nu52 - wk 3: Tradition!

First off, curse Graeme McMillan for showing me up, and lapping me like that! Scottish Bastich! Batman, GLC, LSH, Nightwing below

BATMAN #1: The darling of all of the critics, it seems, and I don't really get. It was fine, sure, but I liked pretty much everything about BATMAN, INC. much much better. Maybe it's just me. I sorta despaired up front with the Arkham breakout scene (seriously? Is there a bigger cliche in Batman stories right now?) with "Look it's all of Batman's foes, and he can beat them up, ALL AT ONCE!" Why then are any of them now a threat individually? I also found Bruce's plan to be gratingly patronizing, and inherently top-down and likely-to-fail. He should be smarter than that, at this point. I also thought the cliffhanger, while maybe amusing, was pretty internally illogical, considering Dick is starring in his own comics. I don't know, maybe a low GOOD? A high OK? I'm good either way...

GREEN LANTERN CORPS #1: Kind of more of the same, for this book, and one of the very few of the new 52 that, in my store, is only selling about the same, or maybe a little less, as the issue before (LEGION, below, would be the other one, so far) -- I liked the art, though, even if I didn't really need to see the alien internal cross-sections at the top of the issue. I really liked the coloring, especially, with the constructs seeming to have a different weight than everything else. All of the earth-bound stuff was dumb (really, explain why they want ongoing jobs, again?) I thought, overall, it was highly OK.

LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES: Urgle. Staggeringly bad. It even directly mentions Flashpoint. More than, maybe, any other book, this would have really been better with a "year one" kind of direction, rather than really just being #17 of the last series. AWFUL, and I like the Legion.

NIGHTWING #1: This, to me, is so completely unnecessary, because really what they should have done was just de-aged Dick back to being young one-and-only Robin. Instead, we have a Dick without a Titans (so he ultimately can't be the same character now, can he?), and he just staggers back o the only other thing we know about him: the circus. Yawn! I also how BATMAN #1 opens with Bruce beating all of his enemies at once, while the end of NIGHTWING #1 is Dick getting beaten by a super-generic guy with wolverine claws (!). No sir, I did not like it! AWFUL.

Tomorrow (ish): the final week!

As always, what did YOU think?

-B

Graeme Takes On The New 52. All At Once.

You know, before DC Comics so politely sent me the entire run of the New 52 launch issues, I don't think that I'd ever read an entire month's worth of a superhero universe before. I have to say, it's kind of exhausting. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to try and run down very quick capsule reviews of all 52 right here, right now, as Fatboy Slim once said many many years ago oh God I am so old. ACTION COMICS #1: In retrospect, maybe my favorite of all 52 books, this one feels like it actually understands how to reboot a concept without overwhelming the reader with information or assuming that they already know everything; Grant Morrison's script has some of his shorthand dialogue, but it's dense and filled with "action" throughout, and this feels like a satisfying chunk of comics that also lays the groundwork for future stories. Very Good.

ALL STAR WESTERN #1: It's heresy amongst the comicsinternet to admit that I'm not a massive fan of Justin Gray and Jimmy Palmiotti's Jonah Hex, but it's never really done a lot for me. That said, this felt solidly Good, setting up the new status quo for the character - and offering enough introduction to the character for new readers - with some really nice art by Moritat. I'm amused by yet another "Gotham is built upon conspiracy and evil" storyline so soon after last month's finale of Batman: Gates of Gotham, though.

ANIMAL MAN #1: Oh, this was so almost good. Jeff Lemire's writing is... good, I think, although I feel like he stumbles on the more domestic side of things here, and I like the subtle repositioning of this series as a horror book. But the art is just not serving the writing well at all; Travel Foreman can be an interesting stylist, but he ruins scenes here, most importantly - and, I think, damningly - the final page, which is robbed of its full impact by some weird staging that basically wastes the top half of the page. Also not helping, the inks by Dan Green (which veer between too heavy and almost weightlessly light) and some very dull, flat colors by Lovern Kindzierski. Eh, then, because of the art.

AQUAMAN #1: Yes, Geoff, I get it: Aquaman isn't a comedy punchline anymore. I would've preferred it if we'd had a chance to decide that for ourselves instead of suffering through the "blogger interview" midway through the book, but overall, this is a pretty Good first issue, setting out its pitch, introducing its characters and having a decent enough hook for the next few issues. That said, if you were reading Brightest Day, you pretty much know what's in here already; this is very much a continuation of what was happening with the character in that book.

BATGIRL #1: I don't know if this was flop sweat or something else, but this just didn't work as well as I'd been expecting it to. Maybe because it's so joyless, something that writer Gail Simone didn't seem to have a problem expressing with the character in Birds of Prey, but there really is something very... rushed and filled and self-important about this issue that made it feel like you were being hurriedly brought up to speed by someone who wanted you to know how serious everything was. World's dumbest cliffhanger, too. Eh.

BATMAN #1: Greg Capullo's art is surprisingly nice - Yes, a little too MacFarlane for my tastes, still, but what can you do? - and Scott Snyder's story is... I don't know. Nice, but somewhat slight, perhaps? I'll be coming back for a second issue, but I think that's more down to goodwill for the creative team than anything having particularly wowed me with this debut. Okay, I guess.

BATMAN AND ROBIN #1: Now this was much more my speed, perhaps because I enjoyed this version of Batman more - One who seems to be dealing with his trauma after X number of years processing survivor guilt as Batman, instead of just burying it - than the one in Batman or Detective (And, really, I can't believe that a linewide reboot didn't result in a slightly more consistent portrayal of Batman. He feels like a different character everytime he appears, like Superman. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me), or perhaps because there was more of an urgency on display here than in Snyder's title. Either way, Good, and a much better "first issue" than the last time Peter Tomasi and Pat Gleason took over the book.

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT #1: Talking of wildly varying characterizations, this book... uh... exists. I don't know what to say about it. If you want a generic Image-style take on Batman, complete with pouty mouths from David Finch and overdone dialogue by Paul Jenkins, this is for you, I guess. I was completely underwhelmed, and laughed out loud as the kids say at the reveal of "One-Face" at the end of the book, especially because he still has half of his face scarred. Awful, but I'm sure it'll have its audience. Oh, and Jaina Hudson is the new Jezebel Jet.

BATWING #1: The first of the "This was much better than I expected" books of the 52, I found myself drawn into this more than I'd thought I would. Maybe it was Judd Winick's take on the character and his secret identity (A cop working outside of the system, because the system is so corrupt), or perhaps it was Ben Oliver's lovely, weirdly hazily dream-like artwork, but this convinced me to try the second issue, which I really wouldn't have thought would've been the case. A low Good, perhaps, but I have to say: This feels much more like a mini-series than an ongoing, already.

BATWOMAN #1: This, however, was a letdown. Not because it wasn't Good, because it was. But I'd been expecting more, spoiled by Greg Rucka's run on Detective. The writing here - by artist JH Williams and co-writer Hayden Blackman - was fine, and hit all the right notes, but didn't surprise me or have the emotional depth that Rucka's had, and the art, while beautiful, also lacked the impact or purpose of the original run. Even though I'll be back for future issues, and even though I enjoyed this, I found myself disappointed nonetheless. That's what I get for having high expectations.

BIRDS OF PREY #1: I'm not sure why, but this felt like it had too much space in it, if that makes any sense. What's here is fine, it's a perfectly Okay comic book, but it feels too empty for some reason, like something is missing. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something isn't quite right, like it's only half of the intended story or something.

BLACKHAWKS #1: I love Mike Costa's Cobra series for IDW, which is why it depressed me so much to realize how much I didn't like this first issue (The art by Graham Nolan and Ken Lashley didn't help; it's overly busy and not quirky enough to make me want to keep paying attention). You can't fault him for throwing the reader in as everything's already happening, but I didn't find any character particularly interesting, mysterious or even distinctive enough to care about, and as a result, the whole thing left me cold. Awful, sadly.

BLUE BEETLE #1: On the podcast, I said this was like the Blue Beetle we had before, but less so. Tony Bedard and Ig Guara make all the right moves, but it lacks the heart or originality to make me want to come back for issue 2. Eh.

CAPTAIN ATOM #1: Hey, everyone who's always wished that there was a Doctor Manhattan solo title spinning out from Watchmen, now you have your dream book. Sadly, it's written by JT Krul - who ruins the goodwill he'd built up from an Okay first issue by ending with a stupid "Is Captain Atom about to die?" cliffhanger (It's his first issue, so I think that question answers itself) - but, on the plus side, the art by Freddie Williams II is very nice indeed. If it gets smarter in future issues, it could end up being worth checking back in with in future, I suspect.

CATWOMAN #1: Oh, man, haven't I said enough about this already? Cheesecakey pandering with a depressingly unsexy tone and annoyingly passive lead character. Awful.

DC UNIVERSE PRESENTS: DEADMAN #1: I swear to God, this is like a black hole in my brain. I have read this book multiple times, and it really refuses to stay in there. Pretty much the definition of Eh for me, although I'll say that Bernard Chang never really gets the credit for his work that he deserves. I'd love to see him paired with less garish colorists sometime.

DEATHSTROKE #1: Fun last-minute twist aside, there's little in this book that appeals: I don't care about the character or the machismo on display, and Joe Bennett has always been hit-or-miss (with an emphasis on the latter) for me. Eh.

DEMON KNIGHTS #1: Punny title aside, Paul Cornell pretty much won me over with the sense of humor on display in this one, much like Jon Rogers did the same in IDW's Dungeons and Dragons book (which this is oddly reminiscent of, it has to be said). Weirdly parochial, but all the better for it. Very Good.

DETECTIVE COMICS #1: Tony "Salvador" Daniel - Has he ever used his middle name before? - aims high and doesn't quite make it, but oh man, can you see him try. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, but there's nothing particularly right, either; it all feels familiar, and more workmanlike than previous attempts. Having Daniel be writer/artist on a Batbook when you also have David Finch doing the same elsewhere in the same franchise feels a bit weird to me, for some reason; I feel like Daniel comes off worse, even though he's better at deadlines and arguably better as a writer, too. Eh, and that's only because I wasn't as appalled by the final page as many were.

THE FLASH #1: After the disappointment of the last Flash run, color me shocked to have enjoyed this as much as I did. Francis Manapul's art is just great - that opening double page splash! The page of Barry in his apartment! - and it turns out that his writing (along with Brian Buccellato) is much faster-paced and more fun than Geoff Johns' on this book. I like the new Barry Allen, and love his relationship to Iris in this new continuity. More of this, please. Very Good.

FRANKENSTEIN, AGENT OF S.H.A.D.E. #1: Another frustratingly "almost" effort from Jeff Lemire - I know where he's going! I just wish he'd made it there! - with equally frustrating art from Alberto Ponticelli, which is just a little too scratchy for its own good (and, like Travel Foreman in Animal Man, a little off in the framing when it really counts). There's a lot to like here, so I'm tempted to put this down to first issue nerves and hope that this book ends up sorting itself out down the line. That said, this is Okay, and I think that the just-finished Xombi played in the same sandbox in a much more entertaining and original way...

THE FURY OF FIRESTORM THE NUCLEAR MEN #1: Of the two Gail Simone books this month, this is the more enjoyable, but it has almost as much crammed into it as Batgirl, leading to a weirdly claustrophobic feeling. That said, I like the new spin on the concept (and the title), and wonder where, exactly, we're going from the end of this issue. Is this going to be DC's second attempt at doing a Hulk book? Yildiray Cinar's art is weirdly reminiscent of Francis Manipul's as far as the inks go, but I'm not sure if it fits here just yet... All in all, an Okay start, but with the potential for either greatness or creative dead-ending within the year.

GREEN ARROW #1: It's as if JT Krul, Dan Jurgens and George Perez set out to create the most generic, boring superhero book imaginable... and succeeded. Crap.

GREEN LANTERN #1: Considering how self-important (and self-conscious) this title had become before the relaunch, it's surprising that Geoff Johns and Doug Mahnke manage to essentially play this first issue for laughs and get away with it. Good, although I found myself wishing that the last page had been held back for a few months, if only because I really enjoyed seeing dick Hal Jordan so much.

GREEN LANTERN CORPS #1: I was always going to be a sucker for this book; John Stewart and Guy Gardner are my favorite Green Lanterns, Peter Tomasi's previous run on the title was something I really enjoyed, and there's no Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner to harsh my buzz. Sure enough, I really dug this; uberviolent opening aside, I appreciated the "this is where our leads are" intros before the mystery was revealed, and the final page felt weighty and dramatic enough to bring me back next issue. Sure, Fernando Pasarin's art feels like a little bit of a letdown after that Doug Mahnke cover, but it's still pretty great in a "Bryan Hitch but more approachable" way. Very Good, for me.

GREEN LANTERN: NEW GUARDIANS #1: And then there's this. This is just a bit of mess, whether it's the loss of the "some time ago" caption at the opener explaining that the book opens with a flashback, or the failure to really explain who all the different Lantern characters are, it seems sloppy and at odds with the other Lantern books, and Tyler Kirkham's art doesn't necessarily help, either. Awful.

GRIFTER #1: Finally answering that eternal fanboy question "What do you get if you cross Sawyer from Lost with ROM, Space Knight," this is Okay for those of you who enjoy this kind of thing; Nathan Edmonson's script is a bit light on explaining things, but I suspect that's intentional, and CAFU's art seems too polite for the story being told for my tastes. I don't know; there's nothing wrong with it, but there's also nothing that feels especially compelling about it, either, if that makes sense. I think Fringe probably does this kind of thing better, really.

HAWK & DOVE #1: I wanted to like this book so much, and then Rob Liefeld couldn't stop himself reminding me that he's a terrible, terrible artist. Everything happens at crazy angles! People's mouths change size without explanation! Everyone looks permanently in pain because of all the scratches on their bodies! It's a shame, because you get the feeling that Sterling Gates is really trying to work with Liefeld's energy, but he's overwhelmed by it on this issue. Truly, unhappily Awful.

I, VAMPIRE #1: On the plus side, Andrea Sorrentino could pass as fake Jae Lee if the position ever opens up. On the minus side, this is worryingly murky in terms of story (and storytelling; it's not just Joshua Hale Fialkov's script here, the art really does it no favors), and reads like someone's idea of doomed romance a la Twilight, but even more melodramatic. I'm sure there is a massive audience for this, but I found it pretty Eh at best.

JUSTICE LEAGUE #1: Hey, remember when everyone was talking about this book? Well, not much has changed since then. I like it, for what it is; I like dick Hal Jordan, I think there's a reasonably strong mystery introduced and I don't care that the entire team isn't in there despite the cover. But I'd be lying if I said I thought it was more than just Good; there were other books that the relaunch could have led with that seem better suited for all-new readers and a heavy media blitz.

JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK #1: It's not quite Shade Peter Milligan - or, for that matter, Secret Seven Milligan - but there's the potential for getting there with this opener (I really liked the perversity of the Kathy reveal), and Mikel Janin's art is lovely. Slightly underwhelming, I've got a lot of faith that this Good first issue will turn out to be a very good series.

JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL #1: Potentially Green Arrow's main competitor in the "most generic superhero comic" race - And Dan Jurgens is involved with this one, as well! Clearly, this is karma for killing Superman twenty years ago - this just feels like a subpar fill-in to a comic from some point in the 1980s, complete with inexplicable Margaret Thatcher cameo appearance. Considering the potential for a JLI series spinning out of the surprisingly strong Generation Lost mini, this is a tiny bit heartbreaking. Awful.

LEGION LOST #1: The good: Pete Woods' art is just amazing here, really, really great stuff. The bad: Unless you're a Legion fan already, this is likely entirely impenetrable stuff. I love the Legion, and this almost made no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't help that important things happen off-panel (So, Timber Wolf just picked up the bad guy and no-one tried to stop him?), the characters have no real introduction and just way too much happens to let the reader have any time to make sense of it on first, second or even third reading, because there's not enough space in the book for everything. What it ends up as, then, is a good-looking mess. That's what we call Awful round these here parts.

LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES #1: I've really, really tried to convince myself that New Levitz Legion is just like Old Levitz Legion, but I think this is the issue when I realized I couldn't keep it up. I'm unsure whether it's Levitz or his circumstance, but everything feels so jumpy and fractured that there's no chance - or, it seems, space - to build up the long running soap operatics that I loved the first time around, with everything ending up sacrificed for whatever big storyline that I find myself uninterested in. Eh as much as I wish it were otherwise.

MEN OF WAR #1: Someone, somewhere, found this to be more than some generic "Are you really a man?" cliches wrapped around a superhero mystery, but it wasn't me. Awful, and the back-up strip was even worse.

MISTER TERRIFIC #1: Another book that I really, really wanted to like - Although that's almost entirely down to the original release info containing the hilariously melodramatic line about him fighting "science gone bad!" - and the actual book... kind of lived up to my expectations, perhaps? There's a lot to like here (The new origin, with a time travel mystery replacing the Spectre's telling him "Hey, that white guy? You should rip him off," for example), but it doesn't come together properly, and ends with a cliffhanger that just makes no sense in a first issue ("Is this character acting weird? How would you know! You've just met him. Tune in next month to find out if he is or not!"). But... Again, maybe it's goodwill, but even though this was just Okay, I'm holding out hope for better soon.

NIGHTWING #1: I came to really like Dick Grayson when he was Batman, so why do I find almost everything in his new title feeling like it's a step backwards? Whether it's Dick visiting the circus again, or telling us how good it is to feel like himself, all of it feels more forced and less genuine than it should. Eh, and most of my fondness for the character disappears entirely as he disappears behind a pile of dialogue and sentiment we've heard before.

OMAC #1: If it wasn't for Superboy, this might have been the best surprise of all 52 books. Somehow, Keith Giffen and Dan Didio manage to channel Kirby's sense of fun, if not his sense of originality - This is a reboot of an existing concept, after all - by smooshing together Office Space, the Hulk and the original OMAC to come up with something that feels like it owes as much to Giffen's own Ambush Bug as it does Kirby, and it... weirdly... works. It's very much not for everyone, but I think that's true of the original OMAC as well. It's an odd feeling to think that Dan Didio came up with one of the most individual and arguably the most fun of all of the New 52 books, but there you go. Very Good, and long may it stick around.

RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS #1: I think we can also file under "Things I've said too much about," but short version: Not for me even before we hit the "Starfire is an amnesiac bimbo nymphomanic" thing. Crap.

RED LANTERNS #1: If Ed Benes wasn't drawing this book, I have the strangest feeling I would have actually liked it, because Peter Milligan's script - or, more properly, his narration - is weirdly compelling here, and feels oddly subversive to all the Geoff Johnserisms in the scenes surrounding it. If he ends up carrying that further in future issues, I could see this becoming a sleeper hit for the the cool kids who are perfectly okay with women who can twist their bodies to simultaneously show off their butts and their breasts at the same time. Eh, with chances for better later.

RESURRECTION MAN #1: Clearly, it's books dealing with life after death that I have a problem with. Like the Deadman book, this one also barely registers after multiple re-reads. Eh, then.

THE SAVAGE HAWKMAN #1: For everyone who ever thought "What would make Hawkman awesome would be if his armor and wings came out through his pores like Warren Ellis' Iron Man!" then this is apparently the book for you. For the rest of us, this is a book where Hawkman tries to burn his costume for some unknown reason, then gets attacked by it, and then it turns out it's living inside him or something. It really is as bad as it sounds, although Philip Tan's watercolor art is rather nice in places. Awful, though.

STATIC SHOCK #1: It's modern Spider-Man, with the rest of the Milestone universe seemingly playing the supporting cast. It's surprising just how ready I was for that book, without ever realizing it. Good, although I'm already worried about it, now that we know that John Rozum is off the book by #4.

STORMWATCH #1: Like Batgirl, it's possible that this book fails because the writer was far too aware of what they had to do; there's too much empty exposition in this issue, and it's an issue that needed useful exposition. Paul Cornell doesn't quite catch the tone of Warren Ellis' characters, and the disconnect is obvious in a way that isn't obvious; no-one sounds quite right, and everything feels off-kilter as a result. It's a book that simultaneously feels dense and sparse, and Miguel Sepulveda's art, static and heavy, doesn't help with that feeling. A low Eh, and it should be much better.

SUICIDE SQUAD #1: Forget skinny Amanda Waller; this book has way bigger problems. You know, things like an awkward structure (Not helped by multiple artists working on the same issue), a ridiculous set-up and thoroughly flat characterization throughout. Disappointingly Awful.

SUPERBOY #1: I was genuinely surprised by how much this book feels like science-fiction instead of a superhero book, at least in this first issue, and how there's an interesting lack of moral certainty at show just yet (I'm sure that'll change in time). With RB Silva's clean art and Scott Lobdell's strongest script for the relaunch by far, this is Good stuff.

SUPERGIRL #1: This is also surprisingly Good. A complete reboot for the character, and a chance to start from a personality closer to Sterling Gates' work with the character - Probably the character's most recent high point - instead of the wishy-washiness of the origins of the previous version, this issue isn't showy in the slightest, but gets the job done nonetheless.

SUPERMAN #1: Oh, oh, oh. Oh, Superman. I guess, if nothing else, this issue does provide an alternative to Action Comics, mainly in that Action was really good, and this isn't. Where to start? The confusing opening (Is the new Daily Planet built? It would appear so on page 2, but I'm still not sure if that was meant to be a glimpse into the future or not. If it had been rebuilt, would the previous site still have the remains of the old one?), the hilarious scenes of Lois et al discussing journalism ("Print is dying!"), Clark being bitter and mean to Lois, the genuinely horrible examples of Clark's journalism... There is so much wrong with this issue, but primarily I think the underlying structure is the biggest problem: Too much is, again, forced into too small a space, and this time, it's combined with a super brawl that is neither exciting or even interesting, leaving the impression that Superman's life is dull, full of sniping arguments and a ham-fisted idea of how journalism works. It's a mess, and one not saved by Jesus Merino's sterling attempts on art. Awful, and maybe the biggest disappontment of the bunch.

SWAMP THING #1: Talking of wordy, this is another overly-verbose book that could've easily dialed back the exposition to sensible levels and become infinitely better as a result (The whole Superman scene in particular felt unnecessary). That said, like Animal Man, the horror tone works and there's definite potential here. Okay, but greedily, I wanted more.

TEEN TITANS #1: It's a slow start, true, but I'll admit to being sucked in to Scott Lobdell's plan of essentially running one story between this and Superboy - although that final scene in both books has different dialogue and staging in some parts, which seems a completely avoidable mistake to me - and enjoyed this much more than I was expecting from early previews. A high Okay - I still have my issues with Brett Booth's art, I'm sorry - and I might even keep going on this, at least until the entire team is together.

VOODOO #1: You know, deep within this book, there's an interesting idea about an alien invasion happening in plain sight, with the alien as the central character. But getting there in this case means working through a lot of gender politics that's trying to have its cake and eat it at the same time ("Yeah, this is cheesecake, but look, the strippers are real women with class and babysitter problems and shit! But here's some more T&A anyway!"), and... I'm just not interested, ultimately. Awful.

WONDER WOMAN #1: Holy crap, it's the last book. I was beginning to think this would never end. And it's ending on a high note, too; sure, Brian Azzarello's script is sharp and fast-paced (if a little short on explanations, but there's time for those later), but this is entirely Cliff Chiang's show, and he doesn't even vaguely fail to deliver. This is a wonderful looking book - Matt Wilson's colors help considerably - and all the moreso because there's nothing else like it on the DC stands right now. The mythical quality of the story seems on a different scale to all the other New 52 books as well, and the strong individuality of the book makes it feel more like an event... and that's a nice feeling for a Wonder Woman book to have. Very Good, and one of the best books of the line so far.

Now, as the saying goes: What did you think?

nu52 - wk 3: Girls, Girls, Girls!

Mm-hm I'm sure you've already read Laura Hudson's piece, because I'm hardly the first person to link to it, but just in case.... go read it.

BIRDS OF PREY #1: Hrm. Well, it didn't totally suck, to be certain, but I also didn't feel it at all. There's a lot of talking about stuff, but little of it made a ton of sense to me. Canary's wanted for murder? Who is this Starling girl? Why is Poison Ivy on the cover of this comic? Isn't BC still a JLer? Or not? Was she ever even seeing Ollie Queen, ever? If not, then what was her original motivation for joining BoP, then? Why did Barbara hand BC a photo of Katana? No, seriously, why didn't she email it? For that matter, why isn't she over the moon interested in joining BC's team?

This was like stepping into a theater 20 minutes after a movie began, then having to leave 40 minutes before it ended. And I don't think I care enough to figure it all out. EH.

CATWOMAN #1: Hrm.

OK, well, let's deal with the sex thing first: I don't care if Bruce and Selina have sex... and I generally expect that they do quite often. I don't really need to see it, though, and if I do, I really don't need to see it in all of it's stroky, frotagey, half-costumed glory.

My functional problem with this is that not only are ratings CLEARLY being applied inconsistently cross-line, but they are in no way clearly labeled on the outside of the book, either. You look at the cover of Catwoman #1 and can you immediately discern that, maybe, 8-point type "+" symbol? Now pretend you haven't read a comic book in years, would you even know to look for it?

But here you go: would DC editorial EVER let the reverse of that scene happen in a comic book featuring Batman's name on the cover? Especially in the first issue of a major repositioning? And since that answer is almost certainly "no", this automatically becomes an inappropriate scene.

Honestly, these characters are children's characters, and the fact that we, as mature adults can find enjoyable things about them, it really kind of bugs me how much we making adults-only things that should be accessible to children. More of that a bit later, me thinketh.

Now, having said all of THAT, otherwise I kind of LOVED this comic book -- because I thought the places where it was being sexy (instead of sexual) were just terrific. Recasting Selina as almost a James Bond scenario worked very well, and Guillem March's artwork? Damn, it's nice. Sleek, sensual, dynamic, wow, brother can draw. If it wasn't for nearly the descent into FanFic right there on the last few pages, I'd probably be saying this comic was GOOD. Possibly even VERY GOOD.  But FanFic it became there at the end, and that's just not right for Batman of all characters, and it makes me say instead the whole thing became AWFUL.

RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS #1:  So, take all of that dialogue read by Starfire in this, and picture it coming from the mouth of this:

Mm.

TINY TITANS comes out the same week as RED HOOD, ironically.

Starfire is not, I don't think, so robust a character as to be able to hang on to two such disparate versions at the same time.

More generally, the rebooting done for Kori here is kind of insane -- she doesn't remember her time on the titans at all? WTF? This Roy Harper is not the robot-armed dead-cat swinger with a mass-murdering terrorist for a babymama? I'm assuming he can't be Ollie Queen's ward any longer, since Ollie appears to be dramatically re-aged. This Red Hood? Who is he? I mean, yes "Jason Todd", but not one we know, since he seems to have all of these connections to some mysterious society of some kind? This is why you need to have origin stories, damn it!

I think that what the JSA was to DC after CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS ("Well, we have one world now, but that makes these guys WAY TOO OLD to fight crime now, plus Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman  [among many others touched by JSA] can't have ever been involved in the past, oh my god none of our continuity can make sense any more!") is what the Teen Titans are to post-FLASHPOINT DC continuity. You simply can't have multiple groups  of kid sidekick teams if you're trying to de-age everyone... but those characters are also fairly popular, so they're trying to keep the viable somehow... it's a real knot of a problem, and it's really on display here.

I loathed the continuity changes on display here, and don't find them in service of creating more appealing characters or more interesting situations. The "hey my head looks like a penis" jokes were amusing, I guess, but other than that, nothing here that I'd want to read. Sadly AWFUL.

SUPERGIRL #1: This one is an origin, at least, but frustratingly decompressed, so that really "she lands and beats on some guys in robot suits" is really the sum of your $3 purchase. Not poorly done, but less than I wanted for my ducats. EH.

WONDER WOMAN #1: Right, so I have a fellow member of Ben's school PTA who got sucked into the DC relaunch, probably because he's on the PTA with me, y'know? Long-ago lapsed reader (like from when he was a teenager), and today he's a tech geek with disposable income, kind of the perfect demographic they're aiming at. Anyway, he's been excited for weeks for Wonder Woman #1, because he was really really looking forward to sharing it with his eight year old daughter.

So, it really kind of killed me when I had to inform him that, in no way, could WW even slightly be considered appropriate for his daughter. Not with graphic on-camera beheading of a horse, where a new creature claws it's way out of the horse's fountaining neck.

Just what girls like!

The thing is? That scene, IMO, could have happened exactly as written, yet been drawn in such a way that it didn't immediately make itself inaccessible to the nation's 8 year olds.

You may certainly call me an old grandmother, but I firmly am of the opinion that monthly ongoing comics featuring Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, the Flash, Wonder Woman, and Aquaman should be freely no-hesitation accessible by imagery for eight year olds and younger. That doesn't mean the stories have to be WRITTEN FOR an eight year old -- few of the comics *I* was reading in 1975 were -- but a kid should be able to LOOK at them without having nightmares (well...), or offending their parents.

Having said that, I really loved WW #1 -- great strong script from Brian Azzarello, loverly art by Cliff Chiang, and what appears to be an interesting contemporary direction. As a comic for ME? An easy VERY GOOD.

But I'd like my PTA cohort's daughter, and, hell, everyone's daughter, also be able to look at the comic too. That isn't too much to ask, is it?

As always, what do YOU think?

-B

nu52 - wk 3: Three that pleasently surprised me

Remember what I said last week about sometimes the most interesting stuff in the DCU was sitting at the fringes? Yeah, that.

BLUE BEETLE #1: as far as I am concerned, this is the first "proper" first issue of the entire bunch released so far. It's an origin story. It clearly sets up the protagonist and who he is and what he wants, as well as doing so for at least one antagonist (the suit, itself), AND an entire supporting cast! It made me want to see more when I got to the last page. Yeah, yeah, this was EXCELLENT and exactly what every one of these 52 should have been like: a complete "you've never seen this before" reboot that establishes the character completely on their own -- neither of the two prior versions appear to have "ever happened". That's clear, that's understandable, completely straight forward, and pretty fun. My one quibble is the constant switching between spanish and english -- it doesn't really work on the page for me. But, yeah, really a perfect first issue of a superhero comic. A pleasant surprise for Tony Bedard, a write who has not made me enthusiastic in the past.

CAPTAIN ATOM #1: Basically it is more DOCTOR MANHATTAN: THE COMIC BOOK (which is really kind of funny, considering), but yeah I liked this just fine, too. There's no origin here, we're eight months into his career here, if I'm reading that clock thing correctly, and I'm still not entirely sure the who and the what of everything -- there's the Doctor Megala from the Cary Bates run, but there isn't any General Eiling that I noticed, is he "Captain Adam", then? Or is it something else entirely? I couldn't quite get why the clock did what it did (it wasn't always forward counting), and I don't necessarily feel for the protagonist yet, but yeah it was different in tone and mood and style than anything else in the 52 so far. There was also an intermittent effect (that I'm not 100% sure was intentional?) from Freddie Williams II, where CA himself is the only thing at times that looks "solid" while all the normal people have kind of hazy outlines. If it WAS intentional, then good job and nice counterpoint, but maybe make it a little more explicit. I want to rate this stronger than just GOOD, but I can't quite make the leap to add the "very", but either way I thought it worth a sample, at least.

DC UNIVERSE PRESENTS #1: Or what it should really be called: DEADMAN #1. This is only on for six or something? Well, I'm there for this run. It's an interesting piece -- it goes straight back to the original story, but leaves nicely ambiguous what might or might not have happened in the meantime. My reading of the story says probably BRIGHTEST DAY didn't occur for this character, and he's certainly not dating Dove. We've talked before about how, in some ways, these books are a series of of cheap R&D "and here's how this can be a TV show", and DEADMAN scores wonderfully on that front, going straight for a "Quantum Leap meets Medium" (Maybe? I've never seen the latter?) high concept that is wonderfully additive to any story that came before, yet while honoring them as possible any way. Excellent excellent job of threading that particular needle, Paul Jenkins! This was a VERY GOOD comic, I thought.

That's me... what did YOU think?

-B

7 Questions about Images On the Internet of the Final Pages of Catwoman #1

SPOILER WARNING.

According to the internet, the final pages of CATWOMAN #1 by Judd Winick and Guillem March focus upon a tenderly erotic scene of The Batman and Catwoman having aggressive sex, which is apparently a thing that they show in the comics these days.

So, after looking at these images-- and/or having stared longingly, however you want to phrase it... (and not having read any other comics lately to write about for this site since I'm not really reading comics at the moment, for various my-time-is-limited reasons not worth getting into here)... but so, yeah:   I have questions.

Here's an image of one panel, courtesy of Scans_Daily--

Question One.  When Catwoman says "Still... it doesn't take long...", what does that line mean exactly?  Is she... Is she implying that The Batman orgasms really fast, like right away, like maybe even in his bat-underwear?

I don't know-- on the one hand, I'd like to think that The Batman would have more control than that because ... because he's super-aware of his body or he has super-discipline over his body, after being trained by ninjas and Liam Neeson.

On the other hand, The Batman's a regular guy and maybe we should all accept that, you know, that's a thing that happens to regular guys, especially if they've had a couple Zima's, and they're young and they're not really sure what's going on, and they don't really like the Daves Matthews Band but one of their songs is playing and why am I crying?

My point is The Batman's not Superman-- the very fact he's not invincible  is what makes him The Batman instead of  Superman, right?  So if we agree that's the fundamental appeal of The Batman is his inherent vulnerability, then maybe The Batman having a problem with premature ejaculation, maybe that makes him ever more The Batman.

Question Two.  Why is Catwoman tweaking his Bat-ears with her hands?  Does she think he can feel that?  What is going on there? Do people who live in the DCU think The Batman has a deformed skull or...?  What is that?

And since this is a thing that happens in real life-- since you know and I know that people have definitely, definitely, definitely dressed up in those costumes and had sex in the bathroom of comic conventions, at least Dragon*Con because that one's in Hotlanta and the heat and the sweat and the Bat-a-rangs, it's probably just like that movie Body Heat except ever so slightly more Batmanish... when that happens in real life,  do you think teasing the Bat-ears is a thing that, like, the guy actively requests?  "Play with the Bat-ears."  Am I the only one who hears that in their head when they look at that image?  And also: how do I stop hearing that oh god how do i stop hearing it?

Question Three.  Here we have the cliffhanger of the comic, which is The Batman having his nipples played with.  Why are people who create Bat-comics so fixated on his nipples?

The classic Neal Adams shot-- The Batman, shirtless, nipples surrounded by thick swaths of chest hair...

... to the present, with Chris Sprouse and Grant Morrison, and nipples.  At the outset of his run, Morrison promised fans a return to the "hairy-chested love god" years of Adams, Bat-nipples thus pivotal to the early promotional efforts for his run...

Can you think of any major film franchise that has ever been as defined by its main character's nipples as Batman has?  Think of poor Joel Schumacher.  If you google "Schumacher" and "Batman" and "nipple," you get 241,000 results.  If you google "Schumacher" and "Tigerland" (i.e. the Veitnam-era drama that Schumacher directed, in which he arguably discovered Colin Farrell)... I only get 140,000 results.  Joel Schumacher's entire film career has Batman's nipples inexorably at its center, like a tittified Scylla and Charybdis. (If Joel Schumacher has a third nipple, let's agree to call it Rudolph).

At what point when you're deep in the Batman mythology, deep in the lore, at what point does the siren song of The Batman's nipples drag you to a watery grave? I ask you.

I note here, for the record, that when The Batman was defeated by Bane in the 90's, the Knightfall creators were certain to show you Bane's nipples on the comics' cover, as if to suggest that only a villain with larger nipples than Batman was man enough to defeat The Batman.

Question Four. If you have a problem with this scene, if you're not a fan of this scene-- if this were drawn better and written better, would this have worked for you?  Is the problem for you one of CONCEPT or EXECUTION?  In the words of Val Kilmer in the Oscar-winning film Real Genius, "would you qualify that as a launch problem or a design problem?"

(My pet theory is that for a sex scene in comics, you want to go with smaller panels.  See, Chaykin's work in American Flagg #3, your better scenes from Guido Crepax, Fantastic Four #23, the Steranko Nick Fury/Contessa scene, etc.  Pet theory.  Creepy, creepy pet theory.)

Question Five. As part of this whole DC-Nu 52, whatever this is called, this is probably one of the most  heavily advertised and promoted comics that Judd Winick has written in recent memory, since at least 2000's Pedro & Me. Every  issue of the DC-Nu launch titles is being reviewed a million times over, by every comic site under the sun, this one included.  Plus, video interviews on MTV's website ("We're getting back to the essence of what Catwoman is")(?).  Plus, TV commercials, media coverage, etc.  And yet, in response to that opportunity, this is the direction Winick went in-- exploitation fare that might get a certain kind of fan talking, rather than attempting to sell himself as a writer of any substance.

Question: if Winick tomorrow were to try to launch a serious, artistic series, after his career at DC, after material like the foregoing, an original series which he tried to sell as the effort of a quote-unquote "real" writer, would you be willing to ... to "believe" him?

You know, Winick's doing his job.  This will probably sell some comics-- it's my recollection that there was a decent-sized audience in the 90's for sexy crap, and since most of the DC relaunch is rooted in the 90's aesthetic... Heck, might work; might work.  But can you put your name on this kind of thing and remain untainted by it?  A lot of people in comics-- they're doing the jobs of selling comics. Sometimes, maybe that job's not so pretty.  To be honest, I think of Judd Winick as being a joke... but maybe I think that based upon material that to some extent calls for him to be a joke...? Are you able to separate that out when-- when they ask you to?  I know with other people, I've struggled with that; I've had that reaction of "Oh, now you really mean it; well, ain't I lucky", and so.

But this is how the guy used this bigger stage he's on, so maybe any ambition in Winick died a long time ago; maybe the question is moot.  On the other hand, he states in interviews that the defining characteristic of his writing is "edginess" (!), so maybe hope springs eternal.

Related: when you imagine them creating this scene, do you imagine those inset panels zooming in on Batman's hand were in some kind of script, all typed out, or added in by an artist trying to find ways to "spice up" the scene?  Which is worse?  Is there any way to say that one of those things is worse than the other in this particular case?

Question Six.  Why does the Batman have to be such a shitty fuck-buddy to Catwoman?  "Angry" and "gives in"--?  Why can't the Batman just be a fucking cool bro, like Ashton Kutcher in that one movie, instead of hate-fucking broken girls?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbDEconEcAM

Is it that fans want The Batman to, like, punish crime with his cock?

Question Seven.  So, we have some images that seem to have been designed to "get people talking", and here I am talking about them.  To what extent am I complicit? To what extent have I tainted myself by association?  With every "you're wasting all of our time creating worthless shit" greeted with "the fact you care we make terrible shit incessantly is proof that we've done the job of making you care," how much am I myself guilty of distracting you from your life?

nu52 - Week 2: Tights

Last one for week 2! Just in time for week three!

LEGION LOST #1: Wow, didn't work on any level. Wretchedly bad, and not clear as to who was what and which was who. The only New 52 book so far that I've actually REDUCED my order for #2, because #1 flopped. It didn't even sell as well as the last regular issue of Levitz's LSH.  AWFUL.

RESURRECTION MAN #1: OK, so maybe not "tights", but I didn't know where else to put this one. Didn't care much, anyway -- very EH, but, then, so was the original series.

SUPERBOY #1: Well, way way better than I could have possibly expected, but still ultimately not something that I'm going to care about too much -- this kind of setup might be good for 4-6 issues, maybe, but I wonder what the actual comic book could possibly be like, like by issue #12. I probably won't be staying along long enough to find out though... OK.

OK, done -- I know I rushed here at the end, but what's to say about stuff you don't care about, so much?

Come back Thursday for the start of week 3!

As always, what did YOU think?

-B

nu52 - Wk 2: Men and Other Monsters

Four this time: Death, Demons, Original Monsters, and Suicide.

(man, this commitment to review all 52 of these is really a slog! Not quite halfway!)

DEATHSTROKE #1: I don't think it will be much of a surprise to say "I didn't like that", but I guess I'm not certain who a TITANS-less Deathstroke is for?

Actually, no, let me amend that, because Deathstroke tied to the Titans was always somewhat sad -- he's supposed to be a major bad-ass, master strategist, and so on, and a kid in red hot pants always lead his defeat. Sad, really.

But, Deathstroke without the Titans is kinda "just" a "bad-ass mercenary", and those are kind of a dime a dozen. Especially in comics. So, for me, this needs something to clearly separate it from that pack -- a visual, a sensahumor, dunno, something. Didn't find anything like that here, just an amorality contest, which had the impact of rendering the character thoroughly unlikely (especially with that punchline) -- interestingly, this is the first of the 52 I've read that doesn't even try for a cliffhanger ending.

As a comic, I thought it was pretty AWFUL. As part of a linewide rebranding effort to create pitches for adaptation into TV shows, I thought it was OK.

  DEMON KNIGHTS #1: This one, on the other hand, I thought worked admirably -- disparate pre-gunpowder heroes thrown together as a team with plenty of funny and action, and I thought the "here's who I am and where's my power set" stuff all worked here in a way it simply didn't in Cornell's STORMWATCH. Probably because of the time period. Anyway, yeah, liked it a lot, it's in my personal top three so far. A solid VERY GOOD.

FRANKENSTEIN AGENT OF SHADE #1: Loved the setup, the idea machine, the worldbuilding, the characters, but I was very very iffy on the art. I want to see more of this book, but I'd like to see it with a cleaner and sleeker style Overall however: GOOD stuff, Maynard.

SUICIDE SQUAD #1: But we have to end this patch on a down note: ew.

The original (well, OK, the second version -- the Ostrander version) Suicide Squad worked so well because of character interaction. I, for one, never really cared about the specifics of the missions or the plot -- it was all about broken broken people rattling around in a barrel half-filled with napalm or some other metaphor there I'm not getting quite right. I guess I mean that they were at least as dangerous to each other as they were threatened by the storyteller. That's a kind of magic of good writing, when the characters can kind of write themselves.

I don't want to totally write this off with JUST the first issue, but judging  from this one, no, this is all about the plothammer. Before I had turned to page two I had guessed what the twist was going to be. I don't mind brutality and torture in my comics, but I'm not a big fan of gratuitous brutality and torture.

Plus when I got to that last page shot of Amanda Waller? I threw up a little in my mouth. So, yeah, AWFUL from me.

Whew, just one more to go.... and then I'm just at the halfway point? *moan*

As always, what did YOU think?

-B

nu52 - wk 2: The Self-Made

All the super-power-less characters -- two Bats, a grifter, and the terrific.

BATMAN & ROBIN #1: Much like the Lantern books, this really read to me like "the next issue of B&R". I did like the impatient Damien scenes while Bruce explains how his message should be about life and not death, but other than that, this was a pretty standard-form bat-comic. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I have very little to say, other than... OK.

BATWOMAN #1: I had a real shudder of pure joy upon reading this. Man, is it agonizingly beautiful! It also felt to me just packed fulla content, but maybe that's because I was lingering so long with so many of the pages. J. H. Williams is an incredibly exceptional artist, and his writing is perfectly fine as well. Either way, this is the second of the nu52 which I loved loved loved -- this was purely EXCELLENT win, all the way, through and through, and we hope for a long long life for this title.

GRIFTER #1: "It's THEY LIVE starring 'Sawyer' from LOST!" was probably the pitch? Though, actually, when I heard the premise the first time, MY flash was to ROM, SPACE-KNIGHT, because what are these mark-2 Daemonites except for effectively being Dire Wraiths? Not to keep harping on the continuity thing, but I have a pretty hard time understanding how a "timeline merge" transforms the very fundamental nature of an entire species? Annnnnnyway, as a way of preserving a trademark, when you can't keep any of the individual bits of that trademark other than (I guess) the mask and the name, I thought this did a perfectly adequate job. But, this doesn't feel like a "comic" to me -- it feels like a pitch for a weekly TV show that just happens to be in comic form. None of that is bad, per se, nor is the comic bad, but I'm not so sure this one can or will sustain itself past twelve issues or so? All in all, I thought it was perfectly EH.

MISTER TERRIFIC #1: I am, for the life of me, wondering just what the hell this was all about. The meta stuff, I mean. Did someone already have a MT pitch in hand that the serial numbers could be filled off of easily? Was it 4 am in the last days before they had to announce the books, and they were at book #51, and no one could come up with any better, so they just said "sure, sounds great!" Was it that someone argued there had to be a JSA-connection somewhere, even though there couldn't be an actual JSA?

MT *is* certainly an unique character -- a smart, technologically-competent black man who is also an atheist -- that's cool, not something you really see in media anywhere is it? But once you remove the legacy aspects of the JSA connection, I think the seams really start to show. Seriously, what grown man (seriously, especially a black man) is going to call himself "Mister Terrific", without it being a legacy name? Same thing with the "Fair Play" : I liked that on a Golden Age character, just the same way I liked Ma Hunkle with the souppot on her head becoming "the Red Tornado", but that's seriously NOT a c21 name.

Even putting that all aside, I really didn't like this comic very much -- I thought "The third smartest man" (who, um, is actually Amadeus Cho) was written pretty dumb -- in a way that a lack of specificity there wouldn't have bothered me; and a non-visual power for your antagonist like the mind or emotion control here is largely anti-superhero comics. Lots and lots of set-up, no real payoffs, I was pretty disapointed.

What's... well not funny, but not really ironic either, dunno the right term really... is that I was opining to several customers, in the weeks before any of these books coming out, that I was holding out the most hope for the "odd" books like GRIFTER or MISTER TERRIFIC because, historically, the best comics DC publishes tend to come from the fringes where you didn't expect anything whatsoever. Things like Morrison's ANIMAL MAN, or Ostrander's SUICIDE SQUAD, or the Cary Bates CAPTAIN ATOM (seriously? Those first three years? What a great run!), or even why-do-people-forget-it-started-firmly-in-the-DCU Gaiman's SANDMAN were all more vital, and transformative to the greater-DCU, then any monthly-ongoing run of Superman or Batman comics. So, yeah, all the more disappointing that this comic didn't elevate itself out above the pack.

Of what I have read so far, I am thinking this will be the first one cancelled. I may have hated HAWK & DOVE, but there are a contingent of people who like Rob Liefeld to pieces, enough to maybe get that title past year 1. MT, on the other hand, has to solely last on its own merits, of which I find few. It was an AWFUL comic.

As always: what do YOU think?

-B

"...only a fool goes huntin' GHOSTS." Comics! Sometimes They Judge You!

So, yeah, I read something and then I went and wrote about it all half-assed like and if you aren't doing the chores you might want to hunker down a spell and take a look. Might not as well. Ain't no skin off mine.

Ah, there's just nothing like a merciless black-hearted look at human nature to lift your spirits is there? EL DIABLO By Danijel Zezelj (a), Brian Azzarello (w), Kevin Sommers (c), Clem Robbins (l) and Tim Sale (covers) Vertigo/DC Comics, $12.99

 The peace in Bollas Raton is kept by Sheriff Moses Stone. Stone was a mean man once upon a poisoned water hole, a bounty hunter by trade, but now he's turned his back on the whole sorry man hunting deal. These days he's a good man, with a good wife in a good town. Enter El Diablo! The peace of the town is shattered, men die, flesh is scarred and Moses Stone leads a posse after El Diablo into the badlands towards a town called Halo; where the stage is set for a showdown between The Past and The Present, but identities and alignments shift like the dunes and reckonings for the wrongs of The Past must be paid in full. El Diablo is about to show Moses Stone that a man can have secrets even from himself.

To say any more would spoil the plot as it has a couple of big reveals that to do more than allude to would strip a whole chunk of pleasure out of the book. Sure, one of these reveals requires a pretty big suspension of disbelief but if you aren't willing to go the extra inch on this one while reading about a supernatural incarnation of vengeance then I don’t know. I just don’t know. It’s a fine plot, tight as a nut; one that barrels right along with a convincing cast of characters, crackling and layered dialogue, moments of hideous psychological and physical horror (and indeed both in one darling scene involving an ant hill) and leaves you feeling a bit unsettled and nauseous. Like when your boozy Auntie slipped you the tongue that time.

It’s pretty fitting that I can only lift up my skirts and dance around the content as Azzarello is a very literary writer one whose work can irritate and confound on occasion with its elliptical and stubbornly obtuse approach. He seems to operate on the assumption that his work will be read and re-read, that some effort will be made by the reader to pierce the layers of obfuscation in order to ascertain his true meaning. He seems not to think his comics are just mental screensavers for readers waiting for the menu on their new DVD box set to load up. Which is admirable but intermittently his very specific methodology can work against him to produce comics that are baffling and incoherent. Which is when you end up with a cancery priest fighting a big robot man name after a Peter Shaffer play on a tropical island. Forever. But that doesn't happen here because when he marries it with the right subject the results are delightfully intelligent and reward close attention. El Diablo is one such marriage and you are cordially invited to attend.

El Diablo is soaked in the supernatural and the enemy of effectively conveying the uncanny is specificity. Now, since specificity isn't exactly one of the problems Azzarello has as a writer this works to his advantage here. He manages to stop the sense of the supernatural slipping into nonsense by giving it some ground rules. But he doesn't do it where you’d expect. In the second chapter Moses Stone and his ill-fated posse sit around a camp fire jawing about El Diablo. This allows Azzarello to present the reader with several options regarding the nature of El Diablo. Noah gives the basic outline of the original character (created by Robert Kanigher and Gray Morrow in 1970), Honus sees it as a vengeful force seeking retribution on its own killers, Paw Paw tells of how the Apaches basically view it as a being allocated by The Great Spirit with enacting revenge for the restless dead (I believe that's The Spectre and I believe that's an in-joke.). This is pretty interesting as each man has heard of El Diablo and each man has a different explanation but they can only agree on one thing; you do bad and El Diablo’s gonna even the score. So, while apparently explaining El Diablo to the reader Azzarello has in fact done no such thing but the reader feels that he has.

It’s an even neater piece of misdirection in that the real key to El Diablo’s motivation is presented early in the book during an exchange between Paw Paw and Moses Stone. The two are watching two Indians being hung for the murder of a little girl. Stone reckons they deserve their fate due to their awful crime but Paw Paw, who tracked and caught them, thinks they are innocent of the stated crime but still deserve to swing because they killed his horse. The nature and severity of the transgression isn't important merely the fact that an offence has been committed is enough for the most severe of penalties. There’s also another layer here. Paw Paw’s horse wouldn't have been shot had he not been tracking the Indians. He has basically contributed to event that have resulted in the offenders being, in his eyes, justly rewarded. This is, in actual fact, how El Diablo works on the characters, particularly Moses Stone. Only once does El Diablo directly visit his judgement, when a poor sap foolishly makes fun of him, on all other occasions he herds his victims into situations where their own actions doom them. And since actions are indicative of intent and intent is indicative of character their doom is deserved. In the world of El Diablo good men are just bad men waiting to happen. And when they do happen El Diablo will be there. The best weapon in El Diablo’s arsenal is man’s nature. And man’s nature being what it is, in this book anyway, it’s the only weapon El Diablo really needs.

The atmospheric success of the whole moody enterprise is due in no small part to the magnificently dusty efforts of Danijel Zezelj whose art is, naturally, more European in approach (and origin) than the usual North American Genre Comics artists. His diverse and atypical storytelling sensibilities give the pages an unsettling feel all by themselves and when added to the oblique air Azzarello gives everything succeed in saturating the book in the uncanny so necessary for it to work. The use of overhead shots of scenes give  a creepy sense of an omnipresent viewer that works to build the impression that nothing is hidden from El Diablo. Zezelj’s frequent use of overlapping panels makes the characters seem trapped in the book and in the books events, which of course they are. There’s also a lot of blank space within the panels but rather than suggesting freedom and wide open spaces, because they are largely enclosed by strict panel borders, these spaces seem to suggest instead a void; a true and terrible emptiness that everyone in the book is just slightly ahead of. Until, of course, they aren't.

Kevin Somers colours are also noteworthy. Working with a pastelly palette of muted tones applied with few, if any, tonal variations, these colours not only help induce mood but are valuable storytelling tools. Oft times the colour of characters will be used to highlight and centre the reader’s attention on the focal point of a scene. It’s a simple but effective trick that I liked and if the colourist has done something I noted he must be doing a good job because, brothers and sisters, what I know about comic book colouring wouldn't fill a pint pot already half full with piss. The TPB is also really nicely designed by Amelia Grohman. Now this is only a 4 issue series so I guess there’s some padding going on here but if you’re going to pad this is the way to do it. Certain of  Zezelj’s images are cropped out of the book and dropped on full pages of colour as spot illos to striking effect and each issue is preceded by a full page consisting of a panel containing significant dialogue blown up to fill a page. Like the colouring it’s simple but effective stuff and worth a shot of old rotgut should I ever meet the individuals involved.

El Diablo is a weird western. A very weird western indeed. It is also Very Good!

nu52 - Wk 2: Red & Green

Lanterns, that is.

GREEN LANTERN #1: There are a few books in this "relaunch" which CLEARLY were written (or at least conceived of) before the relaunch plan. GL certainly feels like one of those -- this is pretty much exactly what I expected from GREEN LANTERN #68. There are some small concessions to nu-ness -- it was interesting to see a comic called "Green Lantern" that only had ONE of them in an entire issue, for example -- but, yeah, not very much, it's simply the next issue.

This is weird to me, in a lot of ways, because there's really no way that Hal could be exactly the same person. Liiiike... without Ollie Queen (who clearly HAS been 100% rebooted), how did Hal ever learn to speak up for the Black Skins, y'know?

Bah, anyway, despite that, I thought this was an adequate "first" issue -- not something that will ever win an Eisner, but adequate pop comic. Strongly OK, but I really did expect more from one of the main architects of the current DCU.

RED LANTERNS #1: This book, too, would have existed with or without the nu, and so I think it is weaker for that. I don't understand the market for this comic. A blood vomiting team led by a guy named "Atrocitus" for God's sake? I had the teeny tiniest hope that Pete Milligan (of all people) might maybe be able to come up with some sort of adequate spin... but no, not really.

These are ugly characters, with really nothing compelling to offer from them, and is pretty astoundingly AWFUL.

What did YOU think?

-B

nu52: "...and the rest, here on Gilligan's Isle."

Wrapping up week one, here's the Professor and Mary Anne of the way I chose to survey this: Green Arrow, Hawk & Dove, and JLI. (Seriously, it's 9:30 on Wednesday, and I haven't yet cracked a week 2 book! I'm really wildly behind this week!)

GREEN ARROW #1:  Complete and total reboot here. Absolutely nothing in common, besides name, of the old version. Really, this is confusing! There's a journeyman level of craft going on here, but there's nothing that actually thrilled me, or made me want to read another one ever. Pretty much a perfect definition of an EH comic book.

HAWK & DOVE #1: Meanwhile this is "just" a continuation of the "old" DCU -- with Deadman as Dove's "boyfriend" and everything (which is, like: WHAT?! in the first place) -- this shit really is crazy confusing. I mean, like, without the "old" Green Arrow, then who or what was in forest protecting the tree during Brightest Day, in the first place? Ugh, it makes my head hurt to think about the continuity here.

Maybe not as much as this comic hurt my head, though. Ew. Ugly, rambling, and confusing as heck (I think that was meant to be Kestral on the last page? But since he looks nearly exactly like Hawk, who can be sure? And, like Kestral hasn't been seen in a comic in... 15 years? More?) Either way, I truly thought this one was AWFUL.

JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL: Mm, yeah, that was alright, but nothing exciting; much like STORMWATCH, it's still in "getting to know you" mode, so everyone shuffles in, says their line of dialogue, and moves on. Generic, but competent, once again: EH.

As always: what did YOU think?

-B

nu52: The Belfry

Damn it, the NEW ones are already out? Better write fast, then! Bats, and more bats below!

BATGIRL #1:  If there is one critical mistake that I believe the relaunch made, it is that some books fully rebooted, while others are trying to say that everything that happened, happened. I find this even odder in the face of the Didio interview where he asserts that Julie Schwartz told him continuity needs to reboot every decade. The bat-family has, certainly, had many changes in directions over the decades, but the one thing it never did was actually reboot.

So, for a hypothetical new reader (and while we're getting a LOT of the "lapsed" coming back, I think there are vanishingly few truly new readers coming through), I think that BATGIRL #1 largely fails because it is absolutely predicated on a whole bunch of stuff that happened in the "old" DCU, and it spends a big chunk of its run time referencing "The Killing Joke"

While the IDEA of a superhero with (a narrow form of) Post-Traumatic Syndrome is pretty swell, I think it (you're forgive the expression) cripples Barbara out of the gate in the "I like this character" sweepstakes. I don't want to read about a character who flinches, y'know?

The funny thing is I largely enjoyed this comic, otherwise -- it's reasonably dense, and story is borne out of character, rather than the plothammer. It's well written, and the art was just fine. But the whole time while reading it, I was thinking, "I'd rather be reading a just-post-origin story with a teenage Babs instead".

(Its kind of like how, despite how much I love the new DAREDEVIL, "Shadowland" still "happening" kind of taints the entire character for me. I may suck, however)

So, yeah, I liked it as a read, as an "old" DC universe comic, but the fact that it isn't a reboot really really turns me off. So: a completely unfair OK, to reflect my turmoil.

BATWING #1: For some of the same reasons, this one didn't work for me either -- there's no "origin" here, there's no explanation of why he looks like Batman, or any real comment from Batman whatsoever about the situation... I really had no idea what was going on. (yes, yes, "Batman, Inc." -- but how would a new reader know a thing about any of that?)

Then there's the weird flashback structure, which left me really really confused about when the cliffhanger at the end happened -- are we still in "six weeks ago" there? And, if so, then how is he superheroing there at the front of the book?

I also thought the art was really stiff and muddy.

In short, I did not care for this comic, although I thought the setting was an interesting change, and there's certainly story possibility here for the character. For now, though, I'll give this issue an AWFUL.

DETECTIVE COMICS #1: I'm confused when this takes place -- is this "five years ago" like ACTION and JL was? It can't be because it opens with narration about the Joker killing people for the last 6 years, but, then, why are the cops still shooting at Batman? No other (contemporary-set) DCnu hero is hunted by police, and, hell, in JLI the UN is at least considering Batman to lead the team! Except for that very first caption, I think the book reads like a "Year Two" Batman comic (Which I'm fine with, certainly)

That aside, I thought this was a professionally done Batman comic book. And it had what was a potentially interesting cliffhanger. However, I did feel like I was reading a distant echo of other Batman comics I've read before -- all of those 16 panel laid out pages had a whole lot of Miller on them, for example. So, while I'm (just) willing to give this a GOOD, it's a very very mild one.

What did YOU think?

-B

nu52: Above and Below (and side to side)

Watching over the rest is STORMWATCH, down in the streets is STATIC, with OMAC and MEN OF WAR lurking around the sides... STORMWATCH #1: I probably had the highest hopes of all the DCnu books for this one -- oh, I was anticipating ACTION more, but this was the one that I was hoping might be the best: wide-screen action like THE AUTHORITY, but firmly in the DCU. It also makes it, perhaps, the most problematic of the books, because that kind of world-changing action really doesn't work with a shared universe in a lot of ways (witness how no WS book every dealt with the notion that a corporate controlled version of The Authority took over the world for a period. as one of many examples) -- you really can't do "The Moon is a Hatching Egg!" and not have it impact a jillion other books.

There's also the notion that as appealing I find The Engineer, and Jack and Jenny and Midnighter and Apollo... well, they can't be The Authority is a world with a JL, because the JL is better... they have to be.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into it, or not, but STORMWATCH also appeared to be adding in Milestone concepts in the mix, with the mention of a "Shadow Cabinet" that runs it all? And which "Big Bang" are they referencing at the end of the issue? (Nah, that one is probably reaching)

I had a problem with STORMWATCH #1's dialogue -- yikes, pretty overly "comic-booky" with everyone reciting their names and powers and off-screen plot points left and right. I'm not sure there was a "normal" line of dialogue in the entire book -- I'm hoping this is purely an artifact of being a character/location/conflict-rich first issue, and this will settle down tout-suite.

Overall, I liked the character concepts and the setups and what appeared to be the remit, but I thought the dialogue was far too "old school" to enjoy it. I'd stick through the first arc, but it's pretty iffy if I'd want to go past that. A mild OK.

STATIC SHOCK #1: This may be the one book that would have most benefited from a "traditional first issue" -- that is an origin story. Starting in the middle for a character that much of the audience doesn't really know that well seemed a little weak to me. I didn't know how to root for the character! Like: is Hardware the old Hardware from Dakota, or is he like a hologram butler or something? Either way, what's he doing working with Static (or is his name now Static SHOCK like the cover says)?

The art was nice, and there was a density to the book that I liked, but I'm not feeling that crucial sympathy I need. I'd probably not bother to pick up the next issue (though the final page cliffhanger was slightly intriguing) -- overall, I thought it was pretty EH.

MEN OF WAR #1: The one book I had no expectations of of any kind going in, and it's a solid little war book (albeit one with superhumans involved). Well-written, fairly gripping, and well-illustrated. But, also one that I really didn't care too much for. I'm not very interested in war stories, and while the superhuman involvement could bring me back to flip through #2, this isn't something I would like to spend my personal money on. Ditto for the backup tale. Very solidly OK, just not my cuppa at all.

OMAC #1: Big, frenetic, dumb, fun destruction.  It's probably the speediest read of week 1, but I liked it a lot! In fact, I only have one criticism about it whatsoever, and that is that there is not "Omac created by Jack Kirby" credit. Even STATIC SHOCK had *that*. Anyway, I'd call OMAC #1 a solid (if lower) GOOD.

What did YOU think?

-B

nu52: Meat & Wood

Shouldn't be any surprise we're still organizing in the store, so trying to dance amongst the raindrops to review books while I also do that (AND writing a Tilting this week, sheesh!) Here's your next two books: ANIMAL MAN and SWAMP THING

ANIMAL MAN #1: I'm of the opinion that no one other than Grant Morrison ever "got" Animal Man, and that was more of the fourth wall-breaking action than anything else. Buddy is just (sorry!) not that compelling of a character in the first place. The real value he has is of being one of the rare family men in comics, or of being the "everyman" who is probably a lot like you and me -- he isn't perfect like a Superman, he feels vaguely uncomfortable in his costume, he's not really all that very good at "stopping crime", but his heart is utterly in the right place.

Jeff Lemire seems to embrace all of that here, and also does a few things to shake up expectations (opening with a magazine-style interview piece, for example, or the hallucinatory dream sequence), and while I liked it, I didn't really love it. Travel Foreman's art is excellent in places, but also pretty awful in a few others (Ew, some of those faces, yikes!). I'd certainly give it an arc to see where it might be going, but my overall reaction was really not much more than a very very low GOOD.

ANIMAL MAN is the one and only book of the 14 released so far that I have sold out of so far -- and that's on a fairly solid number of copies.

SWAMP THING #1: If AM covers "the red", this one here is "the green", but apart from some REALLY lovely art by Yanick Paquette, I'm not really feeling this one yet.

That may be because "Swampy" really doesn't appear in the issue until the last page, or maybe that I have no (NONE!) affinity for "Alec Holland", a character who, over the last 40-ish years had maybe 10 words of dialogue? (Among them: "Oh, look... a bom-" or something to that effect) -- so, I kind of don't care if he has his sad little Doctor David Banner moments.

Throw in a ugly cameo from Superman (how is THAT guy the one in JL or Action?), where he seems to reference the Death of Superman (Again: how did that story happen... especially without a married Lois?), and something that looks a bit like a rip on the invunche, and I found myself missing Moore's prose (there's monologue, but not a single descriptive caption on display), and, I don't know -- I don't "get" this book, I think.

I'm willing to give it another issue, but I thought it was merely OK.

That's me: What did YOU think?

-B

"Assholes, Assemble!" Comics! Barbed Wire Laffs Inside!

Before I start blabbing about a guy who hunts heroes but hasn't found any yet here’s some advice I know wish I’d had when I was a teenager:

Wise words there, kids. Some not so wise ones after the break… You know who hates super-heroes? No, not Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis! Their hatred of super-heroes is more like when you you’re 15 and you see your best mate down the shops with his girlfriend and when she’s looking in a window he rolls his eyes and sticks his tongue out before snapping to attention and putting his arm back around her when she turns round. It’s more like irritation that they have to write these capes things to pay for their more personal masterpieces consisting as they do of New Scientist articles espoused by the same snippy character in a number of different wigs or rape and dismemberment jokes legitimized by industrial levels of sentimentality. No, that’s less like hatred than the low level resentment of any thermo-dynamic miracle who spends their life behind a desk having to actually work for a living. Pat Mills, however, Pat Mills has a hard-on for super-heroes as big as a Riot Squad Cop’s night stick and he knows how to swing that sucker to inflict maximum dental reconstructive surgery. Swing away, Pat Mills. Swing away!

MARSHAL LAW: FEAR ASYLUM

By Kevin O’Neill/Mark A. Nelson (a), Pat Mills (w), Mark Chiarello, Dave Stewart(c), Phil Felix, Bill Oakley & Elli DeVille(l)

(2003,Titan Books, £14.99/£24.95)

Marshal Law was created by Pat Mills and Kevin O’Neill in 1987 for an Epic (Marvel) Comics series which has been much discussed by many great minds. The character then ping-ponged around various publishers teaming up with various characters retaining its relentless signature mix of super-hero satire, socio-political commentary and good crude fun. The latter volumes don’t get nearly as much attention as it’s generally agreed that they slide into formula and become one-note one-joke (like me!) affairs with decreasing returns. So rather than dissect the first far more seriously intentioned volume I’ll be turning my watery eye on the final collection. Because that’s where I swim, pal, in the shallows. Also, I just happened to pick it up while I was rearranging the deceased goldfishes’ bowl in The Archive. Anyway the good news is there’s still meat on the bone although it does get a bit grey and gristly towards the end. But, hey, maybe that’s to be expected given how ML comics work? Let’s me and you have a looky loo!

MARSHAL LAW TAKES MANHATTAN (1989) has many notable aspects but none, I think, more notable than the fact that it was initially published by the now entirely humourless Marvel Comics. Almost entirely humourless, I guess, since Marvel has given us the joy of the Marvel Architects photoshoot:

"Blue Steel!"

In this one-shot Pat Mills explicitly recasts super-heroes as products of metal illness. Having already steamrollered over the heroes of The Golden Age in the previous volume (SUPER BABYLON, Dark Horse, 1992) this story focuses more on the Silver and Bronze Age heroes. All your Mighty Marvel favourites are here with the dysfunctions and disabilities inherent in their origins made plain. The whole thing has the air of an issue of NOT BRAND ECCH that has spent a traumatic time in borstal and returned to wreak revenge armed with a ball peen hammer and a roll of duct tape.

"But, but whatever can you mean?!?"

Captain America sucks his thumb while holding the flag and conducting interminable monologues before occasionally leaping into action and describing his actions (“Aiee! Now we are going up the stairs!”), Mister Fantastic talks to his invisible wife (who is patently a delusion), Doctor Strange is a hebephrenic and Daredevil wanders about in the background bumping into things. It’s obvious, brutal, funny and all the more obvious, brutal and funny since Pat Mills is also, in his patented Pat Mills-y way making a point.

"Better than the wink at the end of WHTTMOT anyday!"

This Millsian point is embodied by The Persecutor (remarkably similar to The Punisher) who the good Marshal has been dispatched to bring in by his odious boss McGland. A former CIA Specialist in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques The Persecutor is a wholly unsympathetic turd. He’s used by Mills as an example of where the psychosis of super heroes leads a society. Mills argues that the acceptance of such practices is only possible in a society which holds the default position that it is The Good Guy. Because if you are The Good Guy then nothing you do is wrong.

Interestingly, at least to me, Pat Mills maintains that the concept of the super-hero has been absorbed into Western culture in a damaging way as it, along with numerous other factors, allows the West to casts itself as The Good Guy in an internal cartoon narrative that reduces complex and dangerous real world issues into ones of childish simplicity. If only there were some recent examples of that. If only there weren't. If only there were not. And so, for Mr. Mills, super-heroes are fully worthy of the shock treatment he is dispensing.

Which is okay as far as it goes. I mean I’m a long time cape fan so I’m not unaware that the first response to this is that, yeah, but, super heroes embody all the good qualities in humanity, “With great power must come responsibility” and all that trad jazz, dad. Which is true but I think it’s also true that the tendency is to ignore the “responsibility” bit and just focus on the “powers” bit and I think that’s where Mills has a point. But that was a long time ago when people read cape comics in their hundreds of thousands and the heroes actually meant something other than a stepping stone into TV.

Okay. So it kind of yells at you like an angry hobo but it’s a hobo with a point and also a hobo with a killer sick sense of humour and, since the hobo has been designed by the Gaudi of the Grotesque Mr. Kevin O’Neill, the whole thing ends up being diagnosed as VERY GOOD!

The second story collected here is SECRET TRIBUNAL (1993) which basically takes the Legion of Super Heroes and feeds them to the movie Alien while pausing to spit on the excesses of the Nineties. A case of, “In space no one can hear your voice break, dude!”

"BLIP!"

Now, Pat Mills’ work probably gets called a lot of things but it’s probably rarely called sweet and touching. That’s “touching” in the nice sense, not the one that  involves years of therapy and mental anguish. Despite the body horror, gore, expletives, pouch festooned bosoms, crude innuendo and typical strident delivery SECRET TRIBUNAL manages to actually be both sweet and touching. The focus of the story is Growing Boy who is seeking entry into the League of Heroes but fears that when the time comes he will fail to perform, he will fail to, um, grow. This is really quite a clever way of addressing teenage fears and insecurities while at the same time appearing to mock them. It’s all the cleverer for combining it with the gyno-horror of the Alien movies. Of course you may think this is just stone obvious in which case you are not me, and that, pal, is your reward; not being me. Trust me, that's better than diamonds. There’s also another layer of intelligence since quite early on Growing Boy becomes experienced at the fluttering lips and silky limbs of Super Sensitive Girl.

"Hands above the covers, Paul Levitz! Hands ABOVE the covers!"

He recalls that “I can still see her face now…congested, panting like an animal…making suggestions I never expected to be uttered from female lips” and I’m pretty sure they aren't things like: “Why don’t you go down the pub and have some time to yourself.” so where the beast with two backs is concerned Growing Boy is sorted for “Eee!”s and jizz but still he fears being unable to “perform”. This of course is, I believe, because in cape comics the fight scenes are analogous to the fuck scenes in a porno. And since Growing Boy’s money shot is illustrated by Kevin O’Neill it looks like this:

"Do you remember the first time...?"

Ah, yes, the aliens. Obviously the League of Heroes, being as they are a bunch of peer pressurized hormone crazed teens, are outmatched from the off and even the venerable Marshal might not tip the scales in their favour. Luckily our beleaguered heroes are powered up by the presence of The Secret Tribunal! Oh my, what a lovely distillation of Nineties nonsense they are too. Here are their names: Lichenstein, Anti-Man, Vrilla, Ragnarok, Breathless and Rune! The ridiculousness of the time when people who drew like disturbed 8 year olds ruled the roost is channeled to fine effect by Kevin O’Neill. A more garish collection of pouches, shoulder-pads, wasp-waists, big honkers, cigars and headscarves can rarely have been seen. Well, outside of the original travesties, natch.

"Audacious!"

The dialogue these badly designed buffoons spout is delightfully stilted. Breathless, who is basically a male sex-fetish with pouches for nipples, delivers the following wonder, “It’s so hard to find men to help me gain my explosive energy. They find me repulsive…”. It’s the seamless combination of these high-impact idiots with the more restrained old school stylings of the League together with the warped and turbulent textures of the Aliens which is Kevin O’Neill’s greatest achievement here. Not once do the differing styles chafe against each other and not once do they lose their distinctiveness. Also the League’s spaceship looks like a cock with four balls. That’s never not funny in fact it’s VERY GOOD!

"Cliches unbound! Well, bound with barbed wire but still cliches!"

Alas, things take a bit of a stumble with THE MASK/MARSHAL LAW (1998) on the second page of which the sweet Marshal declares “I’m just going through the motions.” It’s hard not to take this literally as Mills and O’Neill struggle to bring some of the old magic back in a tale in which the charming Marshal goes on One Lat Mission against his original nemesis The Sleepman who is now ridiculously over-powered due to his wearing The Mask. Oh, it’s fun enough stuff but nowhere near as psychotically entertaining as its predecessors. Mills struggles to make a Mills-y statement with the material falling back on the old stand by of masks allow people to behave without inhibitions which isn't original or terribly interesting but does allow Kevin O’Neill to bust his nuts all over the pages in a series of flagrantly unsettling S/M scenarios.

"It isn't THAT bad!"

The biggest problem for the series is the very nature of the series. Due to its parasitic nature Marshal Law only really works when it has something of substance to nail to a cross. By this time Mills and O’Neill have eviscerated all the old familiar favourites and are having to hunt and peck the sterile ground of modern comics for sustenance. Marshal Law’s catch-phrase is “I’m a hero hunter. I haven’t found any yet.” Judging by the much remarked upon lack of invention and creativity in the modern North American Super-Hero genre he’s got no chance once he hits the noughties. But there is hope in the last page that ML will find cape comics worthy of hating again. When the book ends they aren't even worthy of that. Because they don’t mean anything now, not even anything bad, just…nothing. Even Marshal Law can’t fight nothing. But he tries and God loves a trier (also keen on: sacrifices) so in my book this one was GOOD!

I just love this panel, thats all.

So the scores on the doors seem to indicate that MARSHAL LAW: FEAR ASYLUM is VERY GOOD!

JACK KIRBY IS CALLING YOU WITH HIS MIND, MY FRIEND!!!

Hey, I’m looking for a few good people. Well, actually I’m looking for about 5000 people with more money than sense and a retailer with no sense of self-preservation. I think that’s doable. I've seen the sales figures for NEW AVENGERS so there’s way more than 5000 people out there drunk in charge of 5 dollar bills. What we do, right, is take up Marvel on their “Order 5,000 copies of this dreadful ULTIMATE FALL-OUT comic we can’t shift and you can have a free advert in a Marvel comic guaranteed not to reach any new customers.” Yup, in times of economic hardship Marvel are always there for the retailers. I’m sure you can see where this is going: we order the copies via our retailer and send in an advert consisting of this:

We might also put some words on it. We could put “Jack Kirby (August 28, 1917 – February 6, 1994). The Original Marvel Architect.” Or “The man who paid for everybody involved in this comic to go to Hooters on expenses.” Or Stan Lee got his, where’s Jack’s?” Or “Those mediocre movies whose box office performance and merchandising revenue you’re all so puffed up about? Totally down to this pipe smoking high-waisters wearing dude. His name’s JACK KIRBY in case you forgot!” I don’t know, we could work on it a bit. What? Oh, what do we do with 5000 bad ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN comics? Build a career, baby. Build a career and then go into TV! Sheesh! Tough crowd!

Have a nice weekend all and if you go into your LCS buy some COMICS!!!

nu52: The First Two

So the first thing I realized last night is 13 books a week is almost too much to read in one sitting, at least not without getting a bit of a headache. Then I realized that, with what I have going to today and tomorrow (check back in a few hours, you'll see!), that even worse there's absolutely no way I can write up that many books either in the time I have this AM.

(Plus, y'know, Diamond shorted all of my copies of STORMWATCH #1 -- it is being overnighted to me on their dime, thankfully -- so that wouldn't have worked anyway)

So, let's just hit the first two, below the jump, with the rest by the weekend!

JUSTICE LEAGUE #1: Mm. Last week, you may recall, I said I wanted to wait on reviewing JL #1. Two reasons for that -- one, I really did want context of the rest of the launch to see how good or bad it might be, and 2) I really thought it was fairly terrible and I didn't want to scare prospective customers off in the critical week #1. Well, turns out that last bit wasn't something I needed to worry about (we still have copies... but I doubt they'll last for another 7 days), but man you should have seen me tying myself in knots in the store to be unfailingly positive when customers asked me (quite rightly) "So, how was it?"

Here's the thing about JL #1: it doesn't really read like a fresh start at all (What it REALLY reads like? A free comic that you get with a toy) -- to me, it sort of felt like an old proposal for a JLA: Year One mini-series that was dusted off, and had the smooth edges polished off to try and fit into the new mandate.

In particular, it is nowhere near a full story, and it is "written for the trade", and pretty much nothing happens at all; and it doesn't even have all of the characters that are on the cover (at least one of them doesn't even exist yet!) -- and yet it is an ass-raping $4 cover price.

What I'm trying to figure out is if this means that a) no one at DC actually knows how to edit a comic book any longer (because me? I would have thrown this script back with "Yeah, that's an OK first draft, now give me some meat") because "editors" are largely "traffic managers" these days, b) Geoff, etc didn't get that this was the A#1  chance to bring back the lapsed, because the cost/value ratio here is crazy out of whack, possibly because this could be a 2 year old script, or c) No one on staff feels comfortable telling the 800 and 900 pound gorillas that they're phoning it in.

Maybe all 3.

Fundamentally, this comic would not have me coming back week-after-week for more, if I were a lapsed reader. In fact, this comic would have reconfirmed my decision to abandon comics, because it is underbaked, and overpriced.

One of the most frustrating things for me was the lack of any visible villain -- you shouldn't need two of your biggest guns to play tag with a foot soldier -- and the tortured logic of the plothammer. The Parademon (?) left behind a mother box? Muh? Green Lantern, a space-based character in an alien-based corps leaps to the conclusion that the alien Superman might be responsible? Wha?

Also: Darkseid? Already? On day #1? That's the kind of character you should BUILD to -- didn't Kirby take like a year or two before we even saw the guy?

Bits of the art were very clever -- I liked the multi-tasking GL constructs for example -- but I thought that, overall, the whole process felt creaky and tired.

Here's what I'm saying about editorial as well: The original (announced!) plan was that Flashpoint #5 would be the only book shipping last week. Then they changed it to FP and JL. This might have always been the SECRET plan, but it did represent a change from the original. JL, however, is a 3rd week book, which means it will be SEVEN WEEKS between #1 & #2. So, someone thought it wise to specifically rewrite the announced plan, make JL #2 FEEL "late" from the first day of the launch, and launch with a book that's nowhere near a "full reading experience" (and crazy expensive, at that). I kind of don't see that being done for sound commercial reasons (I mean, speaking as the guy who gets to SELL these, have a RANGE OF CHOICES for the big launch week is way way way way better than having one single title), and it just feels like an ego stroke.

Meh.

I thought JL #1 was pretty resoundingly AWFUL, and that's a crying shame.

ACTION COMICS #1: This, on the other hand, was everything I want from a rebooted Superman comic. Amazingly retro, yet cutting age fresh, completely jam packed with story, yetit zips along like an out-of-control train, and it puts Grant Morrison at 15 for 15 for Excellent Superman Comics.. THIS should have been the Week #1 solo book (and it would have really supported JL #1's ending at that)

I like this Superman, and I'm absolutely terrified of him as well. I'd like to see the JL *he* forms, because that would really be about JUSTICE.

I dug Rags' art, I dig the lo-fi costume, I absolutely adore the "leaking" heat vision eyes.

This is a Superman comic for people who "don't like Superman".

I thought it was EXCELLENT!

Right, out of time already (sigh, check back later tonight), so, as always, what did YOU think?

-B

“There’s Buses Along Watling Street To London…” Comics! Sometimes they don't half muck you about a bit.

Nah, don’t get up my account, see I want a word in your shell-like. Don’t flinch, son, I just want to talk to you. Talk to you about this thing what Alan Moore wrote and Kevin O’Neill drew. Won’t take long. We've all got homes to go to. Don’t cry, be  a brave soldier. Be over before you know it…

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN CENTURY #2 “1969” By Alan Moore(w), Kevin O’Neill(a), Todd Klein(l) and Ben Dimagmaliw(c) Top Shelf/Knockabout Comics $9.95/£7.99  Crikey, mate! Things look proper rum as the psychedelic ‘60s spiral towards a massive downer! Can our enduring chums make everything groovy again!? Don’t freakout, Grandad, the future is sure to be far out!

It's pretty much business as usual in the world of LOEG with the latest installment. A slender plot groaning under an ungainly agglomeration of references and in-jokes, comedy, nastiness and an overriding suspicion that Alan Moore thinks popular culture is going down the crapper. If you liked the last installment you'll like this but if you've been liking them less and less since THE BLACK DOSSIER you're going to like this even less. I'm okay with them myself what with them being well clever and as visually attractive as Valerie Leon in go-go boots.

Alright then, first things first: Is it fan fiction? Yes, I think it is. But I also think you’d be hard pressed to find any genre comic that isn't these days. YMMV. Also, I've never actually looked up a definition of “fan fiction” but we’ll persevere. Crucially what it is is fan fiction of the very highest order. How can it not be fan fiction filled as it is with fictions pulled from other sources and made to dance and warble at the behest of The Magus? At least he has a purpose in mind, at least Alan Moore is using them to some narrative end intended to educate, illuminate and entertain. But then again I could read about the seedy adventures of characters who greatly resemble Jack Carter and Vic Dakin all day.

Oh, It's a grand life with The Magus but it wouldn't be half so grand without his aiders and abettors. Herein Kevin O’Neill is his usual majestically unusual self. Considering the fact that his art already resembles a bad trip the fact that he can actually go further and depict a bad trip is pretty incredible.  Kevin O'Neill heroically packs his (mostly) constricted panels with detail and incident that really gives the book a sense of place and it's a place populated by a hectic bustle of humanity. The panels of streets where the shiny future invasively looms over and creeps into the grotty present is done brilliantly. It’s a smart way to convey the way the future arrives. Not in a sudden jump but rather like a tide lapping in and around the present, eroding the shabby terraces and backstreets of now until it was like they were never there. You get a real sense that in ten minutes the future will be all around and it will be as though the future was here all the time.

Todd Klein and Ben Digimagmaliw are afforded a chance to shine and really rise to the challenge. Usually letterers and colourists are just required not to make any mistakes and generally just not get under anyone's feet but given the gift of the psychedelic showdown climax they really go to town. It's lovely, lovely stuff indeed. It's worth buying purely for the visual wizardry on display. Corporate comics aren't ever going to let your eyes graze on such delights as Kevin O'Neill and Co. at full tilt pedal to the mental like this. All the visual artistes do an absolutely smashing job at keeping this thing from sliding into incoherence.

While the whole is unquestionably successful in conveying the shabby reality the '6os briefly disguised and the fact that it may have been a Sexual Revolution but, still, all revolutions have casualties there remains something off about the whole thing. In the early pages in particular Moore’s dialogue reads like raw exposition, which is surprising considering how neatly he captures the “voices” of the supporting cast in the parallel plot. In fact those parts are a far more satisfying read than the adventures of our three primaries. I could have read a lot more about Vic and Jack and a lot less about Mina, ‘Lando and Allan. The gangster stuff had drive and purpose while the League stuff just seemed aimless and repetitive. Maybe the contrast was intentional after all it isn’t the heroes who “save” the day in the end. So caught up are they in their own problems they can barely get it together to be in the right place at the right time. They muck it up good and proper and no mistake.

I get that what Moore’s going for is the whole immortality has its price thing, I get that loud and clear because he never stops bloody banging on about it. Moore makes some good points, some interesting points but he keeps making them without developing them. This doesn't result in a terribly satisfying reading experience but it does at least explain the almost hilarious ineptitude The League displays. Immortality is sure doing a number on our three chums and no mistake. Orlando has his sexual organs growing and receding like a tide of biological confusion, Allan has to carry a monkey around on his back forever and Mina has to cope with the the wounds of her past.

It’s no wonder that at this point they are acting like a bunch of blockheads. Blimey, this lot can’t even save the world properly. Who in their right mind would drop drugs on the cusp of a climactic confrontation upon which they believe the fate of the world to hang? No one. But then these people aren’t in their right mind, so I guess that works. There’s a nice comic pay-off when even the villain appears baffled by their stupidity (“You cretinous CHIT!”) and his plan, which isn't even the plan The League think it is, is only derailed by the actions of a background thug who has no real notion of the events in which he is so pivotal. Which can’t be accidental. I mean, let’s face it, Alan Moore runs a tight ship narratively, if it’s in there it probably means something. What it means is that his is a pretty bleak experience both for the characters and the reader.

Oh, there’s humour in here but not enough to lift it far out of the doldrums. In fact the jokiest joke is the worst joke here. There’s a whole panel wasted here on a Jumping Jack Flash joke that is so leaden I actually resented its hogging of an entire panel. Even the best joke, the one about body swapping (“I’m perplexed.”), is so delightfully nasty it just serves to reinforce the desolation of the book rather than relieve it. Look, the last image in the book is of a sad old man assaulted by the music of the young and angry while slumped on a chair dripping with his own piss. Not exactly Benny Hill is it?

Which, not entirely smoothly, brings me to the most likely cause of upset regarding this here periodical: there’s far too much slapping of little bald men’s heads to the accompaniment of a jaunty tune. No, of course not, but there is quite a lot of sexual violence on these pages. I’d really like to just breeze past that one but sometimes you just have to grasp that nettle. Remember when I used to just make terrible Dad Jokes about bad super hero comics? And Kurt Busiek would patiently correct my blunders? Such happy times! What? I’m not avoiding anything!

Oh, okay…  Fair disclosure here, I’m about to give Alan Moore the benefit of the doubt. I have read and enjoyed his work since he poked his young head up in the pages of 2000AD. I guess I am a fan? I’m not uncritical though I try not to be that kind of fan. I mean I love Howard Victor Chaykin to bits but I’m never going to recommend FOREVER MAELSTROM to anyone, okay? Similarly with Alan Moore I didn't buy LOST GIRLS because the page I saw in TCJ had a woman talking about the texture of a bull’s pizzle. Maybe it was a horse, anyway the point is I don’t want to read about beloved children’s characters achieving sexual satisfaction by touching animal’s privates. I’m funny like that. Call me old-fashioned. So while I’m not a hater I guess I’m not a lover but I am a fan. Caveat ends.

So, having thought about it a bit more than I feel I should have had to the nearest I can come to some kind of explanation, some kind of reason for this approach is that Alan Moore is trying to explore some of the connections between sex and violence. I think Alan Moore sees the genre comic’s reliance on violence as unhealthy because it isn't real violence. The power of violence has gone and only empty shock remains. Alan Moore’s work has demonstrated, to me at least, that he understands violence. He knows that violence happens and then keeps right on happening. Violence isn't just the act it’s also the effects of the act. Violence is the original gift that keeps on giving. Any honest depiction of violence should upset you, I think. I could be biased about that. Genre comics don’t deal in honest violence they deal in pantomime violence: safe violence and, thus, fake violence. There are 7o some years of gelding behind every act of violence in genre comics. If you want the violence in your comic to hurt, to be real what to do? It’s this dilemma that leads me to believe Alan Moore is attempting to make violence violent again. And the way I think Alan Moore is attempting to do that is by introducing sex into the equation. Because that's really going to touch a nerve.

That’s what I think and I think that because I know this: practically every act of on-page sex in LOEG:1969 is accompanied, contains or is contrasted with an act of violence. Where conventionally there would only be violence here there is also a sexual element. This is disturbing and upsetting, at least to me. Now, I can only assume (that most dangerous of critical acts) that this is intentional. As I've said the big thing that strikes me about Alan Moore comics is that they have very little room in them for the accidental (or the unintentional). Something as obvious and persistent as the sex/violence link in LOEG:1969 being happenstance seems pretty unlikely. It must have a purpose, it must be intentional. To dismiss it as being merely some kind of accidental twitch of an aged libido or the unconscious seepage of suppressed desires would, I think, be fundamentally wrong at worst and ungenerous at best.

But that leaves me with the puzzle of why Alan Moore goes to such great pains to ensure the reasons for this, the most striking aspect of the work, remain so occluded. Really, I have no recourse but to send comics into the kitchen to help Mother do the dishes while I lean forward to Alan Moore, with his hair brushed and parted, and ask: "But what are your intentions?" And I don't like doing that. If the work has failed to communicate its intentions with regard to an element as pervasive as the sexual violence is in LOEG:C 1969 then the work has failed and failed badly. But not totally.

I have no doubt this is the comic Alan Moore wanted to write but as I'm unsure why that is I have to go with OKAY! Everybody else involved in the visual stuff gets an EXCELLENT!

Now be off with you, I've got to take me Mum her cuppa. What's up with a boy loving his Mum? Tell me that whydoncha? Gwan. Hoppit.

On Endings....

Sorry I've been so reviewless lately -- just stupid swamped between various store bits (CEO and order form being the same week always hits me hard, and we've been negotiating to rerack the store, as well as doing our first advertising in a long long time, since DC is making with the 75% co-op on Facebook and Google ads for The New 52), and home stuff (school starting, various PTA duties from the beginning of the year, repainting our downstairs, so we have some rooms that look like a minimalist's wet dream, while others are a Hoader's nightmare, boxes and pile of crap teetering everywhere) and then all of my extra-curricular stuff like writing Tilting and crusading various fronts of nuWar (agitating seems like it takes more and more CPU cycles every year that I'm past 40!)... I'm doing too many things at once, agh! I've decided, personally, that I want to hold off on writing any kind of a review of JL #1 until I have the week #2 books in my hand, because there's such a crushing weight of expectation upon that one book, that I want to have a little context before I say anything in public -- so I'd say, expect a full slate of 14 comics tackled by Thursday of next week.

So, instead, maybe let's talk about the End of (my) DC Universe, after the cut.... (first warning" spoilers below):

I was really always a DC kid, and I think a lot of that is because of those 100 page giant comics that had new modern stories, paired with like classic Golden Age reprints. Not only did the IDEA of a JSA kinda blow my child-mind, seeing examples of the original comics was even more amazing to me. I knew that I didn't know everything about all of these past adventures or characters, and, in fact, I would probably NEVER know all about them (it's not like I thought I'd own a comics shop when I was 8), but just the existence of a decades-back history hinted at some crazy-ass world to me, that I way wanted to know more about.

(And then, when I encountered the LSH, and found out that it also extended a thousand years into the future, I probably cried a little, in joy!)

Flash-forward to '85 and Crisis, and the First Wave of Reboots (Man of Steel and the Perez Wonder Woman, especially), and I'm all of, what, 18 then, and it's '89 when I opened my store, so, yeah, this specific iteration of the DCU, it's pretty much mine and my peers.

I remember how cool it was for Alan Moore to properly "end" the old Superman, and so now that "My" DC is ending, I was really really hoping that we'd get great final issues of books. There were a few -- I loved the end of Secret Six, and Batgirl, and of Roberson's Superman, and maybe especially James Robinson's final JLA (Having never warmed to his run before that!) -- but for everyone one of those, there were probably five that felt more or less like fill-in issues, or just sudden-stops-because-we-were-told-to, and that kind of hurt.

What hurt maybe even more is there weren't any individual goodbyes. I mean, we've got the damn lettercols back -- could they not have had a final text-based send-off? But I guess no one at DC wanted to attend the funeral when they're already planning the bris, right?

Which brings me to FLASHPOINT #5.

Flashpoint #5 also has a lot of the weight of expectations on it, I guess, as it's supposed to explain the why and the how of the nuWorld order (though that part of the hand off is arguably less important than The New 52 and what they're about (the circumstances of the birth WILL NOT MATTER if the baby has 10 toes, and all of it's parts where they belong, and it can gurgle and coo), but it's really the end of my personal DCU, and I'm going to judge it like that.

There will be spoilers onwards from here, so I'd urge you not to read this before reading the book.

Honestly.

Look away...

....

....

....

I'm warning you!

...

...

...

No?

Well, OK, then, you can't say I didn't warn you....

What ultimately gets me the most is just how sloppy the overall execution of this has been. First off, the book begins with the revelation that it is actually BARRY who changed the timeline, and not Thawne. That's borderline clever, in a let's-invert-expectations kind of way, but I think that waiting for the final issue to reveal that little sting is hitting it far too late. More importantly, it doesn't actually change Barry's motivations an iota -- he still wants the EXACT same thing he wanted before: to set right what once went wrong, hoping this time will be the leap....home.... er, wait, wrong show.

But, anyway, all this nugget of information does is make Barry feel like a dick, but his wants and desires stay the same. Just with a dickish overtone.

But I really do have a problem with Saint Barry, the one remaining Silver Age idol who had not been retroactively made clayfooted (though, oddly, I think I'd argue he was the FIRST one to be unceremoniously dicked with in an attempt to goose sales in "The Trial Of The Flash", ultimately presaging "Death of Superman" and "Knightfall" and "Emerald Twilight"), the one in fact who went out Saving Us All in COIE, as essentially being the Big Bad of the Last Crisis. That's kind of in poor taste.

I don't even GET why Barry was brought back in the first place. Surely the plan wasn't truly to bring him back just to do this? And, presuming that, then morphing the plan so that it's Saint Barry who what duz the deed.... I mean, maybe that's the perfect distillation of "Superhero Decadence" right there? It's kinda messed up, and not in a "but wow that's really clever!" way like, dunno, Miracleman, maybe? It's... well, it is a bit too in reference and on the nose, isn't it?

Icky.

Equally icky for me was Flash's inaction in the story. Not only does Barry not actually do anything to help the world he is in, but when his greatest enemy is at his highest moment of triumph Barry does nothing to resolve the situation, and it falls to dadBats to (naturally) murder Thawne from behind.

Because Saint Barry? The REAL one? Well, Carmine woulda had Barry not only avert the war between the Amazons and the Atlanteans, while returning Superman to the world, and then setting right the timeline, he also would out-Science (even if it was Bad Science) Thawne at the last minute, on top of that. And he at least would have yelled "Murderer!" at Thomas Wayne.

(Also: I way did NOT understand how Barry fractured the timeline. I don't mean the technobabble that Thawne spouted about the mechanic, I followed that -- no, I mean the "How does Barry's interference with the timeline actually impact entirely disparate events like where Superman's rocket physically lands, or who Joe Chill killed?" There's certainly no causation, that I can see, and this strikes me as more of the fundamentally lazy "Superboy punched a wall" of an explanation for continuity errors.)

But, OK, whatever, he's got to put it back together, and that's where I hit my next problem. Well, or two packages of problems.

Dealing first with the actual process of rebuilding the universe: Johns makes the bizarre choice of introducing a mysterious figure who makes vague pronouncements about a "they" who split the timeline in three (Wait, what?!?! Wasn't the explicit point of the 52 Worlds idea was to have one specific chronology/cosmology? You can't just say "no, yeah, but there are also distinct alternate timelines within that world, didn't we mention that?" and hope to get away with it.)

This is a manyfold mistake, in my mind -- first off, I really think there needs to be a complete moratorium on any kind of continuity/cosmology-changing foe/being/society for... like 20 years. Maybe more. We need to be done with that. One day, maybe another generation who has forgotten the lesson of their forefathers will dredge it out again, but nuDC must be a hundred percent free of that kind of comics and storyline, or it is in trouble before it begins.

The second problem here is that, wow, in setting up DC Comics - The New 52, you just built a backdoor into the very structure of it that let's you undo it if you wanted to. On the bus ride home after work, I thought of at least 2 and a half ways I could reverse this with a snap, and I'm a hack, not a gifted writer. That's bad, because I think it undermines the foundation of the new iteration. At the basic level: you don't put a gun in act one, unless someone fires it before the end.

My third problem is more visceral, for the idea from The Mystery Being that there were three split timelines. The art was kind of sketchy about what they ACTUALLY meant, but I took it to be the Vertigo, Wildstorm and "old DCU" Universes. In other words, sort of more or less a meta-comment on the interanl company structure more than anything. Which is, y'know, fine, except for that I don't see a necessary distinction between Vertigo and the DCU, at least in regards to DC-originated titles. Sandman and Swamp Thing and Doom Patrol and Animal Man all very clearly took place in the DCU. Shade certainly could have. I'm not seeing any massive conflict, or that the continuities of those stories were removed from that particular fictive universe. Kid Eternity, maybe, didn't happen (but I think it did), and, even if it didn't, that's 16 issues we're worrying about? Dan Didio might have been told by someone that they were, but, yes, Alan Moore's Swamp Thing CLEARLY took place in the DCU, as did pretty much everything until the Tefe book. So why, y'know, point out "well, we're completely ignoring anything from Tefe onwards, until 'Brightest Day'" while at the same time insisting that Clark and Lois were never married at all in the first place? There's not a "universal" demarcation, is what I'm saying. "Bringing Back" Swampy and A-Man, and Shade or whoever isn't a trick of any kind, because any real DC fan knows that those stories happened there !

Then there's the third part of that triptych -- The Wildstorm universe. And, like, I know that DC really really values Jim Lee, and, I really like Jim personally, and have a tremendous amount of respect for the titles he created, and the work he provided creators space to do, but for any attempt to *handwaves and does the obi-won voice* "The Wildstorm Universe was always meant to be integrated with the DC Universe", I kinda have to say "Fuck You" to that idea. I don't have a problem with them actually integrating aspects, because if people don't like it, those books will rapidly go away, my problem is specifically the notion is was meant to be that way, and I just can't see that for a deal that wasn't made official until 1998.

Finally, we get into the "post change" section, where nuBarry talks to nuBruce, and it is the very first conversation of the nuUniverse.

And they talk about the old one.

And even if nuBarry may or may not remember "my" DCU, he DOES remember the FP one, and there's a physical, tangible artifact of that.

Ugh.

I don't mean to Monday Quarterback, I really don't, but I have to say, I really think it would have been smarter to end with that same shot of Barry waking up from a dream, but then instead of rushing off to the Batcave to seemingly have a "today" conversation about the timeline switch, for him to walk back into his lab wall with all of the chemicals with someone saying "Mm, looking like there might be a storm" or whatever, and leading Barry into having his origin all over again (off camera, though). Then you at least are leading to a new fresh relaunch, instead of complicating matters by having at least two people who affirmatively know the  world is different, as well as a specific physical object to key upon.

(also, in terms of that letter, am I the only one who looked at the size of the writing, and the dimensions of the page, as presented and thought "there can't be more than a single sentence we're not being shown"?)

I *did* get a real emotion moment out of the Batman-stagger when he was handed the note, but the cost of that knowledge, especially to Bruce, of all people... I don't like the cracks it puts in the foundation from the first day of go.

Maybe I am a crazy fanboy freak. I don't really know. But it really bothers me that there are multiple significant backdoors built into the end. Suspension of Disbelief: straining.

For that reason, and all of the others above, I thought FLASHPOINT #5 was pretty AWFUL, though that's kind of a biased read. As an action-adventure story designed to get DC Comics - The New 52 into place it zips along just fine -- from that point of view, it is reasonably OK.

The nice thing is, with this written, My DCU is done. I'm ready to approach the new one with a completely open mind. I'm looking forward to being entertained with no especial concern about "what happened before" (Except... where they explicitly rub it in our face)

As always, what did YOU think?

-B

This Man, This Birthday!

Jack Kirby was born on August 28th 1917. Happy Birthday, Jack Kirby.  Pour a soda pop, cut a slice of cake and put on a funny hat (a crown, perchance) as I talk about a Kirby comic after the break.

To celebrate the man and his creative life I have chosen to take a look at a comic reprinted in:

JACK KIRBY’S THE LOSERS By Jack Kirby (w/a) with Mike Royer & D Bruce Berry on inks and lettering and Joe Kubert and Ernie Chan providing 5 covers With an introduction by Neil Gaiman (DC Comics, $39.99)

The particular issue I have chosen is OUR FIGHTING FORCES Featuring THE LOSERS #160. The story it contains is called “IVAN”. This is an atypical Kirby story in that it is overt in its message but a typical Kirby story in that it is EXCELLENT! Kirby’s work on THE LOSERS is often overlooked and this is probably due to several reasons: Kirby was assigned THE LOSERS in order to meet his page rate as his FOURTH WORLD books were quietly cancelled one by one, Kirby appears to have had no great affection for the characters (I don’t think he ever mentions the fact that Capt. Storm has a wooden leg) and there was just so much of Jack Kirby's work that was worthy of note sometimes recognition can be late in arriving. But Kirby’s work on THE LOSERS is notable in that it demonstrates his consummate facility for adapting the genre to the needs of his imagination. Looked at from a distance these are war comics but on closer inspection, the kind afforded by actually reading them, they are expert exercises in what would later be termed “genre blending”. In this volume there are war stories but these war stories are also ghost stories, love stories, homages and romps. And one of these stories is so brutal and unflinching that it scarcely seems credible that Jolly Jack Kirby did the deed. And it’s all the more powerful for being so. That story is “IVAN”.

“IVAN” opens with an introduction to the titular character at his work. Ivan is a member of the Allegemeine SS and his work on this day is revealed to be the execution of civilians. Ivan is a good worker and promises to “…cut them down like RIPE wheat”. There then follows the customary Kirby two-page splash. Contrary to Kirby comic custom the image is not one of cosmic beauty but one of human atrocity. The startled reader’s eye is compelled to follow the arc of the lancing fire of the off page machine gun. To follow it from the bottom left of the first page where bodies have piled contorted in death to the centre of the spread where bodies crumple in ugly spasms and on to the upper right of the final page where the fire has yet to reach to those still standing frozen forever in their final seconds.

So we see that Ivan is a cog in the great machine of Nazi Germany. The species shaming short-term success of The Third Reich could not have afflicted the 2oth Century without people such as Ivan. For one Ivan alone could not do this. When the machine gun fails Ivan’s co-worker steps up and steps in to finish the job close up. True, he is not Ivan but Ivan is a type and he is of that type. And when the machines of death fail the Ivans will always pick up the slack.

But what is an Ivan? Jack Kirby shows us as the tale unfolds. Ivan is a resident of the village in which he enacts his carnage. The people he killed today were probably people he knew. And tomorrow he will kill more of his own people. Later we are told that not even the children will be spared. Not even the children. But his victims knew Ivan before the Nazis came, now Ivan has been able to reinvent himself. He has a uniform, he has weaponry and he has power. But only a little power because Ivan is a little man in a big machine. Disguised as German Officers and their orderlies The Losers are staying in Ivan’s home and Ivan’s obsequious attitude towards them makes it plain that he knows his place.

It is a happy place for Ivan. The people he kills could be in that place too but they have chosen not to be. It is this choice that dooms them. By making this choice, a choice so easy for Ivan, these people have brought this upon themselves. They are fools. If they are not where Ivan is then they have failed and in failing are beneath contempt. And so Ivan’s anger and resentment are rightfully directed downward. Literally so as we find that the home’s true owner is secreted in the basement along with some other refugees. Ivan has promised these people safe passage in return for valuables. All the things of luxury we see stored in Ivan’s home are the result of other people’s efforts. People now at Ivan’s mercy. People who need to learn the new rules.

Ivan has taken these goods from his victims via an oral contract to ensure their safety. Ivan has no interest in fulfilling this contract as his only interest is self-interest. Ivan’s superiors have no problem with Ivan’s behaviour because it serves their interests. The refugees have no choice but to trust Ivan. They are not fools, they are not idiots but this is all they have. To trust Ivan to fulfil his obligations is to hope against hope. And people are ever hopeful that this time it will be different, this time the word will be kept, this time some humanity will be shown. But Ivans do not need to keep their word once the commodities have been amassed. All that matters is gain. All that matters is what matters to Ivan. Ivan will do this because Ivan can do this, the people he is doing it to do not matter as people only as sources of enrichment. By submitting to this treatment they are deserving of this treatment. And Ivan is content to give it to them despite their lack of gratitude.

In the end Ivan reaps what he sowed on the very first page. The sequence which introduced him is repeated but now the POV is reversed. Here is elegance. Here is genius. We see the scene as though we were Ivan behind his tripod mounted oiled and cocked spandau. If we are there then where is Ivan? He is now pleading and unbelieving amongst today's batch of "wheat". Unlike his earlier victims, stoic in the face of the inevitable, Ivan beseeches us to recognises our similarities, to make it different this time, to show a little humanity.

This is no victory. It is too late to help Ivan’s previous victims and already there’s another Ivan behind the machine gun. And this time it is us. Tomorrow more “wheat” will be “cut down”. For cogs are cogs and cogs are replaced and the machine never notes their passing. And, no, there is no satisfaction to be gleaned from Ivan’s final cry, only horror at its truth. Ivan is, indeed, one of us. Ivan is a human and like all humans Ivan hopes against hope that this time it will be different. But as long as there are Ivans it never will be. In the world that is coming there will be plenty of Ivans. The name “Ivan” means “Yahweh is merciful”. Let us hope so.

"IVAN" is a tale informed by experience. Jack Kirby served in World War 2. By all accounts Jack Kirby took the lives of others as soldiers do. When Jack Kirby returned home he was not unmarked. Ever after his sleep would be disturbed by nightmares of what he saw and what he had had to do. Ever after his work would be informed by one crucial purpose: to ensure that these things would never happen again. That no one would have to do what he had had to do. He dressed it up in colourful bombast but his warnings were there beneath. And one day he created a story which laid it out plain and clear. One day he took the gloves off and created "IVAN". Jack Kirby saw the worst of us and despite everything Jack Kirby never gave up on us. Never.

Image from Kamandi #1 by Jack Kirby & Mike Royer (DC Comics)

And that’s why Jack Kirby will always be EXCELLENT!

"A warrior I have been Now It is all over. A hard time I have."

Song Of Sitting Bull (p.313, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, 1991, Vintage.)

Jack Kirby was born on August 28th, 1917.

Happy Birthday, Jack Kirby (1917 - 1994)!

"I'm the Kind of Father Who Takes His Son To See Zorro Three Times In One Week!", Not Comics - Batman LIVE!

Me and my spawn went and took a look at:

Yup, gonna ramble on about it! Apparently if you are a bit of a strange duck whose only notable feature to your relatives is that you still read comics sometimes you get weird Christmas presents. Last Christmas I received two tickets to BATMAN LIVE and last Sunday I took my 5-year old heir to see what all that was about. This was pretty exciting because I don’t get out much and it didn't cost me anything. Well, it cost me a hair under £2 for a bottle of water which was all I could stretch to. Judging by the prices while Batman was fighting fake crime on the stage the real crime was taking place at the concession stand. Ho ho! Ba-da-bing!

I suppose I should clear up what BATMAN LIVE is; I thought it was going to be a musical, but it isn't. So no show-tunes to sing in the car on the way home I’m afraid. Yes, I realise BATMAN LIVE is yet another alternate media revenue stream for a DC IP and thus a money maker for a large corporation but since I had The Boy with me I decided to give my inner cynic the night off. Entertain me, I thought and we'll be okay.

Well BATMAN LIVE entertained me and it was better than okay. What it is, I guess, is an “experience”. And you know what, it certainly was. The emphasis is on spectacle rather than sense and, yeah, some of it is pretty spectacular. It's largely a procession of set pieces strung together but since these are all pretty hectic, vibrant and dazzling that kind of works out okay. If you were expecting Henrik Ibsen you'll be bit disenchanted to say the least.  Apparently the story is by Geoff Johns, and Geoff Johns is the kind of adult who when questioned about BATMAN LIVE emits this kind of beige drone:

'…he’s an orphan. He’s experienced something that all of us can relate to – loss – that’s just a part of being alive and being a human.’

I like to picture Geoff Johns saying all that while wearing one of those baseball caps with a beer can on each side, the kind with a straw the goes from each can down past the peak into the wearer’s mouth. Maybe waving one of those big foam hands as well. But that’s how I like to picture him most of the time. So, instructed to pump up the proles for the multi-million dollar extravaganza Geoff Johns basically gives with the equivalent of:

"Yore gonna lhu-arn abaht lawsss!"

I guess that explains why a children's entertainment chooses to open with the death of Bruce Wayne’s parents and then, almost immediately, with the death of Dick Grayson’s parents. That sure is a lot of tragic orphaning to front load your spectacle with. Still, that's the nature of the material I guess and kids kind of like that morbid fantasy about losing their parents and growing up to be as awesome as Batman or robin. It's mythic or something. Except for The Boy, who wuvs me very much and wouldn't ever want anything to happen to his dear old Dad! Doncha! Lemme chuch your cheekies! No, you can't have any sweets, what am I made of money!

After that it's pretty much all about Robin discovering his new guardian is Batman, donning the mantle of Robin and learning the difference between revenge and justice. Somewhere in there all Batman's rogues decide to gang up on Batman (because they don't like him, is why). That's pretty much your plot, oh yeah, and Robin teaches Batman to unclench enough to give Catwoman a Batkiss. Boilerplate stuff really. Nice and simple structure on which BATMAN LIVE hangs all the real reasons you went: the spectacle. There's illusions (box, lady, swords, etc.), dance routines (I liked the Berkley-esque nightclub hoops one), explosions (loud, startling), wire-fu (yes, you can see the wires. It's still impressive), trapeze artistry (that bit was really neat) and just a whole bunch of entertaining antics.

For comic fans there are numerous shout outs to the papery origins, name-checks for Julie Madison, a cop called Montoya but the finest of all these is a physical  call back to that Carmine Infantino Detective Comics Cover (the one with the house shaped like the Joker’s head: #365). This huge thing rolls out onto the stage and there are all these parts of it undulating in an unnatural way and you suddenly realise that the  hair and teeth are actually composed of performers. That's quite a remarkable moment so I remarked on it. The pop surrealism of the early comics is evoked with such moments as a security guard patrolling a bank which comes up to his shins and Harley and Catwoman colluding atop a miniature prison. The part with the giant table and chair was a bit puzzling but I liked the wacky goofiness of the image.

The main action unfolds on a (apparently) 100ft-wide, 60ft-deep performance area with a video wall at one end. It’s an odd set up which means the action has to unfold in a strangely constricted space. To the credit of the crew the area is used well allowing the depth to give some scale to the set pieces, scale which would probably be lacking in a more trad wider-than-it-is-deep stage. You can see from my use of technical terms that I’m about as well versed in theatre as I am in Monster Truck Racing, but, y’know, stick with me. I might have a breakdown and start hollering about Marvel’s treatment of Jack Kirby while rubbing mash potato into my face.

Jack Kirby - He Never Gave Up On Us.

Anyway this peculiar arrangement sometimes means one person stands quite a distance away from the other and the resulting conversation looks like two people reluctantly saying their drunken goodbyes in a pub car park come last orders. Most of the time though it’s okay. After all when someone fires a rocket launcher at a Joker balloon, which they do, I guess you need a bit of distance between the two. It also also enables the crafty misdirection of the audience's  gaze when characters have to go off-stage. Very clever.

Like I said at one end there's this big video screen and I guess this is the big selling point as it is more technologically advanced than real people moving about and doing stuff. Sometimes the screen shows comic book panels with art in that modern style which is okay but marred by random pen lines.

Mostly though it is used to illustrate scene transitions with a POV travelling down CGI streets or showing whatever techno-magic Bruce Wayne is making the Bat-Puter do. It's nice and all but I was rather more concerned about what the humans were up to. Because I enjoy seeing people doing this kind of thing. Every night on the stage (actually I think they were doing three shows a day) doing the same thing time after time, getting it right without going slowly insane. It's the kind of old timey awesome I like. What with the way things are going this kind of exhibition of physical artistry probably won't be long for the world. Mark me, in 20 years the only things people will pay to watch other people do are sports and *&%$ing. And that's only because *&%$ing will be a sport by then.

So, I was mostly watching the people. Now, BATMAN LIVE is starting its run in the UK before heading State-side in 2012 because they want it to be ship shape for the folks back home. This means we get to see it first and we get to see it with little touches like Alfred’s mic kicking in a beat after he starts talking (but he was unflappably in character and carried on regardless. Respect to John Conroy!) and a dancing waiter butter fingering a tray of glasses during some nightclub choreography. Fella made a nice recovery though and I’m sure no one noticed. And if they did they wouldn't mention it because it would be churlish. Actually I’m okay with stuff like that, it’s very human and in an odd way just makes the whole thing seem more genuine.

(I had to look up the cast so I guess some of these names may be incorrect due to the tendency of actors to be injured/wake up in the Shetland Isles stinking of drink 5 minutes before the curtain rises in Sheffield/get a better part in a sit-com etc. So I apologise for any inaccuracies here.)

Everybody on the stage was pretty impressive at a base level with lovely clear diction, emotions effectively communicated, hitting their marks and all that stuff that looks easy and gets taken for granted but isn't and shouldn't. So I didn't. Hey, when I was a nipper I was once in a musical production of that biblical Shadrach, Mesach and Abednego in the fiery furnace story and I was on stage for about 5 minutes and out back of the Civic Hall chucking my guts up for another 40. So, trust me, I have nothing but admiration for everybody up there from Batman to the people dressed as day-glo clowns hitting Batman with sticks. I thought everyone was simply marvellous, darling!

"Biff! Pow! The Bible's not just for kids, anymore!"

Because of the pace most of the thesps didn't get a lot to work with (even Batman!) but those that did knew what they were doing. Mark Frost playing the Joker seemed to be channelling John Lithgow so that was pretty great. He wasn't scary as such but he was certainly exuberant and he had more presence than a kid at Christmas. Alex Gianni played both Commissioner Gordon/ The Penguin and was neat enough as the latter but as the former he was pretty grizzled and great. John Conroy essayed a nice Alfred, one at once starchy but affable with it. Ah, but Emma Clifford as Catwoman was the stand out performance and brought feline dignity, a measure of self conflict and, yes, zest to a character that is often represented in the fan-mind as a pair of burglarising boobs. Jolly good show, everybody!

I would also like to take this opportunity to proffer, on the behalf of  every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, apologies to the cast and crew of BATMAN LIVE for what probably appeared to be a subdued response from the British audience I sat amongst. Judging from the folk around me the show went down a storm it’s just that we aren't a demonstrative people. We also, it seems, aren't terribly good at picking up on the cues built into the show for applause.

"No, really, we were clapping on the inside!"

My son thought it was "AWESOME SAUCE!" but that isn't on the SavCrit scale so I’ll say the whole shebang from soup to nuts was VERY GOOD! Except for Catwoman who was EXCELLENT! Take a bow, Emma Clifford! Can’t you hear them. They’re cheering for you! Well, they would be if British people ever deigned to do such a thing.

BATMAN LIVE, I thank you and my son thanks you also.

Cheers and thanks to each and everyone of you involved in the production!