When I was a kid, I was so into comics, that I made my own. Most of them are pretty sad recreations of Spider-Man stories I'd read and, clearly, really enjoyed.
As one would expect, the art was crude and the story was primitive, limited and just plain...bad. It's interesting to see these efforts now (yes, I managed to save them all - are all comic book fans packrats?). Interesting and totally embarrasing at the same time.
However, I did have a more focused burst of creativity during high school in which I took one of the aforementioned "comics" from my past and inserted current (current = the 80s) events and current pop culture. It grew a life of its own from there, spawning multiple issues from me and even inspiring comics in the same vein which were written and drawn by my friends.
The result is, for me, laugh-out loud funny. The art is a bit better, but the writing, if I say so myself, is brilliant. The story is totally stream-of-consciousness, but it does, oddly, kind of flow. All the wonderful things about the 80s are there.
Rambo. Hulk Hogan and the Hulkamaniacs. Jacko (the Energizer guy). MTV and heavy metal.
I was on a roll. Well, perhaps. It's a very esoteric roll, but it's a roll.
After a while, it seemed only logical to start to insert the previously-referenced friends into the stories. And amazingly, I think the comics got better. I started to take on comic book conventions like panel layouts, standard writing methods and established speech patterns and cliches and motifs commonly found in comic books. And there was even a semblance of a plot.
Mostly, it was just reflections of a time. A slice of life, if you will. Maybe someday I'll post some scans and you can tell me it's utter crap, or if, heaven forbid, you'd want to see more. Of course, this would also mean that I think someone other than me is actually reading articles on this blog.
Anyway, I thought these comics were funny as hell. But maybe you had to be there.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Finally Finished Spider-Man 3
Last year, I received Spider-Man 3, Batman Begins and Superman Returns for Christmas. This was from my brother, who couldn't believe that I hadn't already seen any of these films.
Then they sat, unwatched for a few months. I started watching Spider-Man 3, and wound up finishing it after a few months. I'd watched it in, maybe, 3 40-minute intervals.
I'd heard a lot of things about it. That it was too busy and that there was too much going on.
Now that I've seen it, I see that this opinion has definite validity. Green Goblin. Venom. Sandman. All in the same movie? Plus Curtis Connors, the man who would be the Lizard?
Sheesh. There was a lot going on. Some of it was cool and interesting. But mostly, I thought that this movie didn't have the same type of heart that the first two Spidey movies had. It just seemed like they were making it and then...moving on.
The fight scene at the end was pretty cool, but I was again turned off by Spider-Man being in a situation where he was having the snot beaten out of him. I'm not sure why Marvel seems to like this. Venom alone is an overmatch for him. Sandman is a tough foe foe him to handle. Together, it seems sensible to assume they'd finally win.
Enter the moping, misguided Harry Osborn. Finally the truth comes out. I remember in the comics, when Norman Osborn died, Spider-Man didn't remove Osborn's Green Goblin costume. Harry did. Spider-Man didn't care if the world - or Harry - knew what a monster Norman Osborn was. I liked that better.
I didn't like the stupid Harry hates Spider-Man undercurrent that started early in Spider-Man 2. It got boring pretty quick. It was a nice solution when they had the butler set Harry straight. But that reckoning was long overdue.
Then Harry further redeemed his mopey-ass self by flying into action and helping Spider-Man defeat Sandman and Venom. Of course, just like Terminator 2, it would have been cool if this scene had been approached from the vantage point that you didn't know Harry/Arnie was going to be a good guy in that particular scene.
You can imagine Peter's reaction when - as Venom restrains him, he's getting pummeled by the Sandman - and then Harry flies into view, with pumpkin bomb at the ready. And then...wow! He blows up Sandman and Peter and Harry fight side-by-side.
It's too bad Harry died at the end. I actually liked that version of Harry and would have liked to have seen him in Spider-Man 4.
So, overall, while I thought the film was too busy and used up too many cool villains in one shot, I liked it. It wasn't great - certainly not compared to the first Spider-Man movie - but it was good. Better than Daredevil. Better than Batman Returns.
And I am now eager to see what Spider-Man 4 will bring. What more can a comic book fan ask for?
Then they sat, unwatched for a few months. I started watching Spider-Man 3, and wound up finishing it after a few months. I'd watched it in, maybe, 3 40-minute intervals.
I'd heard a lot of things about it. That it was too busy and that there was too much going on.
Now that I've seen it, I see that this opinion has definite validity. Green Goblin. Venom. Sandman. All in the same movie? Plus Curtis Connors, the man who would be the Lizard?
Sheesh. There was a lot going on. Some of it was cool and interesting. But mostly, I thought that this movie didn't have the same type of heart that the first two Spidey movies had. It just seemed like they were making it and then...moving on.
The fight scene at the end was pretty cool, but I was again turned off by Spider-Man being in a situation where he was having the snot beaten out of him. I'm not sure why Marvel seems to like this. Venom alone is an overmatch for him. Sandman is a tough foe foe him to handle. Together, it seems sensible to assume they'd finally win.
Enter the moping, misguided Harry Osborn. Finally the truth comes out. I remember in the comics, when Norman Osborn died, Spider-Man didn't remove Osborn's Green Goblin costume. Harry did. Spider-Man didn't care if the world - or Harry - knew what a monster Norman Osborn was. I liked that better.
I didn't like the stupid Harry hates Spider-Man undercurrent that started early in Spider-Man 2. It got boring pretty quick. It was a nice solution when they had the butler set Harry straight. But that reckoning was long overdue.
Then Harry further redeemed his mopey-ass self by flying into action and helping Spider-Man defeat Sandman and Venom. Of course, just like Terminator 2, it would have been cool if this scene had been approached from the vantage point that you didn't know Harry/Arnie was going to be a good guy in that particular scene.
You can imagine Peter's reaction when - as Venom restrains him, he's getting pummeled by the Sandman - and then Harry flies into view, with pumpkin bomb at the ready. And then...wow! He blows up Sandman and Peter and Harry fight side-by-side.
It's too bad Harry died at the end. I actually liked that version of Harry and would have liked to have seen him in Spider-Man 4.
So, overall, while I thought the film was too busy and used up too many cool villains in one shot, I liked it. It wasn't great - certainly not compared to the first Spider-Man movie - but it was good. Better than Daredevil. Better than Batman Returns.
And I am now eager to see what Spider-Man 4 will bring. What more can a comic book fan ask for?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Enough of Grim & Gritty Batman
It's all Alan Moore and Frank Miller's fault. Ever since they wrote their Joker tales - The Killing Joke and Dark Knight Returns - The "grim and gritty" Batman was born and the Joker has taken on a life of his own.
The character took center stage in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie, representing - in my mind - the pinnacle of Jokermania. While Jack Nicholson did a serviceable job in the role, I don't think he captured the essence of the Moore/Miller version of the character.
And this is not to say that these two gentlemen were the first to write the Joker as a homicidal madman. Bob Kane started that, and the trend was carried down the line.
Frank Robbins was instrumental in jump starting the serious tone Batman would take on in the late 60s. Most people will say it was Denny O'Neil that did this, but it really was both of them. Robbins wrote just as many memorable and classic Batman stories as O'Neil did. Both worked with Neal Adams and both are writers whose work any and all Batman fans should seek out.
So - back to grim and gritty.
The latest entrant in this contest is The Joker by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo. I've read some of Azzarello's work and I liked Bermejo's art in the hardly-ever-mentioned-but-highly-entertaining Superman/Gen 13 crossover book. Another title I recommend.
I read the Azzarello/Bermejo work and got exactly what I expected. A competent story and very good art. Unfortunately, like so many Joker tales before this, I didn't get anything new.
Joker's insane. Got it. He's been released from Arkham. Released. Ooookay....got it. He hooks up with some low level crook who becomes his right hand man. Then with Killer Croc.
Okay, fine. Not my cup of tea, but...fine. Then there's the whole Harvey Dent/Two Face thing and the Joker's interactions with the Penguin. Throw in an obligatory Riddler appearance and viola! - instant Batman rogues gallery. No Catwoman, though. Surprising.
It ends on a bridge with the crook getting himself killed and uttering something pithy along the lines of "there's no cure for the Joker. Only Batman." So Batman's just as crazy as the Joker, but he keeps the murder impulse in check. This is pretty much all I've managed to gather from this tome and all the other Joker tales that preceeded it.
Please - Batman writers. Please. Stop the grim and gritty. I'd like to see more Batman tales like the ones that Robbins and O'Neil wrote. Like the ones that Doug Moench wrote in the early-to-mid 80s and again in the early-to-mid 90s. Even in recent years, Judd Winick, Ed Brubaker, Greg Rucka and Grant Morrison have given me some of my most enjoyable Batman moments. I'd like more.
I don't want to read any more Joker tales. No more grim and gritty Batman tales.
And not to pick on Azzarello and The Joker (this should be more directed at the editor), but why did the Joker refer to the Penguin as Abner? More than once. Unless I am mistaken, he's always been Oswald Cobblepot.
Maybe Oswald wasn't grim and gritty enough.
The character took center stage in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman movie, representing - in my mind - the pinnacle of Jokermania. While Jack Nicholson did a serviceable job in the role, I don't think he captured the essence of the Moore/Miller version of the character.
And this is not to say that these two gentlemen were the first to write the Joker as a homicidal madman. Bob Kane started that, and the trend was carried down the line.
Frank Robbins was instrumental in jump starting the serious tone Batman would take on in the late 60s. Most people will say it was Denny O'Neil that did this, but it really was both of them. Robbins wrote just as many memorable and classic Batman stories as O'Neil did. Both worked with Neal Adams and both are writers whose work any and all Batman fans should seek out.
So - back to grim and gritty.
The latest entrant in this contest is The Joker by Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo. I've read some of Azzarello's work and I liked Bermejo's art in the hardly-ever-mentioned-but-highly-entertaining Superman/Gen 13 crossover book. Another title I recommend.
I read the Azzarello/Bermejo work and got exactly what I expected. A competent story and very good art. Unfortunately, like so many Joker tales before this, I didn't get anything new.
Joker's insane. Got it. He's been released from Arkham. Released. Ooookay....got it. He hooks up with some low level crook who becomes his right hand man. Then with Killer Croc.
Okay, fine. Not my cup of tea, but...fine. Then there's the whole Harvey Dent/Two Face thing and the Joker's interactions with the Penguin. Throw in an obligatory Riddler appearance and viola! - instant Batman rogues gallery. No Catwoman, though. Surprising.
It ends on a bridge with the crook getting himself killed and uttering something pithy along the lines of "there's no cure for the Joker. Only Batman." So Batman's just as crazy as the Joker, but he keeps the murder impulse in check. This is pretty much all I've managed to gather from this tome and all the other Joker tales that preceeded it.
Please - Batman writers. Please. Stop the grim and gritty. I'd like to see more Batman tales like the ones that Robbins and O'Neil wrote. Like the ones that Doug Moench wrote in the early-to-mid 80s and again in the early-to-mid 90s. Even in recent years, Judd Winick, Ed Brubaker, Greg Rucka and Grant Morrison have given me some of my most enjoyable Batman moments. I'd like more.
I don't want to read any more Joker tales. No more grim and gritty Batman tales.
And not to pick on Azzarello and The Joker (this should be more directed at the editor), but why did the Joker refer to the Penguin as Abner? More than once. Unless I am mistaken, he's always been Oswald Cobblepot.
Maybe Oswald wasn't grim and gritty enough.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Top 100 Runs: First Look - 96-91
This is an interesting section of the list for me. First, here are the titles that were on the list from 96-91:
96. Denny O’Neil and Denys Cowan’s The Question
95. Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima’s Lone Wolf & Cub
93. Garth Ennis’ Hellblazer
93. Brian Michael Bendis and Michael Gaydos’ Alias
92. Warren Ellis and Stuart Immonen’s Nextwave
91. Mike Grell’s Green Arrow
I remember having The Question and Green Arrow: Longbow Hunters, but I don't own either anymore.
I have really liked a lot of Denny O'Neil's work (Batman, Daredevil, Amazing Spider-Man), but the Question just didn't grab me for whatever reason.
Similar story for Mike Grell - although I am considerably less fond of his work. I was pretty enthused about Longbow Hunters. It was heavily promoted and the word on the street was that this was a can't-miss, must have book. I found it to be severely underwhelming. The art was excellent, as one would expect from Grell. But I felt the story was kind of unispired and plodding.
I remember thinking the same thing about John Byrne's Man of Steel. It was nice to see that DC was thinking that the character in question needed an overhaul. But I felt that Byrne and Grell both fell short. That neither pushed the envelope. I thought that what they did was obvious. I didn't even pick up any of the Green Arrow series, because I was so disappointed in Longbow.
There are also two titles I haven't read on this list:
Lone Wolf & Cub and Nextwave. But I've heard great things about both, and will likely read them someday. Especially Nextwave, as it has the benefits of being a relatively short series by one of my favorite writers (Ellis). I do have some issues of Nextwave, but not enough to be able to read the darn thing.
Now - Garth Ennis and Hellblazer. I have enjoyed Ennis' work starting with Hellblazer. It was an accident that I'd even come across Ennis, as I was getting back issues of the Jamie Delano Hellblazers and Ennis just happened to be the next writer.
What I discovered was that I didn't really like any of the Delano stuff - in fact, the three issues during the Delano run that I did like were by Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison.
Then Garth comes along and breathes life into this underdeveloped character. Until Ennis took over, I thought that Alan Moore had done more with John Constantine in a backup role in Swamp Thing than Delano had done with him as a lead character.
Giving Constantine cancer, coming up with a creative solution for Constantine promising his soul to a devil and Ennis' scathing take on the British monarchy was fresh and funny as hell. I only wish I'd kept reading further than issue 64. But I sure enjoyed what I did read, and this chance encounter led me to enjoy many more Ennis comics afterwards.
Alias was a lot of fun too. Again, I am haunted by not having the full series. I did have the first five issues, which were excellent. A plot to expose Captain America's identity? Strange, rogue agents and imminent death for Jessica Jones? Pretty cool stuff.
As usual, it was the pacing and dialogue that carried the day. You don't need me to tell you that Bendis does dialouge extremely well. The scene where Steve Rogers comes to see Jessica Jones and they have a chat about what went down was well done. Both characters shined. It's too bad that the character of Captain America was often not treated with this sort of respect.
96. Denny O’Neil and Denys Cowan’s The Question
95. Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima’s Lone Wolf & Cub
93. Garth Ennis’ Hellblazer
93. Brian Michael Bendis and Michael Gaydos’ Alias
92. Warren Ellis and Stuart Immonen’s Nextwave
91. Mike Grell’s Green Arrow
I remember having The Question and Green Arrow: Longbow Hunters, but I don't own either anymore.
I have really liked a lot of Denny O'Neil's work (Batman, Daredevil, Amazing Spider-Man), but the Question just didn't grab me for whatever reason.
Similar story for Mike Grell - although I am considerably less fond of his work. I was pretty enthused about Longbow Hunters. It was heavily promoted and the word on the street was that this was a can't-miss, must have book. I found it to be severely underwhelming. The art was excellent, as one would expect from Grell. But I felt the story was kind of unispired and plodding.
I remember thinking the same thing about John Byrne's Man of Steel. It was nice to see that DC was thinking that the character in question needed an overhaul. But I felt that Byrne and Grell both fell short. That neither pushed the envelope. I thought that what they did was obvious. I didn't even pick up any of the Green Arrow series, because I was so disappointed in Longbow.
There are also two titles I haven't read on this list:
Lone Wolf & Cub and Nextwave. But I've heard great things about both, and will likely read them someday. Especially Nextwave, as it has the benefits of being a relatively short series by one of my favorite writers (Ellis). I do have some issues of Nextwave, but not enough to be able to read the darn thing.
Now - Garth Ennis and Hellblazer. I have enjoyed Ennis' work starting with Hellblazer. It was an accident that I'd even come across Ennis, as I was getting back issues of the Jamie Delano Hellblazers and Ennis just happened to be the next writer.
What I discovered was that I didn't really like any of the Delano stuff - in fact, the three issues during the Delano run that I did like were by Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison.
Then Garth comes along and breathes life into this underdeveloped character. Until Ennis took over, I thought that Alan Moore had done more with John Constantine in a backup role in Swamp Thing than Delano had done with him as a lead character.
Giving Constantine cancer, coming up with a creative solution for Constantine promising his soul to a devil and Ennis' scathing take on the British monarchy was fresh and funny as hell. I only wish I'd kept reading further than issue 64. But I sure enjoyed what I did read, and this chance encounter led me to enjoy many more Ennis comics afterwards.
Alias was a lot of fun too. Again, I am haunted by not having the full series. I did have the first five issues, which were excellent. A plot to expose Captain America's identity? Strange, rogue agents and imminent death for Jessica Jones? Pretty cool stuff.
As usual, it was the pacing and dialogue that carried the day. You don't need me to tell you that Bendis does dialouge extremely well. The scene where Steve Rogers comes to see Jessica Jones and they have a chat about what went down was well done. Both characters shined. It's too bad that the character of Captain America was often not treated with this sort of respect.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Top 100 Runs: First Look - 100-97
There were 12 runs mentioned (due to a few ties) in the opening of the discussions about the Top 100 best comic book runs. Please see my June 1st post for details.
I'll be looking at six of the 12. Here they are:
I'll be looking at six of the 12. Here they are:
- 100 (tie). Chris Ware’s Acme Novelty Library
- 100 (tie). Doug Moench’s Master of Kung Fu
- 100 (tie). Jack Cole’s Plastic Man
- 99. Terry Moore’s Strangers in Paradise
- 97 (tie). Matt Wagner’s Grendel
- 97 (tie). Stan Sakai’s Usagi Yojimbo
Out of these, I have only read two: Master of Kung Fu and Grendel....so I'll limit my thoughts to them. As for the others, I must admit to a certain amount of closed mindedness, as I have little to no interest in reading any of them. A good friend of mine tried to get me to take the plunge on Strangers in Paradise, but I have yet to buy into that.
Now on to the ones that I have read.
Master Of Kung Fu: I came late to this title. I did not collect it as a kid, and only came across it because there was a near complete run in some quarter boxes at a shop that was moving to another location. Right time, right price.
I have long enjoyed Doug Moench's work - especially on Batman. He was the writer of record for most of the 80s and helped to define the character at that time. His work was overshadowed by such books as The Dark Knight and The Killing Joke, but I felt that his work stood up quite well.
Especially his run from about Batman 340-365, which crossed over to Detective 507-532. Don't quote me on that...I think they match.
Fun fact - in the 80s, the Batman tales were woven together between Batman and Detective, with the stories continued in each book and vice versa. So you could get two chapters at the same time, assuming shipping schedules matched up.
But this is supposed to be about MOKF. Okay - it was good...I liked what I read. And I felt that the issues that were produced after Jim Shooter was EIC were much better than the ones that preceded him. But, as I said, it was not something I collected when it was coming out. It was good...but it didn't become an instant classic in my mind.
Grendel: It amazes me to see this here. This was an amazing book, full of great stories and some intriguing artists. I wasn't wild about the Pander Brothers, but the story was excellent. Matt Wagner always seems to deliver quality work, and this was no exception.
This must have been caught in the pre-Image independent marketplace (it was published by Comico), where if it wasn't Marvel or DC...very few people read it. I was one of them. That same friend who tried to get me to read Strangers in Paradise succeded in getting me to read this. I am grateful that he did. You should try it as well.
If you like Matt Wagner's work in the 2K era, you'll love it in the mid-80s era as well. I can't recommend this title highly enough. I feel that it should be way higher on this list. I'd probably put it in the Top 50 at least. Give it a try - you'll see.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Top 100 Comic Book Runs?
Yes, a poll was conducted (starting back in March) and votes were counted (I found this on comicbookresources.com) to list the top 100 all-time runs. Then writer Brian Cronin counted them down and offered intelligent commentary about each of the runs.
I am normally opposed to making lists of this sort no matter the topic, and I was especially dubious about this one. I just knew that it would be littered with what I would consider second-rate runs. I was right on that count, but it didn't matter once I got reading.
The main thing, I realized, was that people were writing about comics in a non-condescending way. Some contributors expressed genuine interest in comics in one of two ways: (1) They'd read the comics mentioned some time ago and they were now reminiscing about that; (2) They'd either heard of this run and never got to reading it...or they liked what they read here and now had an interest in seeking the comics out.
I personally can say that I have a good number of comics that I've bought over the years that I never got to read. While this is something to look forward to, it's unfortunate that this would be the case. I'm sure I'm missing some great books that are a stone's throw away from me.
Anyway - while the disagreement came quickly, I still could get a sense that this was simply fellow comic book fans talking about what they liked. And that's cool. After all, like in an election...how much could I really complain? After all, I didn't vote.
One of the things I'd hoped to do with this blog was to just talk about comics. What I liked, what I didn't like. I think I got a bit too focused on what I didn't like...or worse, what I did like. Either way, I think I missed out on the enjoyment associated with this great hobby.
I think I will try to use this list as a forum to zero in on great comics and offer some of my own fanboy insight. If I have a strong negative opinion, I'll try to tone it down. You can get an idea from the list at the right of this blog what sort of comic runs would be of interest to me. But I expect as I go through this list, I'll remember a good run that I'd forgotten about.
Or...even better...maybe I'll read something about a run I'd never considered...and the opinions expressed will make me want to seek that run out. Of course, that would increase the problem of "comics that I've bought over the years that I never got to read" -- but, what the heck...as long as it's a good comic, right?
I am normally opposed to making lists of this sort no matter the topic, and I was especially dubious about this one. I just knew that it would be littered with what I would consider second-rate runs. I was right on that count, but it didn't matter once I got reading.
The main thing, I realized, was that people were writing about comics in a non-condescending way. Some contributors expressed genuine interest in comics in one of two ways: (1) They'd read the comics mentioned some time ago and they were now reminiscing about that; (2) They'd either heard of this run and never got to reading it...or they liked what they read here and now had an interest in seeking the comics out.
I personally can say that I have a good number of comics that I've bought over the years that I never got to read. While this is something to look forward to, it's unfortunate that this would be the case. I'm sure I'm missing some great books that are a stone's throw away from me.
Anyway - while the disagreement came quickly, I still could get a sense that this was simply fellow comic book fans talking about what they liked. And that's cool. After all, like in an election...how much could I really complain? After all, I didn't vote.
One of the things I'd hoped to do with this blog was to just talk about comics. What I liked, what I didn't like. I think I got a bit too focused on what I didn't like...or worse, what I did like. Either way, I think I missed out on the enjoyment associated with this great hobby.
I think I will try to use this list as a forum to zero in on great comics and offer some of my own fanboy insight. If I have a strong negative opinion, I'll try to tone it down. You can get an idea from the list at the right of this blog what sort of comic runs would be of interest to me. But I expect as I go through this list, I'll remember a good run that I'd forgotten about.
Or...even better...maybe I'll read something about a run I'd never considered...and the opinions expressed will make me want to seek that run out. Of course, that would increase the problem of "comics that I've bought over the years that I never got to read" -- but, what the heck...as long as it's a good comic, right?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Watchmen Movie Pictures
I was hoping for something more. The pictures that were released for Watchmen are only making me feel that Alan Moore was right. Not that I doubted this, but I was hopeful.
The Comedian costume looked okay - not a bad start. Then it went all campy on us. Fake abs for Ozymandius? And I thought someone had sneaked a Batman photo in there, and that turned out to be Nite Owl.
Rorschach looked pretty good, but it's hard to mess up a guy in a trenchcoat.
What's up with these plastic costumes? What does Hollywood have against cloth?
I hope the pictures are not a real reflection of what's to come. Otherwise, we'll just have another forgettable comic book movie.
The Comedian costume looked okay - not a bad start. Then it went all campy on us. Fake abs for Ozymandius? And I thought someone had sneaked a Batman photo in there, and that turned out to be Nite Owl.
Rorschach looked pretty good, but it's hard to mess up a guy in a trenchcoat.
What's up with these plastic costumes? What does Hollywood have against cloth?
I hope the pictures are not a real reflection of what's to come. Otherwise, we'll just have another forgettable comic book movie.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
New Frontier DVD Movie
Wow - that's cool. Justice League: The New Frontier has been released as a 75-minute animated DVD feature. This is another thing that I am interested in reading, but haven't had a chance to read yet.
I have a reason for not having read this one yet - I only have 5 of the 6 issues of the series....not a good reason, but it's a reason. I could always buy the trade, but I can't bring myself to do it when I am that close to completing the series. The pains of being a completist.
I have enjoyed Cooke's work, mostly from his time as artist of the Catwoman character written by Ed Brubaker. It started as a backup feature in Detective Comics (which, amazingly, was only a 4-issue run in Detective Comics 759-762. It seemed longer...), then DC launched a Catwoman title and picked up from that beginning. I'm glad DC was smart enough to do that. The backup stories were quite good and made for an excellent lead-in to the series.
I wonder if they're going to (or have already) collect these back up tales into a trade? It would be a worthwhile effort.
I have a reason for not having read this one yet - I only have 5 of the 6 issues of the series....not a good reason, but it's a reason. I could always buy the trade, but I can't bring myself to do it when I am that close to completing the series. The pains of being a completist.
I have enjoyed Cooke's work, mostly from his time as artist of the Catwoman character written by Ed Brubaker. It started as a backup feature in Detective Comics (which, amazingly, was only a 4-issue run in Detective Comics 759-762. It seemed longer...), then DC launched a Catwoman title and picked up from that beginning. I'm glad DC was smart enough to do that. The backup stories were quite good and made for an excellent lead-in to the series.
I wonder if they're going to (or have already) collect these back up tales into a trade? It would be a worthwhile effort.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Grant Morrison's Seven Soldiers
Well, I kind of got my wish...sort of. I've blathered in these posts about how all I really want from comics is for them to be well written. Now, with the help of a fellow comic fan, I have access to all of the individual issues that comprise Seven Soldiers.
This is a noteworthy aspect of this collection. It was something that I was interested in reading, as it was written by Grant Morrison, and it features obscure, forgotten characters. Just up my alley. Then I saw the trade paperbacks.
What a mess. They (DC Comics) reprinted mixed issues from each of the seven miniseries that are part of the overall SS concept. For example, the first trade could have had something like SS 0, Bulleteer 1, Klarion 1, Mister Miracle 1, Shining Knight 1 and Manhattan Guardian 1.
I know that Grant Morrison may have intimated that he had a plan as to the order in which the books should be read. But he's also the guy who complained to Marvel about fill-in artists on New X-Men when his choice, Frank Quitely, was apparently unable to keep up with the monthly schedule.
Note to DC: If you go to reprint Seven Soldiers again, please please please put all four of a particular mini series in the same reprint volume. Even if this is not the way the story is intended to be read...there's something to be said for cohesiveness.
So far, I have read all of the Bulleteer and the first couple of Klarion issues. I liked the Bulleteer a lot - it explores a lot of superhero traditions and stereotypes and puts some new perspective on things. Plus the Yanick Paquette art is quite good.
Klarion is also looking good, but it has the trappings of Morrison delving into the weirder aspects of an odd assortment of characters...which can sometimes result in good stories, but can also result in something like Doom Patrol, which I didn't like at all.
Still haven't read much of it, but I do like what I've gotten to so far. Based on Morrison's past history, I think I will enjoy this collection. I just need to find the time to read it...
This is a noteworthy aspect of this collection. It was something that I was interested in reading, as it was written by Grant Morrison, and it features obscure, forgotten characters. Just up my alley. Then I saw the trade paperbacks.
What a mess. They (DC Comics) reprinted mixed issues from each of the seven miniseries that are part of the overall SS concept. For example, the first trade could have had something like SS 0, Bulleteer 1, Klarion 1, Mister Miracle 1, Shining Knight 1 and Manhattan Guardian 1.
I know that Grant Morrison may have intimated that he had a plan as to the order in which the books should be read. But he's also the guy who complained to Marvel about fill-in artists on New X-Men when his choice, Frank Quitely, was apparently unable to keep up with the monthly schedule.
Note to DC: If you go to reprint Seven Soldiers again, please please please put all four of a particular mini series in the same reprint volume. Even if this is not the way the story is intended to be read...there's something to be said for cohesiveness.
So far, I have read all of the Bulleteer and the first couple of Klarion issues. I liked the Bulleteer a lot - it explores a lot of superhero traditions and stereotypes and puts some new perspective on things. Plus the Yanick Paquette art is quite good.
Klarion is also looking good, but it has the trappings of Morrison delving into the weirder aspects of an odd assortment of characters...which can sometimes result in good stories, but can also result in something like Doom Patrol, which I didn't like at all.
Still haven't read much of it, but I do like what I've gotten to so far. Based on Morrison's past history, I think I will enjoy this collection. I just need to find the time to read it...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Hulk: Better Green Than Red
Oh for heaven's sake...
A red Hulk? And according to a February 18th USA Today article, the Jeph Loeb written tale centers on: "the Red Hulk, who may or may not be Bruce Banner and who is even more savage than the green version."
And Loeb himself says: "I wanted to bring a danger back to the book. The Red Hulk is the kind of Hulk we haven't seen before -- a thinking, calculating, brutal weapon-toting kind of Hulk. Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."
Hmmm - "the kind of Hulk we haven't seen before" huh? Let's review recent history. Specifically the time frame when Peter David was writing the Hulk. Starting with the great Gamma bomb chase/leader story through to when he introduced Mr. Fixit - who was the Hulk incognito, as much as that is possible.
Thinking - check. Calculating - check. Brutal - check. Weapon-toting - check. So all of these elements of the Hulk were well in place. So we have seen these characteristics before.
Didn't Loeb write the incredibly overrated "Hush" story? He's done a few things I've liked, but I think he's discovered an "inconvenient untruth" here. I understand that he wants to project like he has an original, great idea. But he doesn't.
I seem to also remember a Hulk story where there was a Rick Jones Hulk and a Hulk and a Bruce Banner running around all at the same time. Of course, it was only a matter of time before BB restored the status quo and returned us to the Bruce Banner/Hulk scenario once again.
That scenario has worked quite well for over 40 years - why mess with it now? I'd like to give the writers enough credit to assume that they have the talent to write good stories without rewriting the characters they chronicle. But with the recent events in Spider-Man, Captain America and the Hulk, I am wondering if I've held out too much hope.
I sincerely hope not - I'd still like to see well written stories that don't contradict all that went before. But that doesn't seem to be the current Marvel Method. Too bad - all they really need are good stories. They've had that before...and I hope they will again.
A red Hulk? And according to a February 18th USA Today article, the Jeph Loeb written tale centers on: "the Red Hulk, who may or may not be Bruce Banner and who is even more savage than the green version."
And Loeb himself says: "I wanted to bring a danger back to the book. The Red Hulk is the kind of Hulk we haven't seen before -- a thinking, calculating, brutal weapon-toting kind of Hulk. Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."
Hmmm - "the kind of Hulk we haven't seen before" huh? Let's review recent history. Specifically the time frame when Peter David was writing the Hulk. Starting with the great Gamma bomb chase/leader story through to when he introduced Mr. Fixit - who was the Hulk incognito, as much as that is possible.
Thinking - check. Calculating - check. Brutal - check. Weapon-toting - check. So all of these elements of the Hulk were well in place. So we have seen these characteristics before.
Didn't Loeb write the incredibly overrated "Hush" story? He's done a few things I've liked, but I think he's discovered an "inconvenient untruth" here. I understand that he wants to project like he has an original, great idea. But he doesn't.
I seem to also remember a Hulk story where there was a Rick Jones Hulk and a Hulk and a Bruce Banner running around all at the same time. Of course, it was only a matter of time before BB restored the status quo and returned us to the Bruce Banner/Hulk scenario once again.
That scenario has worked quite well for over 40 years - why mess with it now? I'd like to give the writers enough credit to assume that they have the talent to write good stories without rewriting the characters they chronicle. But with the recent events in Spider-Man, Captain America and the Hulk, I am wondering if I've held out too much hope.
I sincerely hope not - I'd still like to see well written stories that don't contradict all that went before. But that doesn't seem to be the current Marvel Method. Too bad - all they really need are good stories. They've had that before...and I hope they will again.
Friday, February 15, 2008
R.I.P. Fantastic Four - At Least For Me
Well, I've only been half-heartedly picking up Fantastic Four books for the past few years now as it was. J. Michael Straczynski as the writer did not really scream to me as a reason to buy the book. Quite the opposite in fact.
Now Marvel has pretty much given me an out by announcing that Mark Millar is taking over. I've not liked anything that he has written. In fact, have found myself being totally indifferent to issues that he writes.
It's too bad - I'd be interested in seeing the Brian Hitch art. But I guess I can leaf through the issues at the comic book shop to see that. Also, if, as I suspect, these Millar issues wind up in quarter or dollar boxes (as Wanted, Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men have), I'll be able to pick them up for cheap.
At least I'll be able to save money and not wonder if I'm missing something. And my opinion of Millar's work is just that - my opinion. There is no thought that my viewpoint would be largely supported or even accurate.
As for "Kick-Ass" - which "takes the "What would really happen?" approach to the extreme" (this from a February 13th Dallas Morning News article), another Millar vehicle...I could not care less. It's been done. And it's not really interesting to me. Is it to anyone? Why do some writers feel so compelled to explore this?
Per the Dallas Morning News, it stars a character with no superpowers or special training who decides to fight crime.
What would happen? He'd likely die or get arrested. Not much of a story there, is there? Wrap it up in one or two issues. Can't wait for the movie to come out. Maybe they'll rewrite it and come up with an interesting angle. I'll wait.
Now Marvel has pretty much given me an out by announcing that Mark Millar is taking over. I've not liked anything that he has written. In fact, have found myself being totally indifferent to issues that he writes.
It's too bad - I'd be interested in seeing the Brian Hitch art. But I guess I can leaf through the issues at the comic book shop to see that. Also, if, as I suspect, these Millar issues wind up in quarter or dollar boxes (as Wanted, Ultimates and Ultimate X-Men have), I'll be able to pick them up for cheap.
At least I'll be able to save money and not wonder if I'm missing something. And my opinion of Millar's work is just that - my opinion. There is no thought that my viewpoint would be largely supported or even accurate.
As for "Kick-Ass" - which "takes the "What would really happen?" approach to the extreme" (this from a February 13th Dallas Morning News article), another Millar vehicle...I could not care less. It's been done. And it's not really interesting to me. Is it to anyone? Why do some writers feel so compelled to explore this?
Per the Dallas Morning News, it stars a character with no superpowers or special training who decides to fight crime.
What would happen? He'd likely die or get arrested. Not much of a story there, is there? Wrap it up in one or two issues. Can't wait for the movie to come out. Maybe they'll rewrite it and come up with an interesting angle. I'll wait.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The All-Star Squadron - An 80s Treat
It was the early 80s - 1981 to be precise. Before James Robinson and Geoff Johns remembered all those classic 40s National Periodical characters.
Roy Thomas and Rich Buckler unveiled one of my favorite comic titles of all - the All-Star Squadron. The comics were set in the 1940s, during World War Two. They featured all these great characters - some I'd heard of and some I hadn't. And they created some new ones as well. All this, and some great Joe Kubert covers as well.
I rememeber the writing was really good - the characters came to life and the plots were very grounded. It had the feel of a comic that had been written in the 40s. Roy Thomas really did a nice job.
And it was fun to see some of these lesser characters on the stage. Robotman. Steel. Atom. Johnny Quick. Hawkman. Plastic Man. Shining Knight. Hourman. Liberty Belle. Spectre. Dr. Fate. Johnny Thunder. Just to name a few.
As the years went on, I thought the title might lose its steam. But the issues in the 20s were just as fresh and interesting as the earlier issues. And this continued throughout the title's 67-issue run.
It was sad to see the title finally quit, but I am sure readership did not warrant its continuance. Too bad, I thought. And I thought that was the end of it.
I was glad when James Robinson started writing comics based on these characters. He is such a good writer, and had done such a great job with Starman, that I was instantly interested. I didn't really know who this Geoff Johns guy was, but I figured...I'll give this a try.
Glad I did. And especially glad the JSA title took off the way it did. It's nice to see these characters in circulation again. And as much as I appreciate the efforts of Robinson and Johns...I don't think you can understate the influence of Roy Thomas and Rich Buckler.
Whatever - there are plenty of good comics with these great characters now. I'd recommend All-Star Squadron highly. Especially if, like me, you liked JSA.
Roy Thomas and Rich Buckler unveiled one of my favorite comic titles of all - the All-Star Squadron. The comics were set in the 1940s, during World War Two. They featured all these great characters - some I'd heard of and some I hadn't. And they created some new ones as well. All this, and some great Joe Kubert covers as well.
I rememeber the writing was really good - the characters came to life and the plots were very grounded. It had the feel of a comic that had been written in the 40s. Roy Thomas really did a nice job.
And it was fun to see some of these lesser characters on the stage. Robotman. Steel. Atom. Johnny Quick. Hawkman. Plastic Man. Shining Knight. Hourman. Liberty Belle. Spectre. Dr. Fate. Johnny Thunder. Just to name a few.
As the years went on, I thought the title might lose its steam. But the issues in the 20s were just as fresh and interesting as the earlier issues. And this continued throughout the title's 67-issue run.
It was sad to see the title finally quit, but I am sure readership did not warrant its continuance. Too bad, I thought. And I thought that was the end of it.
I was glad when James Robinson started writing comics based on these characters. He is such a good writer, and had done such a great job with Starman, that I was instantly interested. I didn't really know who this Geoff Johns guy was, but I figured...I'll give this a try.
Glad I did. And especially glad the JSA title took off the way it did. It's nice to see these characters in circulation again. And as much as I appreciate the efforts of Robinson and Johns...I don't think you can understate the influence of Roy Thomas and Rich Buckler.
Whatever - there are plenty of good comics with these great characters now. I'd recommend All-Star Squadron highly. Especially if, like me, you liked JSA.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Last Y The Last Man
Well, that figures. I saw an article in Publishers Weekly telling me that DC released the last issue of Y The Last Man at the end of January. So what if I just started reading it?
OK - I guess I'll just have to get the trades now and finish the read. I almost feel like I already missed the boat, so why bother? But the first couple of issues were good, and I am curious to see how the story developed...So, I guess that's why.
It's interesting (perhaps only to me)...As far back as I can remember (the 70s and early 80s), comic book titles just went on and on and on and changed creative teams as the years went on. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to simply stop publishing a title when the well ran dry. This idea - which I think is a good idea - seems to be all the rage now.
Y The Last Man joins such favorite titles (of mine) as Sandman, Shade, Transmetropolitan, Starman, Supergirl, Captain Marvel (both runs) and Hitman in the pantheon of great titles that ran their course, and ended rather than turning the reins over to another writer. In some cases, the artist handled the art chores for the title's run.
There are a few titles, such as Animal Man and Aquaman (Peter David's) where this idea should have been employed.
And one title - Spider-Girl - that is still going strong (100+ issues) with the same writer (Tom DeFalco) for the entire run and with the same artist (Ron Frenz) in a majority of the run.
So, congrats Brian K. Vaughan and Pia Guerra for having such an interesting idea and for having the treat of being able to close it out on your own terms.
In this case, at least, we (creators and fans) all win.
OK - I guess I'll just have to get the trades now and finish the read. I almost feel like I already missed the boat, so why bother? But the first couple of issues were good, and I am curious to see how the story developed...So, I guess that's why.
It's interesting (perhaps only to me)...As far back as I can remember (the 70s and early 80s), comic book titles just went on and on and on and changed creative teams as the years went on. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to simply stop publishing a title when the well ran dry. This idea - which I think is a good idea - seems to be all the rage now.
Y The Last Man joins such favorite titles (of mine) as Sandman, Shade, Transmetropolitan, Starman, Supergirl, Captain Marvel (both runs) and Hitman in the pantheon of great titles that ran their course, and ended rather than turning the reins over to another writer. In some cases, the artist handled the art chores for the title's run.
There are a few titles, such as Animal Man and Aquaman (Peter David's) where this idea should have been employed.
And one title - Spider-Girl - that is still going strong (100+ issues) with the same writer (Tom DeFalco) for the entire run and with the same artist (Ron Frenz) in a majority of the run.
So, congrats Brian K. Vaughan and Pia Guerra for having such an interesting idea and for having the treat of being able to close it out on your own terms.
In this case, at least, we (creators and fans) all win.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Captain America - Reborn!
Had to take a little time to digest this. It seems that Marvel has, yet again, decided that dramatic character change for the sake of change is better than producing good stories. It's not altogether surprising that Marvel made this move.
After all, their cowardly thought process (remember "Marvel claims that a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since the couple's big day in 1987"?) on the "One More Day" storyline in Spider-Man lends itself to this not-real-inventive storyline.
It seems the "House Of Ideas" has a new way of doing things: If things get tough - make some major change (i.e. kill someone, reveal an identity, injure a loved one) and move forward.
So it is that Bucky (the last "dead" person in the Marvel Universe) has now taken on the mantle of Captain America. It is kind of an interesting idea - but it's hard to say that it was hard to see this coming. I mean, it's like the 1986 mini-series "The Man of Steel" - what comic fan wouldn't have made those changes?
Some of the articles I am seeing are going on and on about Cap carrying a gun. I am not overly concerned about this. As always, I will doggedly cling to my stance that all I want is good writing.
I remind myself of how much I disliked the idea of Jason Todd returning in Batman, only to have Judd Winick win me over. Simply put, he took an idea that I hated and made me enjoy the hell out of it by writing such good stories.
Ed Brubaker has done this before. Catwoman was great. So was his Batman and Gotham Central work. And, lest I forget, Scene Of The Crime, my first exposure to his work.
I have faith that Brubaker will make me like this plot development in Captain America. And if not...I can join the annoying ranks of the naysayers who have been commenting on speculation. And while I am not above doing that, I will reserve judgment in this case. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
After all, their cowardly thought process (remember "Marvel claims that a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since the couple's big day in 1987"?) on the "One More Day" storyline in Spider-Man lends itself to this not-real-inventive storyline.
It seems the "House Of Ideas" has a new way of doing things: If things get tough - make some major change (i.e. kill someone, reveal an identity, injure a loved one) and move forward.
So it is that Bucky (the last "dead" person in the Marvel Universe) has now taken on the mantle of Captain America. It is kind of an interesting idea - but it's hard to say that it was hard to see this coming. I mean, it's like the 1986 mini-series "The Man of Steel" - what comic fan wouldn't have made those changes?
Some of the articles I am seeing are going on and on about Cap carrying a gun. I am not overly concerned about this. As always, I will doggedly cling to my stance that all I want is good writing.
I remind myself of how much I disliked the idea of Jason Todd returning in Batman, only to have Judd Winick win me over. Simply put, he took an idea that I hated and made me enjoy the hell out of it by writing such good stories.
Ed Brubaker has done this before. Catwoman was great. So was his Batman and Gotham Central work. And, lest I forget, Scene Of The Crime, my first exposure to his work.
I have faith that Brubaker will make me like this plot development in Captain America. And if not...I can join the annoying ranks of the naysayers who have been commenting on speculation. And while I am not above doing that, I will reserve judgment in this case. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A "Brief" History Of Captain America
I've read Cap on and off over the years, and it's been pretty bleak for that character overall. Quite honestly, I've felt sorry for the Cap fan over the decades.
The 60s and early 70s weren't so bad. You had Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Jim Steranko and Steve Englehart as creative forces. And before that you had Joe Simon and Kirby. That's not bad at all.
Then in rolls the mid-to late 70s. Here we get Frank Robbins art, a not-so-great Jack Kirby, a hit-or-miss J.M. DeMatteis (more miss than hit, but when he was good, he was very good) and Mark Gruenwald.
Let me step back a bit, as I don't really want this to be seen as me slamming these creators.
Robbins is a great writer - he did excellent work on Batman in the late 60s / early 70s, and along with Denny O'Neil, he helped recast Batman (I seem to be the only person noting that O'Neil was not alone in this effort) to be the great, dark character he is today.
Most will consider my assessment of Kirby here as comic book blasphemy. But I read CA 193-215...it wasn't pretty. Some interesting things in there, but mostly...just killing time.
J.M. DeMatteis had a lengthy run, with notable storylines including the Red Skull/Nomad story in issues 261-263, the Deathlok story in issues 276-279 (really good comics) and the Skull story that led into issue 300. Other than these issues, I don't remember much about the DeMatteis run at all.
As for Gruenwald, I seem to remember him justifying a lengthy, but largely uninteresting, run on CA by proclaiming that he was the longest-tenured of CA's writers. True and noteworthy for sure - but other than having Cap giving up his identity in issue 332, there isn't any truly classic CA tale to be found in his 100+ (not sure about this number) issue run.
The years from 1975 - 2008 weren't all bad. We had some great CA stories in the early 80s with honorable mention going to excellent writers Roger MacKenzie (pre-Frank Miller Daredevil guy) and Roger Stern (from about issue 220-255), and the aforementioned DeMatteis efforts.
Then, in the late 90s, came the excellent Mark Waid issues. Too bad that was so short-lived. I'd heard that Waid was really pumped about getting to write Cap. I'd also heard rumors that he was heavily interfered with by Marvel at the time. The readers loss, whatever happened. His run at the end of CA volume 1, and the first 15 or so issues of volume 2 were some of the best CA comics since the 70s.
And don't even get me started about how good Fabian Niceiza's Sentinel Of Liberty mini-series was. This may be one of my favorite Cap comic arcs ever. It was excellent and any and all Cap fans should seek it out. Since a lot of comic readers don't seem to know what a good story is, you might be able to find these issues in 50 cent/dollar boxes. Sad.
Then Cap went through a weird period where he couldn't sustain a readership. Or that's what I imagine must have been the case. I can't think of any other reason that Cap was stopped and started so much in the late 90s / early 2000s. I believe the Brubaker Cap is volume 5.
I've enjoyed Brubaker's writing on titles such as Catwoman and Batman, and I fully intend to get some of his Daredevil issues. And I've seen some of his CA work, and I liked what I saw. I don't have his entire run, so I have not had a chance to read much of it. But I look forward to it.
Except for the Winter Soldier / Bucky parts. But that's a subject for another post. This "history of Cap by a demented fan" post has already gone on too long. Sorry about that. To be continued...
The 60s and early 70s weren't so bad. You had Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Jim Steranko and Steve Englehart as creative forces. And before that you had Joe Simon and Kirby. That's not bad at all.
Then in rolls the mid-to late 70s. Here we get Frank Robbins art, a not-so-great Jack Kirby, a hit-or-miss J.M. DeMatteis (more miss than hit, but when he was good, he was very good) and Mark Gruenwald.
Let me step back a bit, as I don't really want this to be seen as me slamming these creators.
Robbins is a great writer - he did excellent work on Batman in the late 60s / early 70s, and along with Denny O'Neil, he helped recast Batman (I seem to be the only person noting that O'Neil was not alone in this effort) to be the great, dark character he is today.
Most will consider my assessment of Kirby here as comic book blasphemy. But I read CA 193-215...it wasn't pretty. Some interesting things in there, but mostly...just killing time.
J.M. DeMatteis had a lengthy run, with notable storylines including the Red Skull/Nomad story in issues 261-263, the Deathlok story in issues 276-279 (really good comics) and the Skull story that led into issue 300. Other than these issues, I don't remember much about the DeMatteis run at all.
As for Gruenwald, I seem to remember him justifying a lengthy, but largely uninteresting, run on CA by proclaiming that he was the longest-tenured of CA's writers. True and noteworthy for sure - but other than having Cap giving up his identity in issue 332, there isn't any truly classic CA tale to be found in his 100+ (not sure about this number) issue run.
The years from 1975 - 2008 weren't all bad. We had some great CA stories in the early 80s with honorable mention going to excellent writers Roger MacKenzie (pre-Frank Miller Daredevil guy) and Roger Stern (from about issue 220-255), and the aforementioned DeMatteis efforts.
Then, in the late 90s, came the excellent Mark Waid issues. Too bad that was so short-lived. I'd heard that Waid was really pumped about getting to write Cap. I'd also heard rumors that he was heavily interfered with by Marvel at the time. The readers loss, whatever happened. His run at the end of CA volume 1, and the first 15 or so issues of volume 2 were some of the best CA comics since the 70s.
And don't even get me started about how good Fabian Niceiza's Sentinel Of Liberty mini-series was. This may be one of my favorite Cap comic arcs ever. It was excellent and any and all Cap fans should seek it out. Since a lot of comic readers don't seem to know what a good story is, you might be able to find these issues in 50 cent/dollar boxes. Sad.
Then Cap went through a weird period where he couldn't sustain a readership. Or that's what I imagine must have been the case. I can't think of any other reason that Cap was stopped and started so much in the late 90s / early 2000s. I believe the Brubaker Cap is volume 5.
I've enjoyed Brubaker's writing on titles such as Catwoman and Batman, and I fully intend to get some of his Daredevil issues. And I've seen some of his CA work, and I liked what I saw. I don't have his entire run, so I have not had a chance to read much of it. But I look forward to it.
Except for the Winter Soldier / Bucky parts. But that's a subject for another post. This "history of Cap by a demented fan" post has already gone on too long. Sorry about that. To be continued...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thinning Out
I have been working on thinning out my comic vault for a week or so now, in an effort to create more space in the basement...at my very patient and tolerant wife's request. :-)
I was a bit reluctant at first, but once I started going through them, I saw that I'd accumulated some comics that I still hadn't read, and most likely would not be reading for quite some time, if at all. The main problem I found was that I'd gotten some comics for such a cheap price that I couldn't pass them up. They were by creators whose work I'd liked, so I figured ... why not?
Maybe there are worse things than leaving those comics in the box. Another thing I saw is that I'd have two or three issues of a mini-series, clearly bought at a greatly reduced rate in the hopes of someday getting the other issues. Someday never came. I'd still be interested in reading a lot of them, but the likelihood of me coming across the missing issues is pretty slim. So, out they go.
A somewhat related aside: I also found that there are Peter David comics I either don't like or don't care all that much about. I jettisoned some Dreadstar comics written by him. I did read them, and thought they were okay...I guess. For whatever reason, they just didn't grab me. They join the ranks of PD's Action Comics and Wolverine stints, as well as Sachs & Violens. I still own S&V, and I suspect that this is due to equal parts the great George Perez art and the fact that I think that I SHOULD like these comics.
If you've read previous posts, you know how much I like Peter David's work, so this is hardly an indictment of PD. But I didn't feel compelled to hang on to these comics. It happens. But all is not lost - I truly like the vast majority of what he writes, and will continue to buy comics he writes.
A good thing about this purge is that this might enable me to get to reading some of the other comics I've acquired that I haven't read, but that I really want to read. Ones that I have the whole series, or ones for which I have a good, long run. Ones that I looked at once more and was reminded that I had some good things still to read.
I wonder if I'll actually miss any of the comics that I packed up to be sold? I kinda doubt it. But if I do, I know where to go to reacquire them.
I was a bit reluctant at first, but once I started going through them, I saw that I'd accumulated some comics that I still hadn't read, and most likely would not be reading for quite some time, if at all. The main problem I found was that I'd gotten some comics for such a cheap price that I couldn't pass them up. They were by creators whose work I'd liked, so I figured ... why not?
Maybe there are worse things than leaving those comics in the box. Another thing I saw is that I'd have two or three issues of a mini-series, clearly bought at a greatly reduced rate in the hopes of someday getting the other issues. Someday never came. I'd still be interested in reading a lot of them, but the likelihood of me coming across the missing issues is pretty slim. So, out they go.
A somewhat related aside: I also found that there are Peter David comics I either don't like or don't care all that much about. I jettisoned some Dreadstar comics written by him. I did read them, and thought they were okay...I guess. For whatever reason, they just didn't grab me. They join the ranks of PD's Action Comics and Wolverine stints, as well as Sachs & Violens. I still own S&V, and I suspect that this is due to equal parts the great George Perez art and the fact that I think that I SHOULD like these comics.
If you've read previous posts, you know how much I like Peter David's work, so this is hardly an indictment of PD. But I didn't feel compelled to hang on to these comics. It happens. But all is not lost - I truly like the vast majority of what he writes, and will continue to buy comics he writes.
A good thing about this purge is that this might enable me to get to reading some of the other comics I've acquired that I haven't read, but that I really want to read. Ones that I have the whole series, or ones for which I have a good, long run. Ones that I looked at once more and was reminded that I had some good things still to read.
I wonder if I'll actually miss any of the comics that I packed up to be sold? I kinda doubt it. But if I do, I know where to go to reacquire them.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Great Reads - Y: The Last Man - New To Me
After lending it to someone and getting a rave review, I just this weekend read the Y: The Last Man trade paperback. I agree - it was excellent and worthy of the praise that the trade boasts. The person to whom I lent the trade is seeking some more trades to read more of the story. If that happens, I'll be borrowing from him.
I will also check my library - they have a good selection of trades (I will not call them graphic novels, no matter how much newspaper writers want me to) and I think there's a good possibility that they'd be available there.
I hope so - I'd like to read more while the story is still fresh in my mind. Kudos to writer Brian K. Vaughn for writing a compelling story and not overplaying the hand.
I will also check my library - they have a good selection of trades (I will not call them graphic novels, no matter how much newspaper writers want me to) and I think there's a good possibility that they'd be available there.
I hope so - I'd like to read more while the story is still fresh in my mind. Kudos to writer Brian K. Vaughn for writing a compelling story and not overplaying the hand.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Heath Ledger As The Joker
It's such an odd thing to write this post. It is surely not my intention to trivialize the passing of Heath Ledger. I have enjoyed a few of his films - "10 Things I Hate About You" and "Monster's Ball" being the two that I have seen. I think it would be unseemly of me to gush about Mr. Ledger.
Instead, I'll state the obvious and say that it is sad that he has died. Especially sad for fanboys like me who were enthused about the forthcoming Dark Knight movie. Much like the feeling I get when I think about the Crow, and how I always think about the death of Brandon Lee...now I will have that same eerie feeling about "The Dark Knight."
"An out-of-control psychopath, sociopath, cold-blooded, mass-murdering clown" was the way Mr. Ledger described the Joker. Sounds to me like he did his homework.
I look forward to seeing this film. It sounds like Ledger really nailed the role, and it should be fun to see this version of the Joker brought to life. I'll be especially appreciative of having the Jack Nicholson Joker pushed back to the recesses of my mind and supplanted with this most recent edition.
Two days before his death, the UK tabloid The Express on Sunday ran an article on Heath Ledger (the above quote was borrowed from that). In the article, among other things, he confessed: "I've never been a fan of comic books and I actually hate comic-book movies – they're mostly just dumb and they bore me. But I thought Batman Begins was very well directed by Chris Nolan and Christian Bale was great in it. I liked the world they created."
Based on the stills and the previews...I'm glad he was able to get past this dislike. Rest in peace, Mr. Ledger.
Instead, I'll state the obvious and say that it is sad that he has died. Especially sad for fanboys like me who were enthused about the forthcoming Dark Knight movie. Much like the feeling I get when I think about the Crow, and how I always think about the death of Brandon Lee...now I will have that same eerie feeling about "The Dark Knight."
"An out-of-control psychopath, sociopath, cold-blooded, mass-murdering clown" was the way Mr. Ledger described the Joker. Sounds to me like he did his homework.
I look forward to seeing this film. It sounds like Ledger really nailed the role, and it should be fun to see this version of the Joker brought to life. I'll be especially appreciative of having the Jack Nicholson Joker pushed back to the recesses of my mind and supplanted with this most recent edition.
Two days before his death, the UK tabloid The Express on Sunday ran an article on Heath Ledger (the above quote was borrowed from that). In the article, among other things, he confessed: "I've never been a fan of comic books and I actually hate comic-book movies – they're mostly just dumb and they bore me. But I thought Batman Begins was very well directed by Chris Nolan and Christian Bale was great in it. I liked the world they created."
Based on the stills and the previews...I'm glad he was able to get past this dislike. Rest in peace, Mr. Ledger.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Gail Simone And Wonder Woman
Talk about your non-issues. Starting in December, publications as noteworthy as The Straits Times, The New York Times, The New York Sun, The Chicago Tribune, The Globe and Mail, and Newsweek have hailed the fact that Gail Simone has taken over the writing of Wonder Woman.
They have used stupid headlines like "Holy Hot Flash, Batman! Make room in the boys’ club, Caped Crusader. After 66 years, a woman takes over ‘Wonder Woman.’" and "Wonder Woman gets a new voice, and it's finally female" in this effort.
The first one is just downright insulting to any comic book fan. And the second one is, at best, inaccurate, since novelist Jodi Picoult had a turn as writer. I have not read her issues, but reviews I have seen have implied that the issues were less than spectacular. Whatever - so it wasn't her cup of tea.
The main point here is...what's the big deal? Simone has written many comics over the years, and she is not a stranger to female characters, having written so many good issues of Birds of Prey. And stop mentioning that she used to be a hairdresser! Every article mentions this - it's not relevant since the articles are about her writing comics! She writes comic books (and very good ones at that) - give the woman her due!
Is it really so astonishing that a woman is writing comics, let alone Wonder Woman? It's true that WW has not been real good over the years. But the Greg Rucka issues were pretty good. This indicates to me that the real problem isn't one of the character needing a female writer...as much as it is the character needs a GOOD writer that will take Wonder Woman seriously.
Many men have written female characters in very positive ways. I think of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Peter Milligan's Shade and Peter David's Hulk run when I write this. And the female writer isn't new to comics either. There was Jo Duffy, Ann Nocenti, Louise Simonson, Collen Doran, Christina Z (whatever happened to her?) and Devin Grayson.
Maybe there is a shortage of female writers in comics, but let's be honest...up until a few years ago, there was a severe shortage of female readers! In the 80s, it seemed the only place you'd find female voices in the (now forgotten) letters pages was in Cerebus and Sandman.
That is changing, ever so slowly...and the proliferation of independent comics will only fuel that fire. DC Comics has provided a forum as well. Grayson had a few good runs, on such noteworthy titles as Gotham Knights, Nightwing and Catwoman. As mentioned before, Simone did a great stint on Birds of Prey and produced the excellent Villains United miniseries. All of these works are very much recommended, by the way...
I would think that readers should celebrate the fact that a writer of Simone's demonstrated skill is writing Wonder Woman. The fact that she is a woman should be a secondary consideration...but given the amount of articles I've seen on the subject, that is, apparently, not the case. That's too bad. Nothing should overshadow a comic book that offers top-notch writing.
They have used stupid headlines like "Holy Hot Flash, Batman! Make room in the boys’ club, Caped Crusader. After 66 years, a woman takes over ‘Wonder Woman.’" and "Wonder Woman gets a new voice, and it's finally female" in this effort.
The first one is just downright insulting to any comic book fan. And the second one is, at best, inaccurate, since novelist Jodi Picoult had a turn as writer. I have not read her issues, but reviews I have seen have implied that the issues were less than spectacular. Whatever - so it wasn't her cup of tea.
The main point here is...what's the big deal? Simone has written many comics over the years, and she is not a stranger to female characters, having written so many good issues of Birds of Prey. And stop mentioning that she used to be a hairdresser! Every article mentions this - it's not relevant since the articles are about her writing comics! She writes comic books (and very good ones at that) - give the woman her due!
Is it really so astonishing that a woman is writing comics, let alone Wonder Woman? It's true that WW has not been real good over the years. But the Greg Rucka issues were pretty good. This indicates to me that the real problem isn't one of the character needing a female writer...as much as it is the character needs a GOOD writer that will take Wonder Woman seriously.
Many men have written female characters in very positive ways. I think of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Peter Milligan's Shade and Peter David's Hulk run when I write this. And the female writer isn't new to comics either. There was Jo Duffy, Ann Nocenti, Louise Simonson, Collen Doran, Christina Z (whatever happened to her?) and Devin Grayson.
Maybe there is a shortage of female writers in comics, but let's be honest...up until a few years ago, there was a severe shortage of female readers! In the 80s, it seemed the only place you'd find female voices in the (now forgotten) letters pages was in Cerebus and Sandman.
That is changing, ever so slowly...and the proliferation of independent comics will only fuel that fire. DC Comics has provided a forum as well. Grayson had a few good runs, on such noteworthy titles as Gotham Knights, Nightwing and Catwoman. As mentioned before, Simone did a great stint on Birds of Prey and produced the excellent Villains United miniseries. All of these works are very much recommended, by the way...
I would think that readers should celebrate the fact that a writer of Simone's demonstrated skill is writing Wonder Woman. The fact that she is a woman should be a secondary consideration...but given the amount of articles I've seen on the subject, that is, apparently, not the case. That's too bad. Nothing should overshadow a comic book that offers top-notch writing.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Closing Argument On "One More Day"
I promise. After this, no more about this unfortunate storyline. These are two points on the Spider-Man white-out story:
1) Marvel has implied that having a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since
2) Per the Guardian newspaper Joe Quesada stated: "my job is to keep these characters fresh and ready for every fan that walks through the door, while also planning for the future and hopefully an even larger fan base."
I have often wondered when Utlimate Spider-Man will replace Amazing Spider-Man? I expect that in another year or so, Marvel will announce that Amazing is dead, to be replaced by Ultimate Spider-Man.
It's interesting to note that there is a thought that the characters need to be kept "fresh" and"ready" for an "even larger fan base." I wonder which fan base is larger? The one that has been around since the 60s or 70s or 80s...or the one that thinks that Mary Jane was Peter's first love?
I had a conversation with someone recently who was surprised to hear that Mary Jane was not only not Peter's first love, but wasn't even included in the first 40 or so Spider-Man comics (excepting earlier cameos). Even Gwen Stacy was introduced prior to MJ. Sure, MJ may have been mentioned prior to Gwen, but she was never shown until after.
Then Gwen was introduced (kinda shoehorned) into the Ultimate Spider-Man comic - why? She just wound up dying. I would have been more interested in seeing her live and see what sort of stories could have been hatched. I guess she and Karen Page weren't "fresh" enough characters.
I think it's interesting that this decision to eradicate the 800+ stories that built the legend of Spider-Man seems to have been made because the creative efforts coming from the Marvel bullpen are not able to generate worthy stories about an adult Spider-Man. You question this conclusion? Here's the wording from the Guardian again: "Marvel claims that a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since the couple's big day in 1987"
It's difficult...so we give up. That's how it goes down? So much for embracing a challenge. David Micheline wrote some interesting stories right after the marriage occurred. So did J.M. DeMatteis (remember the excellent "Kraven's Last Hunt?). But it (the marriage) was a source of regret. I won't say that it was a great story. It seemed forced. A stunt thrown out there to generate interest and push sales up. The stories that directly preceded the marriage certainly didn't indicate that something like that was coming. But it happened.
Besides all that, I thought the whole point of Ultimate Spider-Man was to target the younger audience. You know, tell stories that have already been told but in a snarky, generation-Y sort of way...Familiar characters with a new coat of paint. Clearly, it had Marvel's unending support, as elements of it heavily influenced the Spider-Man movies. Notice how MJ is Peter's first and only love in the films? It wasn't that way when Amazing was the main game in town.
Wait and see, I guess? The old order changeth. 'Nuff said.
1) Marvel has implied that having a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since
2) Per the Guardian newspaper Joe Quesada stated: "my job is to keep these characters fresh and ready for every fan that walks through the door, while also planning for the future and hopefully an even larger fan base."
I have often wondered when Utlimate Spider-Man will replace Amazing Spider-Man? I expect that in another year or so, Marvel will announce that Amazing is dead, to be replaced by Ultimate Spider-Man.
It's interesting to note that there is a thought that the characters need to be kept "fresh" and"ready" for an "even larger fan base." I wonder which fan base is larger? The one that has been around since the 60s or 70s or 80s...or the one that thinks that Mary Jane was Peter's first love?
I had a conversation with someone recently who was surprised to hear that Mary Jane was not only not Peter's first love, but wasn't even included in the first 40 or so Spider-Man comics (excepting earlier cameos). Even Gwen Stacy was introduced prior to MJ. Sure, MJ may have been mentioned prior to Gwen, but she was never shown until after.
Then Gwen was introduced (kinda shoehorned) into the Ultimate Spider-Man comic - why? She just wound up dying. I would have been more interested in seeing her live and see what sort of stories could have been hatched. I guess she and Karen Page weren't "fresh" enough characters.
I think it's interesting that this decision to eradicate the 800+ stories that built the legend of Spider-Man seems to have been made because the creative efforts coming from the Marvel bullpen are not able to generate worthy stories about an adult Spider-Man. You question this conclusion? Here's the wording from the Guardian again: "Marvel claims that a married Spider-Man made life difficult for the comic's writers and has been a source of regret ever since the couple's big day in 1987"
It's difficult...so we give up. That's how it goes down? So much for embracing a challenge. David Micheline wrote some interesting stories right after the marriage occurred. So did J.M. DeMatteis (remember the excellent "Kraven's Last Hunt?). But it (the marriage) was a source of regret. I won't say that it was a great story. It seemed forced. A stunt thrown out there to generate interest and push sales up. The stories that directly preceded the marriage certainly didn't indicate that something like that was coming. But it happened.
Besides all that, I thought the whole point of Ultimate Spider-Man was to target the younger audience. You know, tell stories that have already been told but in a snarky, generation-Y sort of way...Familiar characters with a new coat of paint. Clearly, it had Marvel's unending support, as elements of it heavily influenced the Spider-Man movies. Notice how MJ is Peter's first and only love in the films? It wasn't that way when Amazing was the main game in town.
Wait and see, I guess? The old order changeth. 'Nuff said.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Superman's Birthday!
Okay, so I'm a few days late...sorry big guy. I saw two things related to Superman that caught my eye.
The first was a line in one of those "IT WAS ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY" articles (for January 10): "in 1939 comic strip SUPERMAN debuts" - wow. Cool. Nearly 70 years ago now.
Congratulations are in order for Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. I am not even going to get into the injustices done against these two men nor will I mention how they were hoodwinked out of the millions of dollars that was rightfully theirs. History will show forever that these two men created an iconic, world-renowned character that stands for "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
Yeah, it's corny...but it's great stuff, isn't it? Thanks, guys.
What was the second thing? An amusing "imaginary tale" article in The Sydney Morning Herald, telling an "Earth-Ha" tale about the creation of Superman, from Siegel's perspective. It ran on January 11th, and the writer is Charles Purcell. Look it up if you have the chance. It's pretty funny and worth checking out.
Here's my favorite line: "Plus a giant S on his chest - for Siegel."
Happy Birthday, Superman!
The first was a line in one of those "IT WAS ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY" articles (for January 10): "in 1939 comic strip SUPERMAN debuts" - wow. Cool. Nearly 70 years ago now.
Congratulations are in order for Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. I am not even going to get into the injustices done against these two men nor will I mention how they were hoodwinked out of the millions of dollars that was rightfully theirs. History will show forever that these two men created an iconic, world-renowned character that stands for "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
Yeah, it's corny...but it's great stuff, isn't it? Thanks, guys.
What was the second thing? An amusing "imaginary tale" article in The Sydney Morning Herald, telling an "Earth-Ha" tale about the creation of Superman, from Siegel's perspective. It ran on January 11th, and the writer is Charles Purcell. Look it up if you have the chance. It's pretty funny and worth checking out.
Here's my favorite line: "Plus a giant S on his chest - for Siegel."
Happy Birthday, Superman!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Bob Layton and Iron Man
How cool is this? Marvel will apparently be releasing collected editions of the excellent David Michelinie / Bob Layton Iron Man tales from the 80s. How nice to be able to write something positive like this in light of the goings on in the Spider-Man books.
I read about this in an article in the Dallas Morning News, and credit must be given to the article's writer (Dan Koller) for mentioning these classic IM tales: "Demon in a Bottle, in which Iron Man's secret identity, Tony Stark, struggles with alcoholism; Doomquest, in which Iron Man and Dr. Doom travel through time to Camelot; and Armor Wars, in which Iron Man hunts villains who secretly benefited from his technology."
It will be great to see these stories again. And I hope a new generation of comic fans can get an idea of what really good comic books are all about.
But wait! There's more, per Mr. Koller: "But Layton and Michelinie also have two new miniseries due out in the spring: Iron Man: Legacy of Doom and Iron Man: The End. In addition, Layton has been asked to write a foreword for an Iron Man coffee table book and to draw several Iron Man trading cards."
I don't know about you, but I will be looking for both of these miniseries. Anyone who has even the slightest interest in Iron Man should join in to celebrate two of his most important creators. Nice to see one of the old guys getting deserved credit. Nice goin' Mr. Layton!
Now - let's hope that movie is anywhere near as good as the Michelinie/Layton Iron Mans were.
I read about this in an article in the Dallas Morning News, and credit must be given to the article's writer (Dan Koller) for mentioning these classic IM tales: "Demon in a Bottle, in which Iron Man's secret identity, Tony Stark, struggles with alcoholism; Doomquest, in which Iron Man and Dr. Doom travel through time to Camelot; and Armor Wars, in which Iron Man hunts villains who secretly benefited from his technology."
It will be great to see these stories again. And I hope a new generation of comic fans can get an idea of what really good comic books are all about.
But wait! There's more, per Mr. Koller: "But Layton and Michelinie also have two new miniseries due out in the spring: Iron Man: Legacy of Doom and Iron Man: The End. In addition, Layton has been asked to write a foreword for an Iron Man coffee table book and to draw several Iron Man trading cards."
I don't know about you, but I will be looking for both of these miniseries. Anyone who has even the slightest interest in Iron Man should join in to celebrate two of his most important creators. Nice to see one of the old guys getting deserved credit. Nice goin' Mr. Layton!
Now - let's hope that movie is anywhere near as good as the Michelinie/Layton Iron Mans were.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Joey Q Just Doesn't Seem To Get It
An article in the January 7th New York Post reports that the next issue of Amazing Spider-Man will open with a now single Peter Parker kissing a woman who isn't Mary Jane. And here's the quote from Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada:
"The first page is a real shocker and it's done on purpose. It's a bit of a slap of reality to longtime readers."
No - the slap of reality was the decision to have made this change in the first place. It sounds like Quesada just doesn't care what Spidey fans think. He comes off as...disrespectful. It would be nice to think that he would see his position as overseer of these great characters in a way that would preserve what made them great. That he would consider himself a respectful caretaker. But looking at Marvel's recent output, it sure doesn't seem like that is the case. Nor does it seem that any character is safe.
I didn't think that the Spider-Man folks could have exceeded the badness of the Gwen Stacy kids plot, but then Peter Parker revealed his identity. Then they upped the stakes and introduced this Mephisto "do-over" plot. Oh what a tangled web...
I can understand the strong negative reaction of Spider-Man fans - they've had to endure a good amount of questionable comics. I am glad I don't regularly read the title anymore. I will simply be left to wonder why Marvel seems bent on destroying it's greatest character...and whittling down it's considerable fanbase. I have to admit that I am somewhat curious to see where this will go. Dan Slott is the writer and I do like his work.
I am trying to be open-minded with these postings, as I don't want folks to think that I just feel like ranting about the state of the comic industry. Mostly, I enjoy comics...there are a lot of good ones coming out (even ones that JQ oversees). The goings-on in the Spider-Man titles seem like little more than a lazy way to shake up an established character. Are sales that bad? Or could it be that they've actually ran out of good ideas for the Spider-Man books?
"The first page is a real shocker and it's done on purpose. It's a bit of a slap of reality to longtime readers."
No - the slap of reality was the decision to have made this change in the first place. It sounds like Quesada just doesn't care what Spidey fans think. He comes off as...disrespectful. It would be nice to think that he would see his position as overseer of these great characters in a way that would preserve what made them great. That he would consider himself a respectful caretaker. But looking at Marvel's recent output, it sure doesn't seem like that is the case. Nor does it seem that any character is safe.
I didn't think that the Spider-Man folks could have exceeded the badness of the Gwen Stacy kids plot, but then Peter Parker revealed his identity. Then they upped the stakes and introduced this Mephisto "do-over" plot. Oh what a tangled web...
I can understand the strong negative reaction of Spider-Man fans - they've had to endure a good amount of questionable comics. I am glad I don't regularly read the title anymore. I will simply be left to wonder why Marvel seems bent on destroying it's greatest character...and whittling down it's considerable fanbase. I have to admit that I am somewhat curious to see where this will go. Dan Slott is the writer and I do like his work.
I am trying to be open-minded with these postings, as I don't want folks to think that I just feel like ranting about the state of the comic industry. Mostly, I enjoy comics...there are a lot of good ones coming out (even ones that JQ oversees). The goings-on in the Spider-Man titles seem like little more than a lazy way to shake up an established character. Are sales that bad? Or could it be that they've actually ran out of good ideas for the Spider-Man books?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Can Even Spider-Man Help the UN?
I thought this was interesting - Marvel Comics and the United Nations will be releasing a comic book later this year to help add some luster to the UN's image. The storyline will feature Spidey and the Fantastic Four working with UN agencies in a fictional war-torn country.
The comics will be distributed free to US schoolchildren and then translated and distributed worldwide. What a great idea. It's nice to write about something that doesn't force me to take shots at Marvel for a change.
I give them about a week to revert back to form...
The comics will be distributed free to US schoolchildren and then translated and distributed worldwide. What a great idea. It's nice to write about something that doesn't force me to take shots at Marvel for a change.
I give them about a week to revert back to form...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)