Kelley's Batman (see the cover for Detective 651 on the list red posted) is iconic for me -- and I don't mean in the sense that Dan DiDio uses it. It doesn't stand for Batman generally but rather for Batman in a certain place and time -- my own first brush with the dark age that I have lived through up until the present. The idea that Batman could slip in and out of the darkness is appealing, of course, but what if when he slipped in something grabbed him and wouldn't let go. In the case of vampirism, couldn't let go. How devoted would Batman be to getting back into the light?
In that same ... (no pun intended) vein,I also really liked the short-lived second volume of Ragman from those same years. Pat Broderick's art still amazes me:
Which brings me to my last entry: Doom 2099. I only read this one up through the twenties or so but it cemented my love for the villain by turning him into a hero. Doom has always been noble, IMO. I guess the fallout from Kristoff's identity crises, my earliest brush with comics as something that challenged and puzzled me, must have really seeped into my thoughts because this Doom's identity issues completely fascinated me.
reds8n wrote:Right then chaps : your most underated or deserving of higher praise arcs/characters/series then...
Oh, nice one Red. Let me think about that for a moment.
Back in the day when I was reading Spider-Man I really enjoyed Identity Crisis
After Spidey was framed for murder, he took on not one, but four new super hero identities, each one highlighting one of his strengths and character traits. Sure, it seemed gimmicky but I was sad when it was over. I really liked Hornet and the others.
That Ragman series is also a favourite of mine, it's exactly the sort of update and reworking of a character that Giffen does really well and that DC used to be great at.
As it happens you've shown my favourite cover of that series , IIRC that story was the first one where I becae aware of the Jewish Golem myth/story/history ( let's not dive into that kettle of fish yeah ), and I shamelessly lifted from it for many years in roleplaying campaigns and the like.
.... what ? All GMs are essentially show offs ?!
I picked up the Ghost Rider 2099 series for a bit... in fact wasn't the spider-man of that era non Caucasian ? Dont recall there being a big fuss and hullabaloo about that at the time.
.. then again maybe there was, I wasn't online and only really read a couple of comic related magazines.
Think I read the first of the vampire Batman series there..... is Kelley still in the industry ? His covers for Batman were definately iconic and stand out. Might have to check out the other 2 books in the series then.
.. I;d totally forgotten about that storyline in the spiderman series.... Dusk kind of resembles Black Bolt to me. I seem to remember thinking it seemed a bit too much like the REturn of Superman storyline... 4 new identities ?.... but seeing as DC then lifted the "identity crisis" name X years later all's fair I guess.
It is odd how some stories, even if when one is brutally honest, stay with one and can still have an affect even years later. Much of it is just nostalgia one supposes, and it's not just comcis that do this of course. I must confess to an embarrassing enjoyment no no... love even of ( most of ) "The Headless Children" by W.A.S.P. mainly because, I think, that's what I was listening to the first time I read the HH stuff in the then newly released ( and long anticipated) RoC "Lost and the Damned" book.. to this day whenever I read anything about Horus I hear "Thunderhead" from that album.
Kelley Jones and Doug Moench teamed up again for the first time to do another Elseworlds Batman called Haunted Gotham. Late last decade (while Dick was wearing the cowl), Jones drew Gotham After Midnight and then teamed up with Moench again for The Unseen. They were quite coolly received and I haven't read them myself. But ...
You know, looks fething amazing to me! So I will probably pick them up eventually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:in fact wasn't the spider-man of that era non Caucasian ?
On my underrated list is (this is kinda old, mind you) Giffen's run on Legion of Super-Heroes. I can't understand why no one read that book. I mean, I get that Giffen got a lot of old LSH fans' panties in a twist. But I'm an old LSH fan too, and I was ready for a more adult and darker take on them that didn't involve rocket-shaped clubhouses. I thought Giffen did a great job deconstructing and rebuilding them. *shrug*
A little more recently, John Arcudi's run on Doom Patrol had its moments. There's a huge twist involving Cliff Steele that I don't think I've ever seen done before, at least not in that way.
the 5 year gap legion is my all time favourite run of them, possibly of a series ever.
incidentally..
DCDigiWatch: The Five Years Later Legion of Super Heroes reboot stuff is now available on ComiXology – the first time they’ve been available since the original monthly comics were printed, up to issue 9 and only 99 cents each. It’s almost as if DC are somehow ashamed and don’t want to bring attention to them. Like the final Spirit issue of New Wave. Also, we know that ComiXology released Green Lantern #11 early by mistake last week, until Bleeding Cool pointed it out. But this week, when it is out properly, they aren’t listing it in this week’s releases and you have to search to find it…. an overreaction in the other direction?
Defended it, to the death ( more or less) a few times.
No chance of explaining it to anyone who'd never read the preceding series and the absence of Wildfire did pain me, but I enjoyed every minute of it.
I said I'd do it so...
Byrne' s run on She Hulk was well ahead of its time, no Deadpool without it IMO.
Also the first... ooh... 4 years or so the Volume I of "The New Warriors" was pretty damn good as well. Only spoilt really when -- as they always did back then -- lots of the characters spun off into their own titles and the original writer left. Though Darkhawk and the later additions to the team worked very well indeed, and Bagley's artwork was fine indeed.
.. few too many gatefold, 3d holographic covers perhaps but them was the days.
Yeah, I remember talking about LSH back in the day with an employee at a comics shop. He was of the same mind...great read that hardly anyone's reading. *shrug* Sun Boy was always my fave as a kid, so Dirk's ultimate fate was kind of disturbing. But I still enjoyed the storytelling.
"If we're fortunate enough, if it blows up at the box office, then absolutely I would definitely love to come back and reprise the role and make more of these," Urban said. "I just think there's so much fertile ground to explore in the character and in the world. I would love to see the continuing story and the evolution of these characters and the relationship between Anderson and Dredd. It'll be interesting to find out about the world and Dredd. It'd be really cool to see the Dark Judges. There's so much."
Am I the only one who's having more fun reading Earth 2 than JL? I've never been a big JSA fan, but thus far I kinda like it. It's taking a similar path to JL -- more or less unveiling one team member with each issue -- but seems to be better paced so far.
Well that was weird: I just scanned my phone's camera over my comic and it animated the panel into one showing Scarlet Witch shattering Namor's face....The Future is Now!
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:While Dini does appear to be God, all bow to Paul Dini, he does not in fact write everything. The Suicide Squad desperately needs him on staff though.
He's done well for a man whose professional writing career began (like J. Michael Straczynski's) with writing scripts for He-Man cartoons... it could be more embarrassing, of course; Neil Gaiman's early paid work included writing for Penthouse magazine, and ghost-writing a biography of Duran Duran.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:While Dini does appear to be God, all bow to Paul Dini, he does not in fact write everything. The Suicide Squad desperately needs him on staff though.
He's done well for a man whose professional writing career began (like J. Michael Straczynski's) with writing scripts for He-Man cartoons... it could be more embarrassing, of course; Neil Gaiman's early paid work included writing for Penthouse magazine, and ghost-writing a biography of Duran Duran.
I love all his DC work, but I still can't believe he's one of the people behind the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon.
I've been offline for a few days. Are there any news in regarding the Marvel and Fox deal. Looks like Fox can't get their Daredevil reboot of the ground in time, but Marvel offered that they could keep the rights in exchange for characters from the Fantastic Four.
Read the first Red Lanterns TPB. Atrocitus is kind of an interesting character, but the rest of his "team" not so much...
I've got them queued up ready to read - I'll give them a read tonight and get back to you!
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK - I read 1 through 4 and I have to admit... I like it!
Like so many comics today, it reads fast, but it is a fun ride.
A cliched beginning does lead to a pretty cool explanation behind "Ultimate Mysterio" (Mysterio has always been a favorite Spidey villain of mine!)... and it is a 5 issue series!
First TPB of Ultimate Comics: X-Men was pretty good. Not a big fan of the new Wolverine (how did he get metal on his claws?), but I love how this is basically what's left of Peter Parker's super hero family. Stryker was a good villian too.
Anung Un Rama wrote: First TPB of Ultimate Comics: X-Men was pretty good. Not a big fan of the new Wolverine (how did he get metal on his claws?), but I love how this is basically what's left of Peter Parker's super hero family. Stryker was a good villian too.
Apparently he has Colossus' ability to generate metal but only on his bones. You should check out the new Ultimates too. I never liked it before but post-Ultimatum it one of the comics I look forward too the most now.
Ultimate America is pretty messed up right now. It's disintegrating and Texas has finally seceeded from the Union!
On the other hand, there's a certain "they are going to have to blow it all up/restart it" vibe going on in there too...
Really? I don't get that vibe. Hopefully not.
Actually, you could argue that's what Utimatum was. A while ago when Peter Parker was killed I posted about how it was a good thing because it's now broken all resemblances with the main universe. Which it needed because it was no longer a fresh universe. I think they've found their niche now and the only thing that can blow it up again it poor sales.
Anung Un Rama wrote: First TPB of Ultimate Comics: X-Men was pretty good. Not a big fan of the new Wolverine (how did he get metal on his claws?), but I love how this is basically what's left of Peter Parker's super hero family. Stryker was a good villian too.
Apparently he has Colossus' ability to generate metal but only on his bones. You should check out the new Ultimates too. I never liked it before but post-Ultimatum it one of the comics I look forward too the most now.
Ultimate America is pretty messed up right now. It's disintegrating and Texas has finally seceeded from the Union!
Yeah, I've read some of the new ultimates stuff. I actually wanted some recomendations on the rest of the ultimate stuff. Is ultimate X and Hawkeye any good?
@anung Yes, Ultimate X is good but I think you're going backwards. It's what evolves into Ultimate X-Men. Their current plan is to keep the universe tight and there's only three titles: X-Men, Spider-Man and Ultimates. Don't know much about this Hawkeye mini-series. Usually not a big Hawkeye fan so maybe I'll wait until someone else gives a review.
Caught up in my Spider-Men. Pretty much has your standard issue crossover plot but issue 4 had some touching moments. It's a world where Peter Parker died and Gwen Stacey lived and that's pretty weird when you think about it.
Did anyone read Avengelyne while it was out? Its been rebooted as a webcomic. Seriously OTT, has decent art at times, terrible plot, stripperiffic costumes, and somehow still managed to jump the shark. Yes, it hit a point where there was a dramatic decrease in quality.
It looked promising for the first 3-4 pages.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To counter a weak comic with a good one.
Mentioned his run on Dr. fate a wee while back, same author also did a nice run on Wonder Woman too, with some distinctly odd elements that ( for me anyway) worked well.
what a douche. Hope he gets what is coming to him.
I Like Comics is the store I get my comics at. I was sad to miss out on the whole Hullabaloo for Karl Kesel since Kurt Busiek was there and he's possibly one of my favorite writers. It's a good store, the first I ever went to that didn't give me a blank look when I asked if he could get one of the lesser known comics I seem to want (this time being Xombi and he didn't mention zombies once when we talked about it).
I've recently been able to catch up on the new Ultimate Spider-Man and must say it is a lot of fun, a good read, and highly recommended.
Unfortunately, it looks as if it is also about to begin tying in closer to the absolutely F'd up Ultimate storyline of a completely screwed up USA, so not sure how much longer the good times will continue.
Still, I recommend the new series up until now for certain and conditionally going forward!
I feel like pre-Ultimatum Spider-Man was the best followed by X-Men then Ultimates. Now I feel like it's in revese order. I still like Spider-Man but it is really slow paced. I like comics that take their time unlike the new Justice League but this is a little too slow actually. So I'm glad he'll be getting involved in the Ultimate America of horribleness. Things are looking up, the Union has brought that rebellious Texas to heel....again. Third time's the charm Texas...
Ok, it's not like I said "USM sucks" or something like that.
Anyways, reading Anihilation: Conquest right now. It's about Marvel's version of The Borg, The Phalanx (not sure which came first actually). ....I'll wait until Alpharius posts his opinion on it before chiming in.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anyways, reading Anihilation: Conquest right now. It's about Marvel's version of The Borg, The Phalanx (not sure which came first actually).
Technically the Borg, though they are themselves a thinly-veiled knock-off of Doctor Who's Cybermen.
Didn't realize Fantastic Four and FF had split into two different titles. Anyone reading these? What's up with "FF"? Think the new #1s will be a good jumping on point?
I recently got an Ipad for a wedding gift and the first thing I did was start reading comics again. I have prolly read about 100 comics or more in the first two weeks of owning it. I really missed them in my life. Its funny how I went straight for all the old comics I used to own instead of looking for new ones. I used to be a huge sucker for Dark Horse back in the day, glad to see that they are still around. I did read the first 4 issues of the Doctor Who/ Star Trek crossover, Its pretty good so far.
X-Men characters dying really doesn't count as news; by the time it's out in TPB he'll have been resurrected. (I almost typed "back on his feet" which would have been unintentionally tasteless.)
News would be "Shocker! Deceased X-Man fails to return from grave!".
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Didn't realize Fantastic Four and FF had split into two different titles. Anyone reading these? What's up with "FF"? Think the new #1s will be a good jumping on point?
Welcome to February/March 2011!
Future Foundation is a fictional organization appearing in comics published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Jonathan Hickman, the team first appeared in Fantastic Four #579 (July 2010) and stars in the series FF, written by Hickman and illustrated by Steve Epting. The Future Foundation is a philanthropic organization created by Mister Fantastic to better serve humanity's future. It was revealed in September 2011 that the focus of the series would shift to the children as of #12 (November 2011), while the founding members would return to Fantastic Four - which will begin again with #600 (November 2011).
I think the switch the "FF" occurred after the 'death' of Johnny Storm.
It is actually a decent little book, sort of a weird and wacky science team of youngsters from all over, doing impressive things.
But, sadly, with the relaunch (don't you dare say reboot!) of the Marvel Universe, it will become a team consisting of:
Aside from that monstrosity Miss Thing, it isn't a bad line-up. Their costumes are hideous, however. So much for these titles being on the cutting edge of design. Does Marvel NOW look kind of cheap to anyone else?
Manchu wrote: Aside from that monstrosity Miss Thing, it isn't a bad line-up. Their costumes are hideous, however. So much for these titles being on the cutting edge of design. Does Marvel NOW look kind of cheap to anyone else?
It does to me too - very cheap indeed.
Not often that a cheap marketing ploy ends up looking like one, especially not one from Marvel!
Each member of the original Fantastic Four was tasked with selecting a hero to join titular Future Foundation, with the Human Torch recruiting Miss Thing.
"Johnny spaces it because he's Johnny. He chooses the Lohan-esque celebutante blonde he just happens to be with the night before he and his teammates leave," writer Matt Fraction told USA Today.
"She's the regular person, she's the human, she's the overwhelmed 'Whaaa?' of it all."
I love the way Morrison/Daniel tied together Bruce/Batman's life together with the whole "Zur En Arrh" subconscious angle.
I actually had never noticed it until this reread, but...the theater where he interrogates (with prejudice) Caligula is the one where his parents were murdered. The marquee even still says "NOW SHOWING: The Mask of Zorro", albeit with a lot of missing letters.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Didn't realize Fantastic Four and FF had split into two different titles. Anyone reading these? What's up with "FF"? Think the new #1s will be a good jumping on point?
Welcome to February/March 2011!
Future Foundation is a fictional organization appearing in comics published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Jonathan Hickman, the team first appeared in Fantastic Four #579 (July 2010) and stars in the series FF, written by Hickman and illustrated by Steve Epting. The Future Foundation is a philanthropic organization created by Mister Fantastic to better serve humanity's future. It was revealed in September 2011 that the focus of the series would shift to the children as of #12 (November 2011), while the founding members would return to Fantastic Four - which will begin again with #600 (November 2011).
I think the switch the "FF" occurred after the 'death' of Johnny Storm.
It is actually a decent little book, sort of a weird and wacky science team of youngsters from all over, doing impressive things.
But, sadly, with the relaunch (don't you dare say reboot!) of the Marvel Universe, it will become a team consisting of:
She-Hulk
Ant-Man
Miss Thing
Medusa
So, probably not as good...
Well, at least I'm only 10 months behind on news...
Ya, I was talking the new #1s being a jumping on point not the old ones. Can't say that line-up is very interesting. Is that the Future Foundation now? What happened to the kids?
In news of probably of no concern to anybody other than Manchu and myself, the next 2000AD will see Pat Mills and Clint Langley (he of Slaine and also some Marvel stuff) reviving the ABC Warriors.
In news which might be of interest to almost twice as many people, Neil Gaiman published some amusing ramblings on his blog about the Hugo Awards.
They are really trying over there, huh? With Judge Anderson flashbacks and the Dark Judges returning, 2000AD seems a bit desperate. The issues I picked up through August made me drop it from my pull list.
I've still a good measure of trust for Pat Mills, so I hold out some hope. You're not alone in thinking 2000AD's getting stagnant, however - though I'd sympathise with the editorial logic (if that's what it is) of reviving old favourites in the wake of the (surprisingly good) movie.
It doesn't release here until Friday. And I'm all for more Anderson stories and the Dark Judges -- but the ones we got were apparently bad. The reviews were so cold I didn't even bother going to the considerable hassle of finding copies.
If the reviews have been unkind, they haven't done it with fairly good reason. The Anderson story began well but fizzled out, and the Dark Judges have neither done anything special nor (perhaps more significantly) anything they haven't done at least once before.
Nonetheless, I shall optimistically collect a copy from Smiths on the way home...
Was having a read of the Marvel Cinematic universe stuff earlier as I was finally able to see Avengers with its bluray release. I'm most interested to see Thor 2 aka Thor:The Dark World will have Malekith the Accursed and the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim as key adversaries.
Wonder if anyone into GW who aren't into comics will draw the wrong conclusions.
I also like the sound of Ironman 3, the second Cap film, and Antman, but that last one is not due until after Avengers 2.
Certainly seems like there are some good Marvel films incoming over the next few years.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Can't believe they're making an Ant-man movie. I think it'll only work if they do it comedically.
Thats the plan apparently, being directed by the same guy who did Shaun of the Dead. Not over the top humour, but it'll feature.
On a side note, been seeing these ads for a new series starting soon called Arrow on Sky Atlantic for a couple of weeks, and I kept joking to Aura 'watch it DC will be suing these guys' and I find out today its an actual Green Arrow series. How the heck did I miss that.
Looks really good too, with Dinah as a main character, and villains from the comic books turning up as well, including Deadshot.
It's interesting to note that this is, according to the guy playing Oliver Queen, a "Nolanesque take on the Green Arrow". He also cited "The Longbow Hunters" arc as being a very important inspiration for the series.
Arrow looks sooooooo lame. It's like it's ashamed of its comic book origins. And there is no way they can top the awesome bow & arrow things Hawkeye did in Avengers anyway.
Deadpool is tricky. The classics are really good, but nothing like the current Deadpool. If you have the spare change, get Classics Vol. 2 by Joe Kelly and something new from Daniel Way. I recommend Suicide Kings or Monkey Business.
Nope. They're both promotional stills from the upcoming CW series "Arrow", which is being done in such a way that it could exist alongside of any potential Green Arrow/Justice League movie.
Wow, looks gak. Deadshot's eye piece seems like something Nerf would make. Also, doesn't look like it will work with the rifle scope too well. And Ollie's bow looks like something he made from random trash in a dumpster behind Home Depot ... maybe it's supposed to though? Anyway, I'll keep my fingers crossed.
We don't have much information on the bow/how he gets it just yet--but that's what next Wednesday will be for.
Deadshot will not be appearing until the third episode apparently, but there's hints that both he and Ollie are not wearing their "final" costumes.
It's kind of interesting that this is being touted as the Green Arrow's "Smallville"--i.e., a way to introduce the earlier life of the character and bring him into the public eye.
And to say I'm cautiously excited for this show is an understatement. I'll be doing a review of the pilot episode after it airs on Wednesday, so be watching for that.
Actually, I think Smallville suffered from repetitive, Kryptonite-freak-of-the-week writing early in its run. But yeah, the overall concept -- understated high school romance with "no tights or flights" -- was good, even if it had a short shelf life like you said.
I'll give Arrow a chance, but I have a hard time seeing it stick. I think the teen soap opera elements are what fueled Smallville's long run. The Arrow trailers seem more straight-up super hero, and remind me more of the Flash series from the early '90s. That series was decently done (if dated now), but its audience quickly tailed off after a pretty good start.
I'll give Arrow a chance, but I have a hard time seeing it stick. I think the teen soap opera elements are what fueled Smallville's long run. The Arrow trailers seem more straight-up super hero, and remind me more of the Flash series from the early '90s. That series was decently done (if dated now), but its audience quickly tailed off after a pretty good start.
I never really got the "straight-up super hero" vibe from the Arrow trailers. I got more the vibe that I get from the Boondock Saints movies, where you're looking at a "vengeance run".
I guess what I mean is that it looks like more of a Batman Begins than a Smallville. It may be a gritty, grounded take on Green Arrow, but it looks like it sits firmly in a traditional action genre. As opposed to early Smallville and the Dawson's Creek-with-heat-vision thing it had going on.
Was just reading an interview that I thought I would share here for "Arrow".
It contains spoilers, and as such will be spoiler tagged. This text is a preface warning so that nothing leaks through the spoiler tags, and I cannot be blamed for any potential spoilers.
Okay, now here we go:
Spoiler:
The CW's Arrow can't leap tall buildings, isn't part spider, and doesn't have the flashy, super-cool toys like the Batman. In fact, when it comes to this Oliver Queen, the word "superhero" doesn't really apply, said co-creator and executive producer Andrew Kreisberg about his new series, Arrow, which premieres tonight at 8 p.m.
[Spoiler alert!]
"We definitely took the Christopher Nolan approach in what he did with Batman in the Dark Knight trilogy," said Kreisberg, in an exclusive interview with Blastr. "In the same way that Mr. Freeze and Clayface don't fit into Christopher Nolan's conception of Batman and all of the villains were grounded and human and didn't have superpowers. On our show, it'll be the same."
Arrow reboots the comic book superhero, the Green Arrow. In this series, when playboy billionaire Oliver Queen's ship is sunk during a terrible storm that takes the lives of several people, including his father, he's shipwrecked alone a deserted island for five years. After being rescued, he returns to Starling City and keeps his rich playboy facade to hide his secret identity as a vigilante known as Arrow. While Oliver tries to reconnect with his family and friends, he uses the Arrow and the physical abilities he developed to survive on the island, to right the wrongs of his family and fight the ills of society in an attempt to restore Starling City to its former glory. The series comes from Kreisberg, Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, and stars Stephen Amell as the Arrow, Susanna Thompson, Paul Blackthorne, Katie Cassidy and John Barrowman.
"Stephen Amell is genetically engineered to play Oliver Queen," said Kreisberg. "It's a hard part, because he's not just playing the hero. There's really four characters that he's playing."
With the help of flashbacks, he plays his former rich playboy self, "the one who just lived to have fun and party. He's playing the damaged Oliver, who's returned after five years. And then there's the playboy that he's playing in the present, which is really a character unto itself, because it's Oliver pretending to still be who he was. And then lastly there's the character of the Arrow. So in any given day, Stephen could be playing two or three different parts, and he plays them all beautifully," he said.
Each episode will have flashbacks about what happened to Oliver on the island, said Kreisberg. "So by the end of the series, you'll get to see every moment that helped turn him into the warrior that you see in the pilot."
Kreisberg, who wrote many of the Green Arrow/Black Canary comic books, found "something more grounded about him in the comic books, which is something that we strove for in our TV show. There aren't any superpowers in our show. There aren't any aliens. It takes place in the real world. It's very grounded. And I think his character lent itself well to someone existing in the real world. That's what's always been fun about Green Arrow, is his strong sense of social justice. And I think that that's certainly something in the zeitgeist right now with Occupy Wall Street and the 99-percenters and the notion of a hero. Somebody who's fighting for the little person resonates strongly in today's world," he said.
While the spirit of the Green Arrow resides strongly in Arrow, there are changes to the basic story. This Oliver Queen has a family, in that he now has a sister, and his mother is alive. "Because when you've disappeared for five years and you've come back changed, unless people knew who you were before you left, there's no one to register that you have changed. So we just wanted to give the show as much emotional context as possible," said Kreisberg.
And in an effort to keep him real, "Oliver will never refer to himself as 'the Arrow.' And the police will never say, 'Put an APB out on the Arrow.' To them, he's the vigilante, he's the guy in the hood, he's the guy who thinks he's Robin Hood. And I think, again, that helps keep it grounded. It was one of the reasons we dropped the 'green' out of the title. We didn't want people to think this was juvenile. We want people to feel like this is a real show and a smart and slightly sophisticated take on a comic book story," he said.
While there won't be any superheroes or supervillains in Arrow, you will "see plenty of people from the DC universe. We've got a lot of fun surprises for people coming up, like a lot of DC Comics characters, some of whom have been on the screen before that will be shown in a different way, or some that people have probably always wanted to see who have never gotten the chance. But this is definitively the real world."
"We say that this is not a show about a superhero. This is a show about a hero," said Kreisberg. "We think about it more like a crime thriller. When you look at a procedural show, there's always the crime of the week which is the mystery. But with our show, the mystery every week is 'Who is Oliver Queen?'"
Actually, Kreisberg admits there is one superpower that his Oliver Queen has.
"I think Oliver's superpower is that he's not afraid to die. We see him as more Jason Bourne, more Ethan Hunt than superhero. When you're not afraid to die, you can do pretty amazing things."
So far:
I like it. Looks like there will be a lot of "flashbacks"...not sure how I feel about that one, just yet.
Spoiler:
Noticed that a "Tommy Merlyn" is in...
Second commercial break!
It's definitely picking up. Another flashback sequence...but I'm decided that I like them so far.
Spoiler:
Oliver referred to his sister at one point as "Speedy". It gets written off as a pet nickname between the two, as she calls him "Ollie"...but could they be setting up things to come?
So far, still good! I think "Arrow" is going to be a staple of my Wednesday nights from henceforth...
Spoiler:
Yay, Paul Blackthorne! Liking him as the detective foil to Oliver Queen's Arrow. Which has a very interesting twist, as Oliver in a voiceover implies that "Arrow" is less an alternate identity...but rather an entirely separate personality to his own. Kinda like that angle.
Oh that's nice. Hunt's new head of security is "Drakon"...another throwaway reference?
Yup. This is a "must watch" now.
Spoiler:
Stephen Amsell is absolutely fantastic as Oliver Queen. "Drakon" was, in fact, not a throwaway reference but a reference to the Greek assassin who did in fact crucify Oliver Queen with his own arrows. Things did not turn out quite as well for Drakon here though...
Also: Not just "Yay Paul Blackthorne!". "Yay Paul Blackthorne AND Roger Cross(played Joshua on 'First Wave') as police detectives!".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Next week has "China White" making an appearance.
Recently read the first micro series TPB and volume 3 of IDW's current Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series and it's still fantastic. It's a great take on the franchise which combines the best elements from the old and the new Turtles. Vol. 3 is the first time we see the new Shredder and he's awesome!
I especially love the new costume, the mask under the helmet is now made of cloth, underlining the ninja theme (I always thought Shredder had more of a samurai look). If you like the Turtles you have to check this series out.
Also read the first TPB from IDW's Doctor Who/Star Trek crossover Assimilation 2, which I found to be quite dissapointing. The artwork looks like a bad photoshop filter and the first issue is basically just filler.
Since this is the comic discussion thread, I wanted to ask fellow nerds without starting a new thread...what's the big deal about "Xavier's" death in the recently finished X-Men vs Avengers comic storyline? Reason I ask, Xavier died back in the 80's-the real Xavier was turned into a Brood Queen, and ironically, his killer back in the 80's killed him during this series too (won't spoil who it was). Shi'ar technology cloned Xavier back then, and the Xavier we've had since his only been a clone. Yes, this IS canon to X-men lore, it took place during Claremont's classic run. Am I the only one yawning over the 'death' of Xavier? Not cuz he'll be back (as all characters are), but because it's not really him-it's a test tube version. So...who really cares?
You guys are addressing the wrong problem!! Lol. Really looks like nobody else cares either. Lol. 'Big event,' and it's all no big deal. Thanks for proving I'm not nuts guys. Lol
timetowaste85 wrote: Since this is the comic discussion thread, I wanted to ask fellow nerds without starting a new thread...what's the big deal about "Xavier's" death in the recently finished X-Men vs Avengers comic storyline? Reason I ask, Xavier died back in the 80's-the real Xavier was turned into a Brood Queen, and ironically, his killer back in the 80's killed him during this series too (won't spoil who it was). Shi'ar technology cloned Xavier back then, and the Xavier we've had since his only been a clone. Yes, this IS canon to X-men lore, it took place during Claremont's classic run. Am I the only one yawning over the 'death' of Xavier? Not cuz he'll be back (as all characters are), but because it's not really him-it's a test tube version. So...who really cares?
To me, the past few decades of X-history feels a lot like one long Spidey clone saga. It's impossibly convoluted and often contradictory. It'd be okay if those books were merely inconsistent. I don't require perfect continuity. My issue is with all the reveals followed by cheap reversals, and reversals again, and then never mind, none of that really happened, oh yes it did...sort of. Taken as a whole, it all feels cheap and like a series of writers trying to outdo each other rather than build on the good of what came before. Even for comic books. *shrug*
Enjoyed Batman #13. Something is definitely going on with this incarnation of the Joker, but what?
I've been reading Batman (not detective comics), Ultimate Comics Spiderman and Ultimate Comics the Ultimates, Hell Yeah, Invincible, Invincible Iron Man (switching into the new Marvel Now version) and probably Uncanny Avengers... And I think Action Comics (I've picked it up a few times, not sold if I want to keep reading about Superman, I generally don't like him lol)
