Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He did berate himself for it -- I can see that being a huge plot point in previous years but you know they have to get used to it at some point. Not like it, obviously. But like I said, he does take responsibility for it and claim that he shouldn't have taken the risk with their lives.

No Flash #1 were delivered to the comic store I go to. The owner ordered 40, and Diamond delivered none. Their response to him: Oh sorry, nothing we can do about it. He asks if they can send him the 40 he ordered. Their response:You should have ordered them 3 months ago. When he points out he did they tell him that his only option is to apologize to us customers for Diamond's mistake.
I can't believe we've gotten to a point that there is a sole distributor of comics and they have such shoddy service.
I give a huge thumbs up to my comic store owner who has bought Flash #1 comics from other stores (at full cost) and from ebay to make sure his customers get the comic they ordered.

MadEdric wrote:
I can't believe we've gotten to a point that there is a sole distributor of comics and they have such shoddy service.

Sadly it has been this way for a while now.

We'll see what happens going forward though, especially as digital media takes hold of the Comic Book world.

Ya, Diamond has a full blown monopoly and it's not good. Mistakes like above are pretty common at my store but as far as Diamond is concerned it's "whatcha gonna do about it?"

Firestorm was.. alright. Nice art but it did feel a little rushed.

..In fact with several of the issues I think it might well have been better if the issues had been oversized and longer.

Aquaman was a genuine delight, gorgeous to look at, well written and actually funny in parts --" fish and chips" -- exactly what this whole reboot thing should be like.

Just curious as to why the outrage annoys you guys so much? These folks don't like the direction the comic is going or aren't enjoying it. Why is it pathetic to voice that opinion or stop buying the books?

I thought about getting back into DC with the reboot, but I can't muster any enthusiasm for it.
If you had to pick a comic from the reboot for a fan of Chuck Dixon's Batman/Robin/Nightwing runs and a anti-Morrissonite, what one would you recommend?

For me, because it seems like 'PC' outrage, we're outraged because we are supposed to be? However none of them are actually certain on what they are outraged about, just broad statements on how its all bad for everyone.

This is hardly new ground, Catwoman and Batman, like we haven't seen two superheroes getting it on hundreds of times before over the past sixty years. Well maybe a little more graphic than other comics, but it is Teen+ so you know it can go further than the average comic before you open it to page one.

Starfire has more of a reason to have criticism as it goes against the character as known. That for me is a bigger crime than a bit of nudity or crass content. Reboot or no, I am not so keen on massive changes to characters personalties to the point they may as well be a different character.

Other than that mind, I genrally found the outrage amusing.

reds8n wrote: Aquaman was a genuine delight, gorgeous to look at, well written and actually funny in parts --" fish and chips" -- exactly what this whole reboot thing should be like.

I couldn't find a copy of Aquaman, sadly. I'm really interested to see how it goes with this title, since no one has yet been able to do him sustainably well.

Da Boss wrote:Just curious as to why the outrage annoys you guys so much?

The "outrage" annoys me insofar as it seems hollow and obligatory whereas the issues are important, maybe even urgent. Just to give the tip of a very treacherous iceberg, women seem to be finding their place in the world of comics and video-games and other "boy culture" genres by being critics rather than enthusiasts. They're here to tell us why we're wrong, why we've been wrong forever, why if we don't start doing it right (as far as they're concerned), well, they're going to get fed up and walk out. Part of me wants to say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." Why bother to spend all this effort on a genre that one finds derogatory? Why does what I like also have to be what you like in order for it to be valuable or, at the very least, not tasteless pornography? The mode du jour of spreading politically correct enlightenment is busting into the comic shop or the game shop or the hobby shop and screaming that everything there needs to stop and be completely revamped to suit the needs of the lady who just got there. I know people like Ms. Hudson are saying "listen, I've been into comics for 20 years" and I've heard women say similar things about video games. But, I have to say in response, "then how come I never met you? Because I've been here the whole time." It's a strange mix of tyranny and presumptuousness that doesn't seem convincing to me as grounds to criticize. I don't need to draw on a narrative of the ages-long oppression of women in comic book drawings to look at Starfire in Red Hood and the Outlaws and say "this is bad." In other words, Catwoman and everybody else doesn't have to be bad just because Starfire is. And when men start berating themselves and especially other men to join in this thoughtless power trip -- well, it's no more offensive than when women do it but also no less.

DaBoss wrote:These folks don't like the direction the comic is going or aren't enjoying it. Why is it pathetic to voice that opinion or stop buying the books?

Wait, let's be clear. It's not pathetic to simply "give voice" to one's opinions no matter how unfounded they are. That's a weasly kind of analysis of what I was saying, no offense intended. But, first, we're not just talking about someone expressing their own personal preferences. We're talking about someone saying more than "I don't like X" -- we're talking about people saying "you shouldn't like X, either, and if you do you're a chauvinist, etc, etc." And that's not necessarily pathetic but it is a load of gak. To get to what's pathetic: if you say you've loved comics and lived comics for twenty years and then one publisher out of dozens puts a couple (literally two) issues of two titles out and you say "feth this, comics are not worth it" -- well, that's pathetic. Twenty years for two issues? Sure, it's been more than two issues over these twenty years -- but why now, all of the sudden? How are these the straws the broke the camel's back. And, of course, they're not; this isn't going to be the end of Ms. Hudson's involvement with comics. She's being melodramatic, just like Patton Oswalt. In that statement, that absurd ultimatum, she's being a fussy little brat -- and frankly I don't give a feth what some fussy little brat wants my comic books to be like.

To put a fine point on it, I don't care whether Grant Morrison is a woman or a man -- I just care that he writes some excellent books and knows and loves comics sincerely. If there was a woman like that -- oh, and there are a few of them -- I'd buy her books and soak them up with the same reverence I do Morrison or Winick or Snyder. And, like I just said, this isn't hypothetical: I've been positively gushing over Gail Simone's Batgirl. But so what, cries the blogosphere? Bloggers are of course powered by outrage and scandal. If there's no gossip, if everything is hunkey dorey, there are no blogs. So Gail Simone gets criticized for taking Barbara out of the chair ("DC doesn't value diversity" the parrots all squawk) and no one says anything interesting about women in comics in their reviews. A week later, the world is stunned that Selina Kyle has nice titties and wants to feth Batman -- WON't SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Then Lobdell gives them some real ammo with his gakky take on Starfire. It sickens me that the the real issues here, including portraying women as people rather than sex toys in comics, are buried. That's why I quoted Ms. Kessock (who is not "somebody" in comics, like Ms. Hudson is), as well -- she gets to the real issue. She doesn't claim to have made comic books her whole life for 20 years. So why does she see it so much more clearly? I really wish that Ms. Kessock had the clout of Ms. Hudson.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Morrison himself has some words to the effect of what I love about comics:

Grant Morrison wrote:So you know kind of that optimism that comics bring is a kind of form of outrage now and it quite appeals to me because of that, it's so against the prevailing trends to say that “hey maybe everything's okay”, people just lose their gak if you try to tell them that maybe we're part of larger scale processes that are working themselves out that we barely have any comprehension of. But you know, you can't say that.

So, look, this is my outrage -- the outrage of a hope amid the hopeless. And then you;ve got this other outrage -- like how we're still all going to Hell, that comics do nothing but demean everyone -- seducing the youth even to this day, just a Wertham said. That's what Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Hudson sound like to me: more doom and gloom, more CNN and FoxNews, the continued ravages of the soul-crushing. And, you know what, Lobdell's Starfire is like that, too. Keep that gak away from my comic books. I don't care what lofty ideal you think you're fighting for, ye spirit-grinders and prophets of oppression. There's nothing in Catwoman 1 that makes me think yesterday was any better than today or that tomorrow will be far worse. I only get that from the blogs.

MDS: I guess so, I'm just not seeing how this "outrage" is that different to any past outrage.

Bravo Manchu, that was a masterful response. Your posts can sometimes be so well put together that they're a wee bit intimidating to respond to, but respond I shall!
First, let me say that your reason for disliking all the chauvinist chatter, is to me, pretty understandable now that you've elaborated. I don't have much of a problem with that.
I disagree with some of what I perceive your sentiment to be, especially the "how come I never met you?" bit. I mean, you've never met me, either. I know plenty of girls into comics who don't go on rants about this stuff, and I know some guys who do. Gender doesn't seem important in the discussion to me. I guess they bring it on themselves by making their gender an issue.

On the other end, however, I dislike people who try to say that "comics" are about anything in particular. Because comics are just storys told in the visual medium, they can be about anything.
One of the main reasons I don't like Morrison is because to me, he's hammering me with his narrow vision of continuity and what "comics" are about, to the point that (to me) the adventure, the simplicity of the story, and the underlying character is obscured.
Morrison is the reason I gave up on DC, I guess it's cool that lots of people like him, but for me he was the straw that broke mah back.
Anyhow, bit of a ramble. Thanks for the reply, it was a good read, and thought provoking. Can't ask for more.

Not a shock, really, but apparently the big CRISIS in the DC Universe?

Yeah, never happened.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/dcs-crisis-crisis-in-new-dcu-those-major-events-never-happened/

Da Boss wrote:Your posts can sometimes be so well put together that they're a wee bit intimidating to respond to, but respond I shall!

I realize that my rants can be wild-eyed and OTT-to-arrogant but it's not even intended as passionate, just an attempt to be clear. Thanks for giving me a chance by responding rather than writing it off as just-more-internet-ravings.

Da Boss wrote:I disagree with some of what I perceive your sentiment to be, especially the "how come I never met you?" bit. I mean, you've never met me, either. I know plenty of girls into comics who don't go on rants about this stuff, and I know some guys who do.

I guess what I meant was I have been into comics, gaming, etc, as long as I can remember and I do not remember girls ever caring about any of it. Until about 2000 or so, I literally never met a single girl my own age (corresponding to my age over those years) who cared about Star Wars or Spiderman or Zelda. I guess "nerd-cred" wasn't a commodity back then, much less the hollow consumable it has become today.

Da Boss wrote:Gender doesn't seem important in the discussion to me. I guess they bring it on themselves by making their gender an issue.

That's it exactly, put succinctly and without sounding crazy or angry o confused (like me). That's top shelf, sir.

I can't agree about Morrison. I mean, he's not my own personal Jesus Christ or anything but his vision is very compelling because of its sincerity. Ask Grant Morrison about this sort of stuff and he seems a bit baffled. I have to admit, that's how I feel -- plus usurped and so irritated. I think he's got a vision for where we've been but I'm not saying he's going to lead us all into the future, at least not all by himself. I don't think that's his project, either. Just remember that he's prominent so ... you know, he will be a target. Comic fandom is bitchy that way. (Submit yourself to bleedingcool for a month or so.)

@Alpharius: Can't say I'm going to shed too many tears over that. (Not that it makes the New 52 world any clearer just by saying so, Mr. DiDio!)

Fandom as a whole is bitchy that way- I used to run Sci Fi cons, and I gave it up for a reason
Don't want to derail the thread with my usual Morrison whinge, but my issue with him is he writes comics for comics fans, and I don't think that's a good idea for the mainstream titles. Give him Animal Man, let him work his weirdo magic on that sort of stuff. Hell, give him Green Lantern Corps, or even Justice League, sure. But Batman and Superman should be recognisable and accessible for the random kid who picks up a comic book after playing arkham asylum or watching Dark Knight. That's my feeling, and I guess I see Morrison as symptomatic of a problem with the american comics industry as a whole in that there aren't many guys looking past the traditional comics fandom except in fairly "let's make sure we have some diversity in there!" kinda ways.
Oh, and your rants aren't OTT, just thought provoking.

Jumping in out of left field: who's your idea of a mainstream
audience comic book writer? The industry seems to write for its
own fans most of the time. One of the most accessible comics
I've picked up was that private school thriller Morning Glories,
and I think that would only appeal to someone if you told them
that it was like the show LOST (as it was sold to me)

Enjoying the other less publicized (amongst comic fans anyway) universe reboot. Ultimate Spider-Man #1 was interesting. New guy has a larger family support system which will probably be more interesting than good old Aunt May.

@Malfred Doesn't all serialized fiction need to balance being accessible to new followers with developing the story in an insular way? Many TV shows have the same problem.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

@Malfred Doesn't all serialized fiction need to balance being accessible to new followers with developing the story in an insular way? Many TV shows have the same problem.

Right.

For example, I gave up on endless continuity a long time ago. While the 52
relaunch might have been a good time to start reading some of the books
again, I felt as if the relaunch was still for the hardcore fans of each series
and I really couldn't justify trying out every book on the rack, so I stick to
storylines that will provide closure.

Ya, they wanted their cake and ate it too.

I think DC characters are justifiably "endless" as a Pantheon, whereas Marvel characters struggle with that. From the beginning of Marvel's success, their characters were interesting as realistic people in realistic (emotional) circumstances. But how long can Aunt May go having heart attack after heart attack? How many monolithic anti-mutant plots within the U.S. government will the X-Men root out? Yeah, I know there are all kinds of twists on the fundamental relationships involved but I can understand a need for closure -- kind of like how daytime soaps must eventually drive people mad. But Superman is hope and Batman is vengeance. They're like eternal platonic forms. In the Return of Bruce Wayne arc, Batman relfects on his super friends and how he isn't like them -- "everything they touch turns to myth." Well, Batman was at that moment in the midst of traveling through thousands of years of time -- obviously he's a bit more like his pals than he thinks.

Currently, I might think that Kirkman writes reasonably accessible (in that they are reasonably simple) stories, however he has the luxury of having a "clean" universe to write in.

Manchu wrote:I think DC characters are justifiably "endless" as a Pantheon, whereas Marvel characters struggle with that. From the beginning of Marvel's success, their characters were interesting as realistic people in realistic (emotional) circumstances. But how long can Aunt May go having heart attack after heart attack? How many monolithic anti-mutant plots within the U.S. government will the X-Men root out? Yeah, I know there are all kinds of twists on the fundamental relationships involved but I can understand a need for closure -- kind of like how daytime soaps must eventually drive people mad. But Superman is hope and Batman is vengeance. They're like eternal platonic forms. In the Return of Bruce Wayne arc, Batman relfects on his super friends and how he isn't like them -- "everything they touch turns to myth." Well, Batman was at that moment in the midst of traveling through thousands of years of time -- obviously he's a bit more like his pals than he thinks.

EXTREMELY well said and perhaps one of the best comparisons between Marvel and DC that I've ever read - well done Manchu!

Alpharius wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think DC characters are justifiably "endless" as a Pantheon, whereas Marvel characters struggle with that. From the beginning of Marvel's success, their characters were interesting as realistic people in realistic (emotional) circumstances. But how long can Aunt May go having heart attack after heart attack? How many monolithic anti-mutant plots within the U.S. government will the X-Men root out? Yeah, I know there are all kinds of twists on the fundamental relationships involved but I can understand a need for closure -- kind of like how daytime soaps must eventually drive people mad. But Superman is hope and Batman is vengeance. They're like eternal platonic forms. In the Return of Bruce Wayne arc, Batman relfects on his super friends and how he isn't like them -- "everything they touch turns to myth." Well, Batman was at that moment in the midst of traveling through thousands of years of time -- obviously he's a bit more like his pals than he thinks.

EXTREMELY well said and perhaps one of the best comparisons between Marvel and DC that I've ever read - well done Manchu!

I'd agree with that too. That's why I prefer Marvel. Superman is a symbol not a character. He works best in limited stories like Red Son and Kingdom Come. Back in the day you'd get 3-4 stories per DC comic. Marvel is the one that changed that and had actual characters. Superman just doesn't work that way as an actual person imo.
Batman is cool, but I don't like Batman in Space! He's supposed to be a street level vigilante. Apparently he doesn't care for being in space either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Currently, I might think that Kirkman writes reasonably accessible (in that they are reasonably simple) stories, however he has the luxury of having a "clean" universe to write in.

Yep. But even the invincibleverse (or whatever) is getting laden down with insular continuity. I don't think that's a bad thing however. The best stories have change in them and that is the only way to move the story forward.

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/10/behold_what_will_assuredly_be_the_stupidest_batman.php

oh god !

I have some good news and I have some bad news. Let's start with just the news first, without any value judgments: DC and cartoon Network will air a new Batman cartoon in 2013, titled Beware the Batman. Now for the bad news: It looks like this.

And when I say "this" I mean "really gakky Bruce Timm fan art." I mean, trying to put Timm's designs in CG is bad enough -- everything looks like Superman 64, as the Green Lantern cartoon proves -- but Batman is missing the top half of his fething skull. For the life of me, I can't imagine how anyone in the cartoon industry would look at this picture and say "good enough."

And sadly, that's only part of the problem. Because you see the people besides Batman in the pic? Well, up top are Professor Pyg and Mr. Toad, two recent villains from Grant Morrison's Batman comics who were really creepy but will undoubtedly be turned into '60s Bat-villains for the cartoon. But that's not the problem. The problem is that instead of Robin, Batman will be fighting crime with Katana (on the left) and his butler Alfred... who's on the right.

Shooting the guns.

Yes, Alfred has fething guns in this Batman cartoon, and he uses 'em as part of Batman's fight against crime. So Beware the Batman stars Batman, some random Japanese girl with a sword, and a gun-toting Alfred, just like kids have been reading about and enjoying for NEVER. THEY HAVE NEVER ONCE HEARD ABOUT THIS COMBINATION OF CHARACTERS, SO THERE CAN BE NO INNATE DESIRE TO SEE THEM TOGETHER. AND ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE TINIEST BIT ABOUT BATMAN -- WHO'S READ A BATMAN COMIC, WATCHED AN EPISODE OF BRAVE AND THE BOLD OR ANY OTHER BATMAN CARTOON, WATCHED THE INCREDIBLY POPULAR MOVIES, OR HAD AN OLDER SIBLING OR FRIEND WHO HAS DONE ONE OF THOSE THINGS AND WOULD TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH ALFRED SHOOTING fething GUNS -- WOULD KNOW WHAT A TOTAL BETRAYAL OF THE CHARACTER THIS TRAVESTY fething IS.

I honestly don't know how gak like this can happen. I mean, maybe Katana, maybe some exec said let's try it with a female Robin and see if that gets us some female viewers, but gun-toting Alfred is so wrong on every fething level I can't possibly understand how it gets greenlit. I mean, these people have made the previous Batman cartoons. They're currently making Young Justice. Did they stick all the people with a lick of sense on YJ, and put all the idiots on Beware the Batman? Did some VP at Warner Bros insist that Warner Animation give his comics ignorant, drug addict of a son a job or something? Because this gak beggars all reason.

I did say I had good news as well; apparently DC is also working on a Doom Patrol cartoon, although I assume Robot Man will be human and Negative Man will be a cheery robot or something. More importantly, Lauren Faust -- yes, the creator of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic -- will be doing some shorts starring Wonder Girl, Supergirl and Batgirl titled Super Best Friends Forever. Lauren Faust doing DC superheroines is reason to be insanely excited. But honestly, I don't know that it comes close to making up for the rest of this fething nonsense.

... but..but... but why is Alfred shooting people..? This isn't WW II.. is it ?

Guessing Katana might be based upon the character from The Outsiders...? ish.

Still, Doom Patrol cartoon Bring it on.

..guessing that one won't be based upon Morrison or Pollacks runs though.

Lot of anger from one picture there ... but, yeah, Alfred and his 1911s ... One of the concepts that's so vivid from the Under The Hood story arc is Jason dual-wielding semi-autos -- and, of course, there's a reason that the image stands out. The folks at Warner Premier know this. Not only did they make Under the Red Hood but they also devoted some subplot to Batman's hatred of firearms in Gotham Knights. I think this promotional piece doesn't necessarily speak of what the series will be like. Early art can be a little off. As for the stylization, I'm not too worried. The accuracy of first impressions is a self-justifiying myth.

This show sounds really weird. I've already talked about my hate for Professor Pyg and I'm not a big fan of Katana either.
The whole Alfred angle is actually what worries me the least. As far as I know Alfred has a past with British special forces and he was pretty awesome in The Batman.
Not a big fan of the art style though and I'd rather seen another season of Brave and the Bold than this.

OTOH, Batman Year One is looking snazzy.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/09/21/batman-year-one-video-dinner-with-the-dark-knight/#/9

(Remember folks, Kevin Smith spun the scene in that clip as Batman pissing his tights. That fether. As they say on the internet: NEVAR FORGET.)

New vid:

http://collider.com/batman-year-one-movie-clip-2/118819/

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/10/07/batwoman-2-deletes-azrael-and-lady-blackhawk-from-the-dc-universe/

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

There's always going to be casualties in a universal reboot.

No doubt. I'm just a big Azrael fan. The thing to remember is that it's all about "sooner or later."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More from Scott Lobdell:

I love that Kori brings an alternative world view to everything. Jason and Roy have very strong -- and very earthly -- ideas of what is right and wrong, but Kori doesn't view life through the prism of someone who was born here. As someone who has gone through Hell and come out a better person for the experience, she looks askance at Jason and Roy who have both -- let's be honest -- made some really bad life choices. There is no other character in comics like Princess Koriand'r. [...] This is a story about three adults who are spending a lot of time together so it is likely they are probably going to be taking advantage of all the fun things adults can choose to do together. [...] In the second issue, we see Roy, who, again, can't help talking about whatever he's thinking, trying to put a label on his encounter with Kori -- but that is him trying to define her, and she's not interested in anyone putting her in a box. She spent the early part of her life in captivity; she's not going to let other people decide who or what she can be going forward.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=34748

But Mr. Lobdell refused to speak on the point of the controversy. It could look like Mr. Lobdell made a bad decision as a professional writer that happened to touch on something incendiary but he's not saying as much. It reminds me of Michael Richards shouting the "n-word" over and over during a stand-up routine. Mr. Richards said that was a case of making a bad decision as a professional comic. What's less funny than a bad joke, after all? Many of the onlookers (that's you and me, folks) figured -- responding to the Freudian-esque doctrines of "political correctness" taught to us from grade school on -- that this wasn't just a poor decision but rather indicative of real, deep-seated prejudices. Mr. Richards had unmasked himself as a racist. That was the take home and it was seemingly goodbye forever.

Now, similarly, Mr. Lobdell -- according to a lot of the onlookers -- has unmasked himself as a chauvinist or (if there is a meaningful difference in the context of internet vitriol) a misogynist. Keeping Michael Richards in mind, you can see why Mr. Lobdell says the topic is "taking up all the air in the room." This is a successful guy, we're talking about here; successful enough, in fact that he's piloting three books in this reboot. If "fans" like Ms. Hudson have their way, he'll go the way of Kramer: from hero to zero. But go back to the book after reading all the hullaboo.

To me, Lobdell's Starfire is still creepy and gross. It was a very bad decision -- but it was a creative decision. It wasn't an ideological decision and I don't think it stands for anything but a writer's lapse in professional judgment. Reading Mr. Lobdell's responses in the quoted text above, however, it seems that the all-or-nothing stakes we're raising when it comes to women-in-comics issues really have taken up all the air in the room. And when there's no air, we can't breath much less talk. At least not meaningfully.

In what could be a fight for his livelihood, Lobdell is understandably defensive. Yeah, he says "hold the questions" but he's also giving us an explanation, a justification. Starfire's not going to be put in a box and defined by her male compatriots. She's having sex with them to elude their control. Remember what that nerd Andrew Wheeler said about Catwoman: "This must be what nerds think feminism looks like." Well, obviously, even nerds aren't buying it when it comes to Starfire. Yes, Mr. Lobdell, you're saying all the right things about your book but how come when I read the book it doesn't make me think about anything you just said?

With so much anger and so many threats so nonchalantly leveled (this is a comic book that could make someone who had devoted her entire life to comics for two decades drop the whole thing, remember?) and the stake so, so high -- Lobdell is digging in. And, you know what that means: we're going to get more of that creepy, gross Starfire. Maybe he'll tone her down subtly, over time but I don't know that he can just say "hey, yeah, that was an error, let's figure out something else" at this point. Like his take on Starfire, Mr. Lobdell is telling us he won't let us put him in a box even if his own current box is gak.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Actually, this is pretty accurate for me too. Teen Titans was a good show!

I think Manchu should be a Professional Comic Book critic - I love reading his stuff!

Action Comics #2 is another great issue....

.. especially the reveal on the last page. nice too see more elements of the mythos being deftly, and quickly, woven into the story.

And the bit with the military trying to damage his cape did give me a chuckle or two.

Picked up a reprint of Swamp Thing #1 and the 2nd issue of that, and enjoyed them enough to add it to my pull list. Animal Man 2 was cool as well, quite disturbing... and it's not often you can say that about hippos.

Picked up #1 of the Huntress mini as well, had a bit of a soft spot for the original original character and seeing as this ties in with a forthcoming book about a certain team on a certain parallel earth....