Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My DC reading list is shrinking again.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G'day,

    My DC reading list has massively increased by an infinite amount! From zero to one. Picked up SENSATION COMICS FEATURING WONDER WOMAN #1
    and rather enjoyed it. Its out of the current continuity and just had a couple of entertaining stand alone stories. Suitable for both nine year old girls and middle aged men.

    ta

    Ralph

    Comment


    • I love Sensation Comics #1!!

      The current people running Marvel in what I call the Axel Alonso era are, to my mind, doing massively good stuff.

      Interestingly, the Editor In Chief at Marvel during Heroes Reborn was Bob Harras--and now he's in charge of many things at DC...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
        My DC reading list has massively increased by an infinite amount! From zero to one. Picked up SENSATION COMICS FEATURING WONDER WOMAN #1
        and rather enjoyed it. Its out of the current continuity and just had a couple of entertaining stand alone stories. Suitable for both nine year old girls and middle aged men.
        Mixed feelings. Enjoyed the first story as a 'nothing special' (but nice-to-see-you-again) flashback to the pre-New 52 WW. Second story is just a one-off N52 WW story, so I felt sort of cheated out of half of a comic.
        Hope this pattern doesn't hold for the series as a whole.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
          The current people running Marvel in what I call the Axel Alonso era are, to my mind, doing massively good stuff.
          They are doing good stuff. Maybe we just have a different definition of massive. I look at the number of titles, I look at the good stuff, and it looks... statistically minor. Not that this has ever been far from the way of things. Maybe it's just that the 'average' stuff is less palatable to me than it ever was before, or that the good stuff is of sufficient goodness to make the rest look worse by comparison, and the constant cycle of 'events' has had some inevitable burnout effect. It's OK, I'm adjusted to it. Six or so worthwhile reads is decent, and probably only looks deficient in terms of the massive amount of titles they publish. But this is the way of the comic market now, where one or two titles used to suffice, now four or six related ones are filling that same niche.

          There is an upside. Less time spent reading Marvel (and DC) comics means more time (and $) to read Dynamite, IDW, Dark Horse, Boom!, Image, Fantagraphics, Drawn & Quarterly, Abrams ComicArts, classic comic strip reprints, select manga titles, TwoMorrows magazines and books, Eaglemoss magazines, pulp reprints, miscellaneous art and comic histories/analyses. I have many different eggs in many different baskets. A lot of those things aren't even on many people's map in terms of any significance to them. I can still enjoy a Marvel or DC comic now and then, perhaps a lot less frequently than in the past, and with much less personal investment in one or two universes. It's not the meat in the sandwich any more, or maybe more accurately, just one of a dozen or so tastes to be found at the all-you-can-eat buffet. I'm an eclectic comics zombie.
          Last edited by pulphero; 08-29-2014, 06:24 AM.

          Comment


          • G'day,

            Well, I didn't say it was a great comic but it was entertaining. Unlike the New 52 book I purchased a few months ago which I threw away in disgust. My introduction to her was in the George Perez era so I have expectations. Now if they can only bring back Steve Trevor and the invisible plane.

            ta

            Ralph


            Originally posted by pulphero View Post
            Mixed feelings. Enjoyed the first story as a 'nothing special' (but nice-to-see-you-again) flashback to the pre-New 52 WW. Second story is just a one-off N52 WW story, so I felt sort of cheated out of half of a comic.
            Hope this pattern doesn't hold for the series as a whole.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ralphuniverse View Post
              Now if they can only bring back Steve Trevor and the invisible plane.
              I always did want to see a story from the air traffic controller's point of view. For some reason, they hardly ever depict Wonder Woman making legal takeoffs and landings in that plane. I was never really clear (pun intended) on whether the "invisible" plane was really invisible, or merely transparent (and it may have been treated differently in different stories), because of the comic book convention of making the truly invisible VISIBLE to the reader (like Sue Storm). WE can see it, but can the characters in the story see it? If it's only transparent, then that makes it more of an 'ultrastealth' plane. In the Lynda Carter TV series, it obviously WAS a transparent plane. And most WW comic book stories don't portray incidental characters as too alarmed (as they surely would be) if the plane was really invisible. But in the real world, when you talk about "invisible tape" you know it's just transparent tape. In comic books, where things actually CAN be (and frequently are) literally invisible, that terminology is confusing at best.
              Last edited by pulphero; 08-29-2014, 07:38 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                I always did want to see a story from the air traffic controller's point of view. For some reason, they hardly ever depict Wonder Woman making legal takeoffs and landings in that plane. I was never really clear (pun intended) on whether the "invisible" plane was really invisible, or merely transparent (and it may have been treated differently in different stories), because of the comic book convention of making the truly invisible VISIBLE to the reader (like Sue Storm). WE can see it, but can the characters in the story see it? If it's only transparent, then that makes it more of an 'ultrastealth' plane. In the Lynda Carter TV series, it obviously WAS a transparent plane. And most WW comic book stories don't portray incidental characters as too alarmed (as they surely would be) if the plane was really invisible. But in the real world, when you talk about "invisible tape" you know it's just transparent tape. In comic books, where things actually CAN be (and frequently are) literally invisible, that terminology is confusing at best.
                The only story that I can think of where it's definitely invisible is DC: The New Frontier. Even the readers can't see it in that story.

                Comment


                • Now that I've caught up on the last few (final?) Adventures of Superman issues, I have to add here that while I was elated with the Adventures of Superman book's existence, and liked many of the stories very much, some of them were not as good and in a few cases (like the Joker one) were just plain awful, in my opinion, so "not New 52" definitely does not mean "good." I like Greg Pak's work on Superman much better than some of the AoS stories, red briefs or no red briefs.

                  Comment


                  • This is about Marvel but this is the thread where the whole "only thing I'm really not happy about is the Illuminati "ends justify the means" stuff I'm trying to ignore" thing is...

                    Just saw this and it puts a wholly different spin on the entire storyline. Spoilers ahead!!

                    http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...s-i-save-them/

                    Well. Um. So... maybe Hickman's making the exact opposite point I thought he was.

                    Wow. Cool.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                      This is about Marvel but this is the thread where the whole "only thing I'm really not happy about is the Illuminati "ends justify the means" stuff I'm trying to ignore" thing is...

                      Just saw this and it puts a wholly different spin on the entire storyline. Spoilers ahead!!

                      http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...s-i-save-them/

                      Well. Um. So... maybe Hickman's making the exact opposite point I thought he was.

                      Wow. Cool.
                      That was a very nice moment in Avengers #34.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lobster Johnson View Post
                        That was a very nice moment in Avengers #34.
                        Chast was talking about NEW Avengers (aka "The Illuminati"), but which moment are you referring to? It seems there are several; most involve Captain America in some way. Even though Cap is probably my favorite Marvel character of all time, at the same time when I read this it doesn't seem all one-sided (from the POV of how Hickman is writing it), it seems written more like a "heart versus brain" kind of thing, and boy, that's a personal battle you never really want to find yourself in. There's a reason that we have both, so if you're going to have to distrust one to trust the other, something's not right, and it will probably lead to negative consequences. (Of course, I'm talking metaphorically here, because in reality all your heart is doing is pumping the blood to your brain to bring it vital oxygen and nutrients.) For some writers, this would be a straightforward "message" thing, but Hickman always strikes me as approaching his writing from the cerebral side of things.

                        So, you know, something like ‘I don’t measure peoples’ lives. I save them.’ sounds good, heroic. We appreciate the feeling of where that's coming from, the underlying desire and value being expressed there. Trying to dissect that in terms of this very specific situation, though... maybe some people would say that's God's job. So you could just play the role of Uatu the Watcher here and wait and see what God does about it. Other stories have sort of hinted at Heisenberg's Prinicple of Uncertainty* as applied to the Watcher, so action or inaction isn't necessarily the thing... it's observing it in the first place. Either way you're involved. Having said that, I'm not sure how to interpret the latest issue of New Avengers where the Illuminati all resign themselves to inaction on this matter, and THEN... nothing happens. The predicted incursion does not seem to have occurred. I'm not quite sure how to interpret this just yet. The Illuminati made a mistake? Their prediction mechanism is/was flawed? Yet somehow I'm not convinced that that is the explanation here. It's almost as if... the non-event is subjective from the perspective of these particular observers. From the POV of the observers, the looming threat will NEVER happen to them in their universe, just because of their involvement as observers? A Schroedinger's Cat paradox? It would seem Hickman-esque to me.

                        In terms of the CBR article, yeah, we read that and feel inspiration and hope. Cap's the man. He'll save the day and get it done. We have faith in Cap (and that's his REAL superpower). And if he doesn't, then maybe that just makes for bad comics, because that's not what we're hoping for when we plunk down our money. Or at least a bad Captain America story. The actual story mechanics here escape me, but it's clear that what we're expecting and hoping for is that feelgood moment where truth, justice and righteousness triumphs over all, regardless of the logic or illogic or improbability of the whole scenario. The troublesome point after that comes from the if/when Cap Saves The Day resolution to the story - what then? What does that make Iron Man, Reed Richards, Hank McCoy, et. al. in terms of this story, the villains? And that's not a happy prospect, either. In Ye Olden Dayes of comic book stories, there would never be a shred of doubt regarding the unanimity of eye-to-eye viewpoints of the varied protagonists, yet that seems hopelessly improbable and unrealistic in terms of what we expect from reading comic book stories today, as well. In the past, it was a simple matter of choosing one from Column A ("Superheroes") versus one from Column B ("Supervillains").

                        And I know it's pretty easy to point the finger of blame here at J. Hickman. After all, he wrote the story, so who can be called more culpable? Yet, he's not writing in a vacuum, either from the authorial viewpoint, or the viewpoint of the audience as a whole. For all I know, Hickman wasn't even born when Denny O'Neil wrote his first Green Lantern/Green Arrow story, which is the point I personally would identify as shaping the direction of the medium regarding interpersonal conflicts between story protagonists. Before that, most such conflict would probably be neatly characterized as "Simple Misunderstandings". Yet even THAT isn't completely true, because you can go all the way back to the Human Torch/Sub-Mariner conflicts of 1940 and I don't think that fits into the "Simple Misunderstanding" category. After that, publishers largely cleaned things up to make comics simple to understand for kids, and less of a target for parents' complaints. Needless to say, the Comics Code Authority beefed up that aspect for a good while before Stan Lee introduced quarrelsome team-mates, and Denny O'Neil amplified that with deeper conflicting values than "you just don't understand". When Namor returned in the 1960s, he reverted (via the story mechanism of amnesia) to his earliest persona/characterization, and since that time he's always been the potential wild card in any Marvel Universe story (although the potential fluctuates, according to whether he's appearing regularly in an ongoing series of his own, as part of a team, or some combination of those two, those scenarios tending to reduce the probability [but never to zero] that he'll wind up as a wild card from the Supervillain Deck in any given story).

                        [*See HERE for how that applies to free-will decision making.]
                        Last edited by pulphero; 09-01-2014, 04:53 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                          Well. Um. So... maybe Hickman's making the exact opposite point I thought he was.

                          Wow. Cool.
                          The "exact opposite" of the ends don't justify the means (at least, I thought that was the point you were taking from it, at that point, if that's not too confusing)? As in, the ends DO justify the means? That's the weird thing. What if you already KNOW for certain what the ends are, or at least are convinced that you do? See, the thing that throws me on these ethical questions are the science-fictional game-changers in operation in a story like this. In "real life" these "common wisdom"-type ethics seem more clear-cut than they do when you all of a sudden throw a non-linear causality thing into the mix like time-travel or the confirmation of the existence of infinite parallel universes. If we accept the reality of that premise as proven, it means not only that anything CAN happen, somewhere, but also that everything MUST happen, somewhere. That means, in effect, all we can try to do is keep our hand on the rudder of our own little boat of consciousness, and try to steer a course for ourselves to occupy the reality that's most optimal to us. Not trying to start an argument or anything, just thinking out loud.
                          Last edited by pulphero; 09-01-2014, 01:39 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                            Chast was talking about NEW Avengers (aka "The Illuminati"), but which moment are you referring to?
                            My bad; maybe it was in New Avengers. I didn't get the issue, I just read the article about it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lobster Johnson View Post
                              My bad; maybe it was in New Avengers. I didn't get the issue, I just read the article about it.
                              No biggie, because beginning in September both Avengers and New Avengers become part of the same storyline (both titles have been written from their inception by Jonathan Hickman). So that's what that "Captain America moment" in Avengers #34 was actually leading into, the melding of what were formerly two separate storylines into one -- and both titles are leading into Marvel's big May 2015 event (TIME RUNS OUT), the next big line-wide thing after AXIS.

                              Comment


                              • Sorry for any confusion--I thought that the point that Hickman was making through Cap was that, indeed, the ends don't justify the means.

                                What does that make Iron Man, Reed Richards, Hank McCoy, et. al. in terms of this story, the villains?
                                Well, yeah, or at least horribly horribly misguided. But I considered them to be behaving villainously already--I just assumed that the writer thought that would be a morally acceptable course of action.

                                I'm not desperate to get into a debate over such matters again, but I did want to clear up any confusion about what I was saying.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X