I'm back on the fence.
Is this new launch, as Randy suggests, the ideal opportunity to leave behind weekly orders from DC? I'm firmly attached to the experience of monthly comics, and I have a somewhat extensive investment in them sitting in my basement. Is that a good enough reason to continue ordering in the same format that I always have? Or should I also consider cancelling all DC orders, and transition to simply purchasing the graphic novels that I really want to read?
I'm torn. Seriously.
On one hand, I like comics in their monthly format, and I enjoy the time I spend filling in gaps in my collection. On the other hand, will there ever be a better time for me to leave it behind, and explore simply purchasing graphic novels?
If, as I suspect, this grand experiment of DC's fails abysmally and they eventually come back to pick up their original numbering I'll have the option to change my decision at that point in time. The months in between could be an experiment in exploring options.
I've got about 48 hours to make a decision......and right now I'm stuck right in the middle.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Resets clean up continuity right?
That's always been my theory.
If you run a reset, you should be looking to clean up continuity and rebuild your brand on a strong foundation that will allow you better access to new readers going forward. After all, new readers are the ones who object to continuity and backstory, and use them as excuses for not buying ongoing series.
So just what the hell is DC doing then?
In the transition between the original DCU and the "New 52" some series have been cancelled and some new ones will be introduced.
For some books the cancellation is made necessary by the nature of a reset. There can hardly be a Batman Inc. if Bruce has only just begun his war as the Dark Knight. Timothy Drake cannot be Red Robin, because (chronologically speaking) he has not yet been Robin. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule about what will be continuity and what won't. If Tim Drake isn't around to be Red Robin, how is it that Damien is around to be Robin? New continuity? Are we at the beginning of Batman's career (as suggested by the sneak peak at Justice League #1) or not? If Dick Grayson is already Nightwing, how is it that Green Lantern is stunned to find out that Batman is real?
And no.....I don't think "5 years ago" covers it. Five years isn't nearly enough time to go from Batman, the urban myth, to Batman the legend, with his son as Robin, Dick Grayson all grown up as Nightwing, etc.
Without a deeper dig into the New 52, I cannot possibly hope to explore all of the continuity glitches that are being committed as writers are (obviously) being given free reign at the expense of maintaining a strong universal continuity.
I'm just not sure I'm prepared to invest the effort.
If you run a reset, you should be looking to clean up continuity and rebuild your brand on a strong foundation that will allow you better access to new readers going forward. After all, new readers are the ones who object to continuity and backstory, and use them as excuses for not buying ongoing series.
So just what the hell is DC doing then?
In the transition between the original DCU and the "New 52" some series have been cancelled and some new ones will be introduced.
For some books the cancellation is made necessary by the nature of a reset. There can hardly be a Batman Inc. if Bruce has only just begun his war as the Dark Knight. Timothy Drake cannot be Red Robin, because (chronologically speaking) he has not yet been Robin. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule about what will be continuity and what won't. If Tim Drake isn't around to be Red Robin, how is it that Damien is around to be Robin? New continuity? Are we at the beginning of Batman's career (as suggested by the sneak peak at Justice League #1) or not? If Dick Grayson is already Nightwing, how is it that Green Lantern is stunned to find out that Batman is real?
And no.....I don't think "5 years ago" covers it. Five years isn't nearly enough time to go from Batman, the urban myth, to Batman the legend, with his son as Robin, Dick Grayson all grown up as Nightwing, etc.
Without a deeper dig into the New 52, I cannot possibly hope to explore all of the continuity glitches that are being committed as writers are (obviously) being given free reign at the expense of maintaining a strong universal continuity.
I'm just not sure I'm prepared to invest the effort.
What's the point?
Normally I devour my comic when they come in.
I wait two months (on average) longer than everyone else to read my books because the cost savings are exceptional, and when I finally get them into my hands I basically ignore everything else (usually to the point of my wife's vocal objection.)
But as I sit here with June and July's order from DC I find myself asking a very simple question; why bother?
In almost every single series my personal expectation is that the current story needs four to six months to properly unfold and wrap up, but I already know the writers have one more month (at most.) Truncated conclusions and choppy endings; just another fine present from DC as a result of "The New 52!"
Even simply contemplating the pile that happens to be lying right in front of me right now?
JSA All-Stars - cancelled & not coming back
Justice Society of America - cancelled & not coming back
R.E.B.E.L.S. - cancelled & not coming back
Red Robin - cancelled & not coming back
Where's my motivation to read it?
It leads nowhere.
I wait two months (on average) longer than everyone else to read my books because the cost savings are exceptional, and when I finally get them into my hands I basically ignore everything else (usually to the point of my wife's vocal objection.)
But as I sit here with June and July's order from DC I find myself asking a very simple question; why bother?
In almost every single series my personal expectation is that the current story needs four to six months to properly unfold and wrap up, but I already know the writers have one more month (at most.) Truncated conclusions and choppy endings; just another fine present from DC as a result of "The New 52!"
Even simply contemplating the pile that happens to be lying right in front of me right now?
JSA All-Stars - cancelled & not coming back
Justice Society of America - cancelled & not coming back
R.E.B.E.L.S. - cancelled & not coming back
Red Robin - cancelled & not coming back
Where's my motivation to read it?
It leads nowhere.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Cap is outstanding!
Watched Captain America last night.
It was an exceptional comic book movie, and I would be willing to listen to anyone who wanted to put together the argument that it is actually the very best comic book movie ever made. I can certainly think of reasons that it outperformed The Dark Knight, in terms of its comic-ness.
Chris Evans isn't spectacular, but then he doesn't need to be. He's solid and he gives just the right understanding of Steve Rogers in my mind. The determination and willpower required to persevere and become Captain America are very well represented. Tommy Lee Jones was spectacular, and should be commended for doing such an exceptional job of portraying a character who represented the best and the worst of the U.S. military during the war.
2011 may be Marvel's greatest class of comic movies ever.
I haven't seen one yet that I didn't think was terrific.Thor, X-Men: First Class and Cap have all been exactly what I want from my comics on the big screen. I wonder if maybe DC could take notes?
Just a quick question though....did they need to market him (erroneously) as the First Avenger in order to get that movie over with the public?
It was an exceptional comic book movie, and I would be willing to listen to anyone who wanted to put together the argument that it is actually the very best comic book movie ever made. I can certainly think of reasons that it outperformed The Dark Knight, in terms of its comic-ness.
Chris Evans isn't spectacular, but then he doesn't need to be. He's solid and he gives just the right understanding of Steve Rogers in my mind. The determination and willpower required to persevere and become Captain America are very well represented. Tommy Lee Jones was spectacular, and should be commended for doing such an exceptional job of portraying a character who represented the best and the worst of the U.S. military during the war.
2011 may be Marvel's greatest class of comic movies ever.
I haven't seen one yet that I didn't think was terrific.Thor, X-Men: First Class and Cap have all been exactly what I want from my comics on the big screen. I wonder if maybe DC could take notes?
Just a quick question though....did they need to market him (erroneously) as the First Avenger in order to get that movie over with the public?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Smart comments always welcome...
"Ohhh so Superman becomes Batman and Batman becomes Tony Stark. Got it. What the crap! Just call the company Marvel!"
This was one of the responses on the boards where the Morrison article was posted. I actually thought something very similar recently (only I didn't think "What the crap!" because that's just poor grammar.)
Morrison on Superman
Morrison on Superman
That's the link a friend sent me, inquiring about my thoughts. The timing is very interesting, since I was recently in the midst of a conversation with Rude about the fact that I am both in love with, and hating Morrison's work on Batman Inc.
Why bring that up?
Generally because my first reaction now is that I'll have the same feeling about his work on Superman. I'll be honest. I wasn't thrilled when I heard him announced for the new creative team on Action. Grant Morrison does breathe new life into characters, offering fresh perspective and opening up new avenues to the character for development and growth. I cannot deny that, nor would I want to. Those are the strengths of what he does, and very often it works.
Batman Inc was a powerful, brilliant idea.
His execution though can sometimes leave me wanting more. Rude pointed out that Morrison likes to leave the minor details for us to fill in for ourselves. He doesn't need to spoon feed everything out for us. I agree, and sometimes I don't even mind that approach. Unfortunately I have found that in reading stories like R.I.P. and now Batman Inc, that another thing he likes to do is excuse himself from having to 'enter' a scene or 'exit' a scene. We're often left reading story without context, because his transitions within the book are so choppy as to be non-existent. They are disruptive to the story itself.
This concerns me, especially in the context of his new Superman story, because we're going to see something fully original and fresh from him. That should be good news, but if Grant decides that we can 'guess' the context for ourselves, it's going to leave the readers scratching their heads more than clapping their hands.
Also, I don't find his perspective on Superman as intriguing as I found the idea behind Batman Inc.
One of the things that concerns me is that he's going to blur the line between Superman and Batman. I'm not saying it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done.....I'm just concerned that in doing it, we're fundamentally changing the most iconic character in comics. For decades Superman has known that Luthor was the bad guy, but he respected the conventions of the United States legal system enough to operate within it. There is an implication in the article that Clark may now be willing to take the law into his own hands, or to decide what justice is for himself.
Doesn't that completely miss the mark?
Aren't we talking about dirtying Superman up a little bit, if that's where we take him?
What do I think of the article?
Honestly.....I'm concerned.
That's the link a friend sent me, inquiring about my thoughts. The timing is very interesting, since I was recently in the midst of a conversation with Rude about the fact that I am both in love with, and hating Morrison's work on Batman Inc.
Why bring that up?
Generally because my first reaction now is that I'll have the same feeling about his work on Superman. I'll be honest. I wasn't thrilled when I heard him announced for the new creative team on Action. Grant Morrison does breathe new life into characters, offering fresh perspective and opening up new avenues to the character for development and growth. I cannot deny that, nor would I want to. Those are the strengths of what he does, and very often it works.
Batman Inc was a powerful, brilliant idea.
His execution though can sometimes leave me wanting more. Rude pointed out that Morrison likes to leave the minor details for us to fill in for ourselves. He doesn't need to spoon feed everything out for us. I agree, and sometimes I don't even mind that approach. Unfortunately I have found that in reading stories like R.I.P. and now Batman Inc, that another thing he likes to do is excuse himself from having to 'enter' a scene or 'exit' a scene. We're often left reading story without context, because his transitions within the book are so choppy as to be non-existent. They are disruptive to the story itself.
This concerns me, especially in the context of his new Superman story, because we're going to see something fully original and fresh from him. That should be good news, but if Grant decides that we can 'guess' the context for ourselves, it's going to leave the readers scratching their heads more than clapping their hands.
Also, I don't find his perspective on Superman as intriguing as I found the idea behind Batman Inc.
One of the things that concerns me is that he's going to blur the line between Superman and Batman. I'm not saying it can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done.....I'm just concerned that in doing it, we're fundamentally changing the most iconic character in comics. For decades Superman has known that Luthor was the bad guy, but he respected the conventions of the United States legal system enough to operate within it. There is an implication in the article that Clark may now be willing to take the law into his own hands, or to decide what justice is for himself.
Doesn't that completely miss the mark?
Aren't we talking about dirtying Superman up a little bit, if that's where we take him?
What do I think of the article?
Honestly.....I'm concerned.
A few issues in...
So I've managed to work my way a few issues into both Flashpoint and Fear Itself, and so far.......Flashpoint is much more interesting.
I may be a bit of a mark for alternate reality stories though, so its probably not a fair comparison. DC went into this with the edge of writing the type of story that I'm often engaged by. What would have happened if Thomas Wayne had lived instead of Bruce? What would have happened if the U.S.A. had never won its independence? Would the world change if Barry Allen never became the Flash? The very idea of a complete re-imagining of the DC Universe under those standards is always intriguing.
Now Fear Itself hasn't been bad; it just hasn't been captivating. Sure, it's interesting to watch seven hammers of mythic power fall to Earth, and to see who will pick them up. Sure I'm confused by the gutless attitude of Odin, as he runs for cover like a chicken and looks around for a nuclear option. And yes, I will admit that I would like to get to the reveal and see the All-Father(s!!) collide. But other than that? So far this thing has too much fodder and not enough substance. 3 issues in and what I've learned should have been revealed in 1 issue. Seriously.
Where the difference stands for me is in the details.
On a large scale like event like Fear Itself, Crisis On Infinite Earths or Secret Invasion, I often find myself mired down in little details that I couldn't care less about. Side issues, and minor details in every book in the company don't mean a thing to me, and quite frankly I find that they detract from the bigger story. They also use it to draw out the space between the big moments in the story. Shouldn't the story itself be the big moment?
However in titles like Flashpoint (or Marvel 1602) I find the details equally engaging as the core story for a simple reason. They hold the same message. They say "this is how the world is different." It's the author revealing to me how the comic universe would have unfolded if his vision had been its guiding light. It's a very different experience for me. I want the minute details, and I scour every panel for them.
And that's really all it is for me. In a 'What If' or 'Elseworld' I want the details. In a mega-crossover event in core continuity, I find myself much more interested in the big picture. The 'real' story.
And in Fear Itself, I'm not getting enough of what I want.
I may be a bit of a mark for alternate reality stories though, so its probably not a fair comparison. DC went into this with the edge of writing the type of story that I'm often engaged by. What would have happened if Thomas Wayne had lived instead of Bruce? What would have happened if the U.S.A. had never won its independence? Would the world change if Barry Allen never became the Flash? The very idea of a complete re-imagining of the DC Universe under those standards is always intriguing.
Now Fear Itself hasn't been bad; it just hasn't been captivating. Sure, it's interesting to watch seven hammers of mythic power fall to Earth, and to see who will pick them up. Sure I'm confused by the gutless attitude of Odin, as he runs for cover like a chicken and looks around for a nuclear option. And yes, I will admit that I would like to get to the reveal and see the All-Father(s!!) collide. But other than that? So far this thing has too much fodder and not enough substance. 3 issues in and what I've learned should have been revealed in 1 issue. Seriously.
Where the difference stands for me is in the details.
On a large scale like event like Fear Itself, Crisis On Infinite Earths or Secret Invasion, I often find myself mired down in little details that I couldn't care less about. Side issues, and minor details in every book in the company don't mean a thing to me, and quite frankly I find that they detract from the bigger story. They also use it to draw out the space between the big moments in the story. Shouldn't the story itself be the big moment?
However in titles like Flashpoint (or Marvel 1602) I find the details equally engaging as the core story for a simple reason. They hold the same message. They say "this is how the world is different." It's the author revealing to me how the comic universe would have unfolded if his vision had been its guiding light. It's a very different experience for me. I want the minute details, and I scour every panel for them.
And that's really all it is for me. In a 'What If' or 'Elseworld' I want the details. In a mega-crossover event in core continuity, I find myself much more interested in the big picture. The 'real' story.
And in Fear Itself, I'm not getting enough of what I want.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
The Flight is back....
On July 1st, which is known north of the 49th parallel as Canada Day, I was sitting at a friend's in Mason, Ohio thumbing through my last two month's worth of comic books when I stumbled across the first couple of issues of Alpha Flight.
Since I was waiting for my girls (wife and daughter) to get ready to head out, I decided that there wasn't a much better way to spend some quality "Canada time" than seeing what the comics industry has brought us in this latest installment of the Flight.
Greg Pak, whose work over on Incredible Hulk in recent years has often been outstanding, is the name that gave me the incentive to explore the series for the first time since John Byrne wrote it. I've taken passing glances at other incarnations of the Flight, but I've always come away feeling like somebody was beating me over the head with Canadian stereotypes, and treating some incredibly diverse and rich characters like they were Wolverine's inbred relatives.
The big question was 'Would this time be different?'
I'm very pleased to report that the first two issues were good. Not great, but certainly good enough to necessitate a review of future issues and give Pak and crew an opportunity to fully flesh out the storyline that they have envisioned. I've no doubt that the foundation being laid with the focus on the Canadian National Election will provide us with a politically driven story that draws in past aspects of the title (like the Box armor attacking all of the team at once!)
There are two things about the issues that didn't sit well with me though.
First of all, it just doesn't feel very Canadian. I know the people over at AlphaFlight.net will disagree with me on that point, but that's alright. I could probably write an entire blog about how many little aspects of it just didn't feel right to me, but it would be a pretty boring report....and honestly, who outside of Canada would even care?
Secondly, it's only good. After years of terrible, the book needed a big victory. What it got was a small one. There are enough things wrong that you can nit-pick at it until the general impression of what's been accomplished is diminished, but you should try not to do that. Try and enjoy it for its improvement over past efforts, and for the potential that is laid out in the all to obvious foreshadowing.
I'll give it a 6.5.
Canada Day was a 10 by the way.
Greg Pak, whose work over on Incredible Hulk in recent years has often been outstanding, is the name that gave me the incentive to explore the series for the first time since John Byrne wrote it. I've taken passing glances at other incarnations of the Flight, but I've always come away feeling like somebody was beating me over the head with Canadian stereotypes, and treating some incredibly diverse and rich characters like they were Wolverine's inbred relatives.
The big question was 'Would this time be different?'
I'm very pleased to report that the first two issues were good. Not great, but certainly good enough to necessitate a review of future issues and give Pak and crew an opportunity to fully flesh out the storyline that they have envisioned. I've no doubt that the foundation being laid with the focus on the Canadian National Election will provide us with a politically driven story that draws in past aspects of the title (like the Box armor attacking all of the team at once!)
There are two things about the issues that didn't sit well with me though.
First of all, it just doesn't feel very Canadian. I know the people over at AlphaFlight.net will disagree with me on that point, but that's alright. I could probably write an entire blog about how many little aspects of it just didn't feel right to me, but it would be a pretty boring report....and honestly, who outside of Canada would even care?
Secondly, it's only good. After years of terrible, the book needed a big victory. What it got was a small one. There are enough things wrong that you can nit-pick at it until the general impression of what's been accomplished is diminished, but you should try not to do that. Try and enjoy it for its improvement over past efforts, and for the potential that is laid out in the all to obvious foreshadowing.
I'll give it a 6.5.
Canada Day was a 10 by the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)