![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
With one magic word
Feb. 2nd, 2007 02:09 pmIn a time when I've grown to actively loathe what DC and Marvel have been doing to their current respective universes, it's good to know that there are occasional projects that still make my fanboy glands tingle.
( Billy Batson!! Say the magic word!! )
Shazam: The Monster Society of Evil, by Jeff Smith.
February 7. I'm so psyched.
( Billy Batson!! Say the magic word!! )
Shazam: The Monster Society of Evil, by Jeff Smith.
February 7. I'm so psyched.
Golden Age Bondage
Nov. 9th, 2006 04:57 pmY'know, whenever people these days reminisce about good old Frederic Wertham and Seduction of the Innocent (1954), the book which contributed highly to the formation of the Comics Code Authority, they usually talk about how wrong-minded he was in accusing Batman and Robin of being a depiction of a homosexual couple. That's an easy straw man to dismiss.
What's less easy to dismiss is his claim that Wonder Woman was a lesbian who engaged in bondage games with her pals. And, really, if you've ever read the early Wonder Woman stories, you'll begin to wonder how exactly William Moulton Marston got away with imposing his fetishes on a 1940s-era comic book-reading public for so long. Seriously, there's practically no subtext to speak of. You read these things while realising that children were their intended audience and you'll start wanting to claw your eyes out.
Courtesy of the Absorbascon, I bring you the Wonder Woman Fetish Cavalcade!
Moulton's Future
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 1 & 2
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 3 & 4
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 5 & 6
And the hits keep coming!
But on a more positive note:
Comics' Greatest Female Role Model
What's less easy to dismiss is his claim that Wonder Woman was a lesbian who engaged in bondage games with her pals. And, really, if you've ever read the early Wonder Woman stories, you'll begin to wonder how exactly William Moulton Marston got away with imposing his fetishes on a 1940s-era comic book-reading public for so long. Seriously, there's practically no subtext to speak of. You read these things while realising that children were their intended audience and you'll start wanting to claw your eyes out.
Courtesy of the Absorbascon, I bring you the Wonder Woman Fetish Cavalcade!
Moulton's Future
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 1 & 2
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 3 & 4
The Wonder Woman Nursery Song, Verses 5 & 6
And the hits keep coming!
But on a more positive note:
Comics' Greatest Female Role Model
By way of The Planetary Chance Machine: Not a hoax! Not a dream! Not an imaginary story! Okay, it's just a really funny coincidence! From the North Carolina Republican Party office:
( Hal Jordan Files To Run Against Speaker Jim Black )
(Insert obligatory lame Green Lantern joke here involving one from the yellow column, one from the 24-hour-charge column and one from the no fear column. Or, if you're in NC, go up to him during a meet-and-greet and ask him the question about the "purple skins", the "orange skins" and the "black skins" from Green Lantern #76. You know you want to.)
( Hal Jordan Files To Run Against Speaker Jim Black )
(Insert obligatory lame Green Lantern joke here involving one from the yellow column, one from the 24-hour-charge column and one from the no fear column. Or, if you're in NC, go up to him during a meet-and-greet and ask him the question about the "purple skins", the "orange skins" and the "black skins" from Green Lantern #76. You know you want to.)
Once a Legionnaire
Oct. 1st, 2006 10:03 amFinally got around to watching the first episode the new Legion of Super-Heroes animated series. I have to confess that I didn't go into the show unbiased: I am a big fan not just of the Silver Age Legion in the comics (before Tom and Mary Bierbaum got their greasy little hands on it)[1] but also of the animated series universe that Paul Dini and Bruce Timm put together. Sure, the Legion has had reboots before, and in particular the Waid reboots have been very good, but without a connection to the earlier animated shows, I believed it would suck.
I'm glad to say that James Tucker et al. have proven me wrong. They knew which of my fanboy buttons to push, and seriously, the moment they got me was during the title sequence when you see the classic Legionnaire symbols Giffen and Levitz came up with in the 80s streaming by on the mission monitor board. I'm such a sap.
Some people may have issues with the redesigns of the Fatal Five or the Legion themselves, but as long as the spirit of the Legion that drew me to those books over twenty years ago — that of young people with remarkable abilities banding together to serve a higher ideal, something greater than themselves — comes through, I'm going to be pretty happy. Still, the Science Police designs are obvious descendants of the Levitz/Giffen era, Legion HQ is an updated version of the post-rocketship HQ, and I was chuffed to recognise various alien species from the Silver Age in the crowd scenes of New Metropolis (a female Xudarian, i.e. from Tomar-Re's race and one of those gem-shaped guys from Barrio III... Chaselon was the name of their Green Lantern champion). I can so tell that the producers are from the same comic-reading generation I am.
Oddly enough, the one thing I don't feel that comfortable about is Superboyman. Marketing I understand, but given the Boy/Lad/Girl names, Superman as a code name is pretty incongruous. Also, I hope that the series moves away from him as a focus eventually. Clark's a nice guy, but he's not why I'm buying the ticket.
Looking forward to the rest. Now, if I can only get my flight ring off my now-too-fat finger...
1. Yes, I can tell you all their real names, and the planets they are from, and given a bit of prompting, in which order they joined and who was leader at what time. And I still have my replica flight ring.
I'm glad to say that James Tucker et al. have proven me wrong. They knew which of my fanboy buttons to push, and seriously, the moment they got me was during the title sequence when you see the classic Legionnaire symbols Giffen and Levitz came up with in the 80s streaming by on the mission monitor board. I'm such a sap.
Some people may have issues with the redesigns of the Fatal Five or the Legion themselves, but as long as the spirit of the Legion that drew me to those books over twenty years ago — that of young people with remarkable abilities banding together to serve a higher ideal, something greater than themselves — comes through, I'm going to be pretty happy. Still, the Science Police designs are obvious descendants of the Levitz/Giffen era, Legion HQ is an updated version of the post-rocketship HQ, and I was chuffed to recognise various alien species from the Silver Age in the crowd scenes of New Metropolis (a female Xudarian, i.e. from Tomar-Re's race and one of those gem-shaped guys from Barrio III... Chaselon was the name of their Green Lantern champion). I can so tell that the producers are from the same comic-reading generation I am.
Oddly enough, the one thing I don't feel that comfortable about is Super
Looking forward to the rest. Now, if I can only get my flight ring off my now-too-fat finger...
1. Yes, I can tell you all their real names, and the planets they are from, and given a bit of prompting, in which order they joined and who was leader at what time. And I still have my replica flight ring.
High concept
Jul. 21st, 2006 08:46 amI have an idea for a television series called Extraordinary. College-age girl wakes up one day to find out she has superpowers. It'll be Felicity meets Supergirl with a dash of Superman: Secret Identity thrown in.
Pay me. Or write fanfic. Whichever.
Pay me. Or write fanfic. Whichever.
Superman Returns
Jul. 9th, 2006 01:09 amThis is spoiler-free — or as spoiler-free as I can make it — review.
Let me just say this so there's no mistaking what I'm about to write: It's not a bad movie. People who know me know I am an unabashed Superman fan. I love the character to death. I understand how the character works, and I know Bryan Singer understands it the same way.
I also know many comic fans enjoyed it, some just as curmudgeonly, if not more so, than I am. It has some wonderfully realised set-pieces, excellent special effects, better performances that I expected from nearly all concerned, especially Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth. It had a good emotional core, was quite exciting in spots, and an interesting new twist that really needs to be followed up in a sequel.
Let me also say this: I'm going to watch it again. Not because I didn't give it a fair shake, but because, oddly enough, the movie didn't give itself a fair shake. I'll try and explain.
I was sceptical of Superman Returns from the start. It was clear in my mind that Christopher Reeve cast a very large shadow that could not be easily replaced. I didn't like the costume, I thought Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth were too young to be playing the parts that were ostensibly five years down the road from Superman II, and generally I thought it would compare badly to the movies of my childhood.
This was why when I went into the cinema, I was trying desperately to think to myself: "Take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms. Don't compare it to the first two, don't compare Routh to Reeve, just see how good it is on its own."
Ironically, however, the movie just wouldn't let me. From John William's "Superman March", from the credits that duplicated the style of the Salkind movies, from whole passages of dialogue that were lifted/repeated from the first two movies, from Routh's Chris Reeve impression, and the glimpses of Hackman in Spacey's performace, as hard as I was trying not to compare this movie to the past, it kept bringing me back. Never has a movie worked so hard to stop me from trying to accept it on its own merits.
Again, let me emphasise — it's not a bad movie. But the shadow of Richard Donner, Tom Mankiewicz, John Williams and Christopher Reeve haunts the movie, and I think it does everyone involved in it a disservice. Some may say that it's homage, it's tribute, and for a fresh new generation who don't remember or haven't seen the originals in any big way, I'm sure it resonates. But for myself, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm in a minority of one, if you keep reminding me of how good the first two movies were and mining them for iconic moments, you're not going to convince me how good this movie is. I hope I'm making sense.
So I'm going to watch it again, and maybe this time I can adjust my mind so that I can accept the kisses to the past without being reminded too much about it.
The good bits: Routh, Bosworth, Spacey, Posey, Marsden, everyone, really, all turn in great performances. Even the kid that plays Lois's son isn't bad, and generally I hate the cute kid syndrome. Luthor is written and played as much more intelligent than the Hackman days, as someone who actually thinks things through, and the movie is much improved for that. Special effects, top notch. Script is witty. Climactic scene, suitably awesome, although mildly implausible. Did not mind the twist at all, although there are continuity problems with that which I won't go into because this is supposed to be non-spoilerish.
The bad bits: Plot is very, very thin. Concentrating on the emotional core is great, but as intelligent as Luthor appears in the movie, there's very little intelligence involved in his scheme. Also, despite the knowledge he's gained, he never makes use of it and thus leaves himself wide open for the way Superman defeats him. As mentioned, the movie also keeps wanting to invite comparisons with the earlier ones. The ending has at least three different denouements, which is always a bad sign, as if the movie can't decide which way it wants to end. Routh and Bosworth still too young to convincingly play a Superman and Lois five years on. Hate, hate, hate the costume: "S" too small, no "S" on the back of the cape, boots too short, stupid "S" buckle... please redesign it for the sequels.
In the end, the basic sin of this Superman movie, to my mind, was that, compared to every other super-hero movie, it was ordinary. So my first watching of it didn't stir any fanboy impulses, didn't make me feel nostalgic, didn't even make me all emotional (and these days, I'm a real sap and tear up at movies a lot, so for a movie about a character who has been my particular hero since childbirth not to do that takes some doing).
Given the frame of mind I went in, and how it was completely stymied by the way the movie structured itself, I think I should give it a second chance. So I'll take a second tilt at it, and hopefully I'll enjoy it more.
On a completely separate note, this week's issue of The Thing was hilarious. Dan Slott is probably the most underrated writer in mainstream comics now. One scene halfway through the book in particular had me chuckling and saying out loud, "Ben Grimm, you're such a bastard." You'll know the one I'm talking about when you read it.
Let me just say this so there's no mistaking what I'm about to write: It's not a bad movie. People who know me know I am an unabashed Superman fan. I love the character to death. I understand how the character works, and I know Bryan Singer understands it the same way.
I also know many comic fans enjoyed it, some just as curmudgeonly, if not more so, than I am. It has some wonderfully realised set-pieces, excellent special effects, better performances that I expected from nearly all concerned, especially Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth. It had a good emotional core, was quite exciting in spots, and an interesting new twist that really needs to be followed up in a sequel.
Let me also say this: I'm going to watch it again. Not because I didn't give it a fair shake, but because, oddly enough, the movie didn't give itself a fair shake. I'll try and explain.
I was sceptical of Superman Returns from the start. It was clear in my mind that Christopher Reeve cast a very large shadow that could not be easily replaced. I didn't like the costume, I thought Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth were too young to be playing the parts that were ostensibly five years down the road from Superman II, and generally I thought it would compare badly to the movies of my childhood.
This was why when I went into the cinema, I was trying desperately to think to myself: "Take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms. Don't compare it to the first two, don't compare Routh to Reeve, just see how good it is on its own."
Ironically, however, the movie just wouldn't let me. From John William's "Superman March", from the credits that duplicated the style of the Salkind movies, from whole passages of dialogue that were lifted/repeated from the first two movies, from Routh's Chris Reeve impression, and the glimpses of Hackman in Spacey's performace, as hard as I was trying not to compare this movie to the past, it kept bringing me back. Never has a movie worked so hard to stop me from trying to accept it on its own merits.
Again, let me emphasise — it's not a bad movie. But the shadow of Richard Donner, Tom Mankiewicz, John Williams and Christopher Reeve haunts the movie, and I think it does everyone involved in it a disservice. Some may say that it's homage, it's tribute, and for a fresh new generation who don't remember or haven't seen the originals in any big way, I'm sure it resonates. But for myself, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm in a minority of one, if you keep reminding me of how good the first two movies were and mining them for iconic moments, you're not going to convince me how good this movie is. I hope I'm making sense.
So I'm going to watch it again, and maybe this time I can adjust my mind so that I can accept the kisses to the past without being reminded too much about it.
The good bits: Routh, Bosworth, Spacey, Posey, Marsden, everyone, really, all turn in great performances. Even the kid that plays Lois's son isn't bad, and generally I hate the cute kid syndrome. Luthor is written and played as much more intelligent than the Hackman days, as someone who actually thinks things through, and the movie is much improved for that. Special effects, top notch. Script is witty. Climactic scene, suitably awesome, although mildly implausible. Did not mind the twist at all, although there are continuity problems with that which I won't go into because this is supposed to be non-spoilerish.
The bad bits: Plot is very, very thin. Concentrating on the emotional core is great, but as intelligent as Luthor appears in the movie, there's very little intelligence involved in his scheme. Also, despite the knowledge he's gained, he never makes use of it and thus leaves himself wide open for the way Superman defeats him. As mentioned, the movie also keeps wanting to invite comparisons with the earlier ones. The ending has at least three different denouements, which is always a bad sign, as if the movie can't decide which way it wants to end. Routh and Bosworth still too young to convincingly play a Superman and Lois five years on. Hate, hate, hate the costume: "S" too small, no "S" on the back of the cape, boots too short, stupid "S" buckle... please redesign it for the sequels.
In the end, the basic sin of this Superman movie, to my mind, was that, compared to every other super-hero movie, it was ordinary. So my first watching of it didn't stir any fanboy impulses, didn't make me feel nostalgic, didn't even make me all emotional (and these days, I'm a real sap and tear up at movies a lot, so for a movie about a character who has been my particular hero since childbirth not to do that takes some doing).
Given the frame of mind I went in, and how it was completely stymied by the way the movie structured itself, I think I should give it a second chance. So I'll take a second tilt at it, and hopefully I'll enjoy it more.
On a completely separate note, this week's issue of The Thing was hilarious. Dan Slott is probably the most underrated writer in mainstream comics now. One scene halfway through the book in particular had me chuckling and saying out loud, "Ben Grimm, you're such a bastard." You'll know the one I'm talking about when you read it.
Speaking of Superman...
Jun. 16th, 2006 10:40 amI'm approaching the new movie the same way that I decided to approach the Star Wars prequels in the end: this movie isn't meant for me.
It's not meant for the kid who demanded his parents bring him to watch Superman: The Movie in 1979 and came out of the cinema believing a man could fly. This is for all the kids who were born in between who never had a big-screen Superman they could call their own.
So the neckline is too high, the cape hangs wrong, the boots are too low, the S-shield is too small, the S on the belt looks stupid and the overall look makes Brandon Routh — and I'm trying to say this in the most non-homophobic way I can — look gay. Maybe his costume was damaged on a planet of really camp fashion designers and this was the best they could do, Supes having persuaded them to lay off the pink glitter and the nipple tassels. Carson would weep.
In addition, Lois and Clark look way too young for something that's supposed to take place after the original movies, and the story just doesn't grab me from what I've seen. Spacey does a great Gene Hackman, though.
But it's not for me. It may surprise me and I may really enjoy it, but it's for a new generation. I hope they do come out of the movie feeling like that kid did in 1979. It was a good feeling.
It's not meant for the kid who demanded his parents bring him to watch Superman: The Movie in 1979 and came out of the cinema believing a man could fly. This is for all the kids who were born in between who never had a big-screen Superman they could call their own.
So the neckline is too high, the cape hangs wrong, the boots are too low, the S-shield is too small, the S on the belt looks stupid and the overall look makes Brandon Routh — and I'm trying to say this in the most non-homophobic way I can — look gay. Maybe his costume was damaged on a planet of really camp fashion designers and this was the best they could do, Supes having persuaded them to lay off the pink glitter and the nipple tassels. Carson would weep.
In addition, Lois and Clark look way too young for something that's supposed to take place after the original movies, and the story just doesn't grab me from what I've seen. Spacey does a great Gene Hackman, though.
But it's not for me. It may surprise me and I may really enjoy it, but it's for a new generation. I hope they do come out of the movie feeling like that kid did in 1979. It was a good feeling.
Green Lantern vs. Stephen Hawking
Jun. 16th, 2006 10:18 am( AP: Pope told Hawking not to study the beginning of the universe. )
The whereabouts of Krona could not be established at press time. (although last time I saw him, he was a cosmic egg. No, really.)
The idea of Stephen Hawking as a super-villain has always appealed to me, though...
The whereabouts of Krona could not be established at press time. (although last time I saw him, he was a cosmic egg. No, really.)
The idea of Stephen Hawking as a super-villain has always appealed to me, though...
Showing the flag... or not
Jun. 10th, 2006 10:24 pmRemember the Haunted Tank? It was the main feature in the pages of DC Comics' G.I. Combat book for a long time. Basic premise was that Lieutenant Jeb Stuart, a tank commander during World War II, had his own personal ghost: the spirit of Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, his namesake, who was able to give him warnings and advice during battle. Jeb's men thought their looey was a nutcase, but they continued to follow him anyway because nutcase or no, he got them through alive. It was probably my favourite war comic, even over Sgt. Rock or the Unknown Soldier.
DC's just reprinted a volume of Haunted Tank stories under their Showcase imprint, in black and white. It was pointed out to me when I picked it up that one very important feature of the Tank is missing from the pages: that Confederate battle flag Jeb used to fly on his tank. For the reprint, DC have managed to remove every instance of that flag appearing.
I can understand to a certain extent the sensitive nature of flying the Confederate flag. Americans who understand history know that the Civil War has never really gone away, even after 140 years, so I can understand that. But it seems to me that the flying of the Confederate flag on Jeb's tank was never meant to be offensive, but simply appropriate, given the identity of its guardian ghost. I really don't see anyone being offended by it; they certainly weren't when it was being published in the 70s.
I can still enjoy the stories without that flag, I suppose, but something in me still says that's just so wrong, and it sticks in my craw.
DC's just reprinted a volume of Haunted Tank stories under their Showcase imprint, in black and white. It was pointed out to me when I picked it up that one very important feature of the Tank is missing from the pages: that Confederate battle flag Jeb used to fly on his tank. For the reprint, DC have managed to remove every instance of that flag appearing.
I can understand to a certain extent the sensitive nature of flying the Confederate flag. Americans who understand history know that the Civil War has never really gone away, even after 140 years, so I can understand that. But it seems to me that the flying of the Confederate flag on Jeb's tank was never meant to be offensive, but simply appropriate, given the identity of its guardian ghost. I really don't see anyone being offended by it; they certainly weren't when it was being published in the 70s.
I can still enjoy the stories without that flag, I suppose, but something in me still says that's just so wrong, and it sticks in my craw.
Musings of a Curmudgeonly Comics Fan
Apr. 27th, 2006 04:13 pmAs you guys probably know, I haven't been buying comics regularly for, oh, coming on to three years now. Not that I don't still keep in touch with what's going on - I buy the odd trade paperback, the odd reprint, and every week or couple of weeks I mosey down to the ol' Comics Mart and scan over the shelf, see what's happening these days with the X-Men, or Spider-Man, or pick up stuff like Infinite Crisis and start going, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?"
( Rest of rambling comic book recommendations that degenerate into a grumpy old man rant follows. )
( Rest of rambling comic book recommendations that degenerate into a grumpy old man rant follows. )
Stalin's Super Apes
Dec. 21st, 2005 04:31 pmAnd you thought the Red Ghost and his Super-Apes were made up. Stalin. Stan Lee. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
( Stalin's half-man, half-ape super-warriors )
( Stalin's half-man, half-ape super-warriors )
I used to like Larry Elmore's work
Aug. 6th, 2005 02:23 pmLIBERALITY FOR ALL #1
It is 2021, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of 9/11 It is up to an underground group of bio-mechanically enhanced conservatives led by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North to thwart Ambassador Usama Bin Laden's plans to nuke New York City... And wake the world from an Orwellian nightmare of United Nations dominated ultra-liberalism.
(Read complete synopsis) or (see 5-page preview)
It's one of those train wreck moments. What I really find horrifyingly funny — and more horrified than funny, really — is that of all people, they choose as heroes Oliver "Iran Contra" North and G. Gordon "Watergate" Liddy. It's not even good satire; the writing is reminiscent, if anything, of one of Jack T. Chick's post-apocalyptic screeds, like "The Beast" and in particular, "The Last Generation".
You might want to take a shower after reading the preview. I know I did.
P.S. For some reason, chick.com is blocked by the Singapore government. Not that I'm complaining about this particular piece of censorship, mind...
It is 2021, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of 9/11 It is up to an underground group of bio-mechanically enhanced conservatives led by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North to thwart Ambassador Usama Bin Laden's plans to nuke New York City... And wake the world from an Orwellian nightmare of United Nations dominated ultra-liberalism.
(Read complete synopsis) or (see 5-page preview)
It's one of those train wreck moments. What I really find horrifyingly funny — and more horrified than funny, really — is that of all people, they choose as heroes Oliver "Iran Contra" North and G. Gordon "Watergate" Liddy. It's not even good satire; the writing is reminiscent, if anything, of one of Jack T. Chick's post-apocalyptic screeds, like "The Beast" and in particular, "The Last Generation".
You might want to take a shower after reading the preview. I know I did.
P.S. For some reason, chick.com is blocked by the Singapore government. Not that I'm complaining about this particular piece of censorship, mind...
I'm With Stupid
Aug. 2nd, 2005 03:12 pmHere's a comic book recommendation. I haven't been buying comics for a long while, due to financial constraints, and readers of this journal will remember me talking about when I met up with my friend Tom during Consonance and Tom filled me in on what was going on in comic books in my "absence", leading to two hours of generally, "What the fuck?!?" being hurled back at him.
So I'm not keen on picking up stuff on the stands. I've flipped through a few of the Countdown to Infinite Crisis stuff - interests me not. I've flipped through some of the Marvel Universe stuff. Ditto. I've basically been catching up on the Essential Marvel volumes I missed, like Iron Man and Avengers, and finally picked up Darwyn Cooke's horribly underated DC: The New Frontier in trade paperback as well as Kurt Busiek and Stuart Immonen's Secret Identity, which I also cannot recommend highly enough. One of the runs I did enjoy a lot catching up on while staying overnight with Tom was Dan Slott's She-Hulk, which was by turns funny, dramatic, and just plain fun, an element sorely lacking in comic books these days.
One of the things that came out in my absence was the Spider-Man/Human Torch limited series, written by Slott and drawn by an equally underrated Ty Templeton (Ty, I still want you to finish Stig's Inferno. Please.). The digest form of the 5-issue series, under the overall title of "I'm With Stupid", is out, and this is one of those things you'll have to take from me, and trust that my taste in comic books is impeccable. Which it is. I'm not modest about it. I know good stuff. Buy this book.
"I'm With Stupid", a story in five standalone parts, chronicles the love/hate friendship of Peter Parker and Johnny Storm, two super-powered teenagers who think each other have got it made, who get on each other's nerves because they're so much alike - insecure, masking that with cockiness, struggling with teen angst issues and love lives, and yet faced with awesome responsibilities that they keep trying to run away from but always catch up to them. They also grew up together, and this book recognizes that.
Issue 1 takes place during the early days of their careers, when Johnny was still dating Dorrie Evans and Peter was still trying to avoid meeting Mary Jane. Issue 2 is set in Peter's freshman year in college, when Johnny was seeing Crystal and the two (Peter and Johnny, not Johnny and Crystal) switch places for a day. Issue 3 is just after Gwen's death, and what would the Gerry Conway era be without the infamous Spider-Mobile? Issue 4 is from the 80s, before Spidey's black suit turned into Venom, and has the babelicious Black Cat as well. Issue 5 is set in the present day, and a long overdue event takes place in the middle of a hostage situation in Peter's school... an event I won't spoil, because it's the absolute highlight of the series.
Slott is spot on with his dialogue, with his flair for adhering and alluding to continuity while at the same time pointing out the complete ludicrousness of it ("What about that time when we...?" "Clone." "And when we...?" "Clone." deserves to go down as one the absolute classic exchanges ever), proving that you don't have to retcon anything to do a good story. Ty Templeton, of course, is a master of comic timing as well as composition, able to summon the styles of eras past from Ditko to Romita to today.
I gush, I know. But it's good. It's not world-shattering, it's not deep, it's not something that will be mylar sealed or appreciate in price a hundred times over, but, gosh darn it, to sound like a broken record, it's fun. Ultimately, it's about two people who are best friends almost despite themselves, and reminds us that friendship is about compatibility, but mostly it's also about history.
Now, hie thee to your comic shop. Buy it, and begone.
So I'm not keen on picking up stuff on the stands. I've flipped through a few of the Countdown to Infinite Crisis stuff - interests me not. I've flipped through some of the Marvel Universe stuff. Ditto. I've basically been catching up on the Essential Marvel volumes I missed, like Iron Man and Avengers, and finally picked up Darwyn Cooke's horribly underated DC: The New Frontier in trade paperback as well as Kurt Busiek and Stuart Immonen's Secret Identity, which I also cannot recommend highly enough. One of the runs I did enjoy a lot catching up on while staying overnight with Tom was Dan Slott's She-Hulk, which was by turns funny, dramatic, and just plain fun, an element sorely lacking in comic books these days.
One of the things that came out in my absence was the Spider-Man/Human Torch limited series, written by Slott and drawn by an equally underrated Ty Templeton (Ty, I still want you to finish Stig's Inferno. Please.). The digest form of the 5-issue series, under the overall title of "I'm With Stupid", is out, and this is one of those things you'll have to take from me, and trust that my taste in comic books is impeccable. Which it is. I'm not modest about it. I know good stuff. Buy this book.
"I'm With Stupid", a story in five standalone parts, chronicles the love/hate friendship of Peter Parker and Johnny Storm, two super-powered teenagers who think each other have got it made, who get on each other's nerves because they're so much alike - insecure, masking that with cockiness, struggling with teen angst issues and love lives, and yet faced with awesome responsibilities that they keep trying to run away from but always catch up to them. They also grew up together, and this book recognizes that.
Issue 1 takes place during the early days of their careers, when Johnny was still dating Dorrie Evans and Peter was still trying to avoid meeting Mary Jane. Issue 2 is set in Peter's freshman year in college, when Johnny was seeing Crystal and the two (Peter and Johnny, not Johnny and Crystal) switch places for a day. Issue 3 is just after Gwen's death, and what would the Gerry Conway era be without the infamous Spider-Mobile? Issue 4 is from the 80s, before Spidey's black suit turned into Venom, and has the babelicious Black Cat as well. Issue 5 is set in the present day, and a long overdue event takes place in the middle of a hostage situation in Peter's school... an event I won't spoil, because it's the absolute highlight of the series.
Slott is spot on with his dialogue, with his flair for adhering and alluding to continuity while at the same time pointing out the complete ludicrousness of it ("What about that time when we...?" "Clone." "And when we...?" "Clone." deserves to go down as one the absolute classic exchanges ever), proving that you don't have to retcon anything to do a good story. Ty Templeton, of course, is a master of comic timing as well as composition, able to summon the styles of eras past from Ditko to Romita to today.
I gush, I know. But it's good. It's not world-shattering, it's not deep, it's not something that will be mylar sealed or appreciate in price a hundred times over, but, gosh darn it, to sound like a broken record, it's fun. Ultimately, it's about two people who are best friends almost despite themselves, and reminds us that friendship is about compatibility, but mostly it's also about history.
Now, hie thee to your comic shop. Buy it, and begone.
[Obit] The Bravest and Boldest
Jul. 20th, 2005 10:57 am( James N. Aparo, 1932-2005 )
"Later, I was doing Batman all those years. I enjoyed doing the Batman character, don't get me wrong. There's different writers that write it. Different characters in the stories. It keeps it alive and fresh. You really have to like the characters. You have to be that way to stay fresh."
Jim Aparo drew the first comic I remember buying, from a corner store near my grandfather's place in Tiong Bahru. It was an issue of The Phantom, published by Charlton Comics, and I remember the story distinctly - it was about a would-be Egyptian pharoah who had taken the identity of the Ghost-Who-Walks, and even made the Phantom doubt himself, until he discovered that the Egyptian Phantom's "powers" were all a result of trickery.
Years later, he was a fixture on The Brave and the Bold when it became a Batman team-up book, all the way to its conclusion at #200, and thereafter moved on to Batman and the Outsiders. Aparo's style was how I drew Batman myself at that age, and you could never mistake an Aparo Batman - the way he drew the mask head on, the nose always vanished into darkness, giving it a very distinctive and mysterious look. Aparo was one of those guys that was always just there, plugging away, workmanlike, no flash, no airs, just consistently good work.
Rest well, Jim. We'll miss you.
Jim Aparo drew the first comic I remember buying, from a corner store near my grandfather's place in Tiong Bahru. It was an issue of The Phantom, published by Charlton Comics, and I remember the story distinctly - it was about a would-be Egyptian pharoah who had taken the identity of the Ghost-Who-Walks, and even made the Phantom doubt himself, until he discovered that the Egyptian Phantom's "powers" were all a result of trickery.
Years later, he was a fixture on The Brave and the Bold when it became a Batman team-up book, all the way to its conclusion at #200, and thereafter moved on to Batman and the Outsiders. Aparo's style was how I drew Batman myself at that age, and you could never mistake an Aparo Batman - the way he drew the mask head on, the nose always vanished into darkness, giving it a very distinctive and mysterious look. Aparo was one of those guys that was always just there, plugging away, workmanlike, no flash, no airs, just consistently good work.
Rest well, Jim. We'll miss you.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
[Obit] Funeral for a friend
Oct. 11th, 2004 04:00 amthen they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will,
they soon become inevitable."
Fanboy Tingles!
Feb. 14th, 2004 07:40 pmI got an e-mail from one of my literary heroes, former Superman writer Elliot S! Maggin referring to one of my posts on USENET about Superman a couple of years ago, and saying I was one of the guys "who get the joke."
Wow!
Wow!
This week's Enterprise.
Jan. 10th, 2003 12:41 amToo tired this week, so Trip's foray into "Enemy Mine" territory will get off lightly from me - I won't do my usual snark fest. All in all, John Shiban (who sucked terribly in "The X-Files", really), doesn't do all that badly in Enterprise. It's the usual predictable stuff, but relatively enjoyable due to a virtuoso performance by Connor Trineer, who doesn't get to play Trip as the redneck moron for once. They really need to get Bermaga away from the writing chores.
I think Star Trek is suffering the same fate for me as is comic books. The current crop doesn't interest me anymore, and I look back on the old days for better times and better stories. In my comic stash today came the archive edition of Wally Wood's "T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents", collecting the 1st four issues of that classic run, recolored and all. DC put a superb reproduction together, and even made the pages a little off white so it felt like an archive. The stories are cheesy, but the art is slick, gets the job done, and it feels and reads FUN. Trek , like the current comics, just ain't much fun anymore, and I wish they felt like were like when I was a kid again. I think to myself it can't really be my fault because when I pick up the old stuff I still get that same rush, but I don't know.
I've read comics for thirty years. Been a Trek fan for over twenty. Maybe that's too long. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I am old.
I think Star Trek is suffering the same fate for me as is comic books. The current crop doesn't interest me anymore, and I look back on the old days for better times and better stories. In my comic stash today came the archive edition of Wally Wood's "T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents", collecting the 1st four issues of that classic run, recolored and all. DC put a superb reproduction together, and even made the pages a little off white so it felt like an archive. The stories are cheesy, but the art is slick, gets the job done, and it feels and reads FUN. Trek , like the current comics, just ain't much fun anymore, and I wish they felt like were like when I was a kid again. I think to myself it can't really be my fault because when I pick up the old stuff I still get that same rush, but I don't know.
I've read comics for thirty years. Been a Trek fan for over twenty. Maybe that's too long. Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I am old.
