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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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)