Direct Message 07: Amazing Spider-Man #700

New Comics Should be Good blogger Alec Berry and I have come together once again, this time to discuss Amazing Spider-Man #700. I liked it more than Alec did. I think he and I trade back and forth liking things. What will happen next time? Who knows! But, for now, go read that and, then, don't forget to check out the latest edition of Random Thoughts where I offer up predictions for comics in 2013. Some are serious, some are not, try to separate the two.

You can read Direct Message 07 HERE!

Direct Message 06: Cable & X-Force #1

This one came together quickly. It's really just Alec and I punching Cable & X-Force #1 again and again in the hopes that it will die. Alec does most of the work, while I just sort of hang back all proud and grinning. Also, Shawn Starr makes a guest art appearance.

You can read Direct Message 06 HERE!

Direct Message 05: Fatale

Mostly because of me, Direct Message 05 wherein Alec and I discuss Fatale was delayed. The words... they would not come. Eventually they did in their way, so here we are with a completed discussion column. Isn't that lovely? Go read it. Enjoy.

You can read Direct Message 05 on Fatale HERE!

Direct Message 04: The Manhattan Projects

Alec Berry and I managed to get the latest Direct Message on The Manhattan Projects done in about four days. Is this a sign that we've finally gotten our act together? Who knows! But, there's some new comic-discussing going on and you should go read it.

The latest Direct Message can be read HERE!

Direct Message 3.5: Alex Ross, Kingdom Come, and Marvels

A while back, Alec Berry and I began our next Direct Message discussion on Alex Ross, specifically Kingdom Come and Marvels. It sort of petered out and died, mostly because of Alec. But, I understand. Part of his problem is that he's still finding his voice in criticism and just wasn't happy with what he said here -- mostly how he said it. He's struggling a bit with trying to be honest and not too influenced by others and it's something that we've all gone through at different times. So, I never had any issues with him not wanting to continue this one. But, why let it go to waste? It's up over on the Chemical Box and we're going to begin another one soon on The Manhattan Projects. Now, I stand by everything I say in this discussion and how I said it.

You can read Direct Message 3.5 HERE!

Direct Message 02: Sleeper Part Two

[Alec Berry and I have finally returned for another discussion in our Direct Message series. This time, we're discussing Sleeper by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. Part one is available on Alec's blog.]


Chad Nevett: I love the way Sean Phillips approaches page compositions in Sleeper. I think that’s what I love most about the comic. The way he stacks panels on top of a page-large shot. That’s not a hard and fast rule, of course; he switches to straight linear compositions for the ‘origins game’ and some flashbacks. But, that approach to layouts is so different, such a unique way to build the visual look of the series. A bunch of small details that obscure the big picture. You can see glimpses of what lays beyond, just not the whole thing. It’s not a perfect analogy for the series, but it’s still inventive and shows a bit more effort and thought that you usually see in comics like this. He really works those pages. It doesn’t always work since there are three or four times the way he stacks the panels leaves it unclear about what order to read the panels in. If there’s any part of Phillips’s post-Sleeper art I don’t like, it’s that he’s stuck to a very grid-based approach to page compositions since then. That straight ahead linear approach is good for clarity, sure; I just like to see ambition and pushing things. He did that in Sleeper.


That new enough for you?


Alec Berry: I think so. Of course, I’m typing this response months later, so I’m pretty sure little of this is new at this point. But, hey, I’m back! 


Phillip’s page designs were also something I considered when reading, and like you, I noticed how they play into the story, which, like you said, came off as a nice switch from Phillip’s usual orthodox layouts. I’d also agree with what you wrote - that the pages can sometimes inhibit reading - but for the most part I found them unique and functional rather than pointless. They really complement what Brubaker’s doing in terms of what I mentioned before … that the story sort of acts like this jam band song, twisting and turning and all of that. They’re also Phillip’s most notable contribution to the comic, other than his actual style, and they show he really took charge on his end and found ways to push the story forward rather than just show the script. You mentioned that there wasn’t much to push you through Sleeper … that nothing, besides characters, was really pushing the story. I kind of think Phillip’s page designs were his way of picking up some of that slack, but more importantly, the designs emphasize the series’ attention to attitude by providing the comic some flash and a visual hook. His pages here almost resemble the visual of a dossier - like someone threw a manila envelope full of shit onto a table and the possessions inside of it landed randomly in a pile. Which would back up the idea you mentioned … random bits of info lying beneath the surface.


If anything though, the pages are dynamic, and that goes hand-in-hand with the pulpy tone Sleeper presents, which, oddly, is something I missed the first time around. Originally, this was such an espionage story to me with all of its shadows and grimy marks, but now all I can see are the adventure qualities and almost cartoon-like expressions. Don’t get me wrong - there are certainly some twisted elements to the story, and the subtext holds some substance, but at it’s heart Sleeper really is this celebration of genre fiction, blending spies with super heroes. The duo wouldn’t really return to such a project until Incognito where they took the idea even a bit further.


CN: I’d argue that the two are pretty different and I’ve never really seen Incognito as an extension of Sleeper. Maybe I should... but I don’t. Then again, I’m not really high on Incognito, so...

Something that always bugged me about Sleeper to a certain extent was Tao. I rather like that character and I never quite got past how base Brubaker eventually made him (the whole thing being his attempt to get back at his ‘father’). I can understand why Brubaker would go in that direction, because, unless the character is brought down a bit, he basically stands there, invincible, outthinking everyone all of the time... and, yet, that’s part of the appeal of the character. A ‘superior’ being fucking up the world, because there’s nothing else to do is much more interesting to me than ‘superior’ being fucking up the world to get back at some guy he decided is his ‘father’ because that guy signed a piece of paper authorizing his creation. It seems like a stretch to me, like there was no other way for Brubaker to make Tao vulnerable so he went with this just because.

AB: Incognito always struck me as a blatant Sleeper sequel. I wouldn’t make it out to be a must read, as it’s just some run of the mill Brubaker/Phillips project with a terrible lead character, but a lot of the ideas running in that comic propose the opposite scenario to Carver’s situation in Sleeper (especially volume two). There’s even a character in volume two who basically shows what would have happened to Carver if he had lost his shit, and Phillips pulls out the Sleeper page layout whenever he shows up. I don’t know, from that standpoint, Incognito’s interesting, other than that though, I’d agree in that it’s really not worth checking out.


Although, Incognito probably has some of my favorite Val Staples color work with all the garish neons and pale pinks.


The Tao point is a good one, though, and on a re-read his ending did annoy me in that it seemed like a weak conclusion for a character who really seemed above it all. A cheap shot, more or less, pulling the daddy issues card. You could argue, though, the event serves a purpose as Tao against Lynch in a father-son relationship sort of continues the origin motif sprawled throughout the comic and takes it to a combative level, having a cast member actually fight where he comes from. Which, I guess, lines up with Carver’s conflict, fighting the idea of who he may be.


That may be a stretch, though, but I could see it. Ultimately, Tao’s demise comes off as a poor example of humanization, and it takes, as you said, a particularly interesting scenario and dulls it a bit. Tao fucking shit up for no real reason suggests no sides taken, in a way, kind of fucking with the whole black versus white concept of the series and even suggesting something bigger a.k.a. chaos. The line “nothing is true; everything is permitted” runs nicely with that.


What do you think of Sleeper being a pulp, though, versus just a seedy espionage tale?


CN: I forgot all about the explicit Sleeper references in the second mini. Then again, I didn’t think they really went anywhere at the time, so maybe that’s why they slipped my mind. Or it’s because I’m getting old and I’ve finally hit my mental limit on ‘useless shit’ I can retain at any given moment. Either way, yeah, the second Incognito series directly references Sleeper. I suck.


I’m not sure I quite understand your question. Can’t a ‘seedy espionage tale’ be a ‘pulp?’ What the fuck does ‘pulp’ even mean here? Is that a genre? I thought it was, you know, a reference point for a bunch of cheap magazines printed during a specific time period. I’m not trying to be a dick, but what is a ‘pulp’ in this day and age, and what separates it from any other genre descriptor? (At least in your mind for the purposes of this conversation...)


AB: Fair enough. You’re right. ‘Pulp’ does refer to a long, lost form of publishing and really doesn’t make up a genre, per say, but I think someone could make a case that the idea of pulps have transcended shitty magazines and moved on up to something similar to a state of mind or general aesthetic or vibe. Sleeper possesses that vibe of exploitation and melodrama, and there’s something about that feeding Sleeper this, I don’t know, almost cartoonish tone, in some ways.


I’m not trying to make a case for pulps being a genre, but I do feel pulps were made up of certain qualities and those qualities can be passed on, almost in a genre type of way. Pulp was a format containing multiple genres, yes, but the format seemed to have textual traits beyond the physical package, like sensationalism and exaggeration. So by ‘pulp,’ I mean offbeat or fantastical (but, of course, taking that into consideration, I guess you could classify all genre comic books as pulps, so maybe I’m just completely out of my wheelhouse).


The real point of my question was to say that I tend to find Sleeper more of an offbeat story now versus this realist commentary, which was the reaction I had to it reading the thing when I was sixteen. It’s certainly still a seedy espionage story, but to me, it’s no longer just that. Sleeper has a light-hearted adventure drive to it. It’s not just some outright serious story, although it does contain some interesting subtext which can get pretty deep.


Do you want to talk about that in any way, shape or form? I mean, there is a subtext we haven’t really touched on.


CN: I see what you’re saying about ‘pulp’ and that’s what I thought you were getting at to a degree. But, yeah, considering how much of comics came out of the pulps, it’s hard, for me, to look at one comic and say that it’s more ‘pulp’ than another. I wonder if we do that because Brubaker references the pulps more vocally than other writers. Were people using that word when Sleeper was coming out or is it something we say now because of Criminal and Incognito? Questions that require no answers...


Sleeper is a serious book, sure. It’s got some silly moments, but most serious works do. I don’t think genre limits that. It’s a book that questions the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ what self-identity means and how fluid it can be, the use of power... There’s a lot in the book. I always latched onto the good/evil stuff the most, because I think there’s something there. I mean, Carver is acting like a ‘bad’ person and the only thing that makes it ‘good’ is that he’s supposedly doing it for the ‘good guys.’ His actions would be the exact same whether or not he was actually undercover, so do his motives really change anything? I don’t think they do -- and I don’t think that he does either. That choice at the end of issue twelve seems to be one where he accepts that he’s always been a ‘bad person’ because he’s always done ‘bad’ things and used an easy justification to convince himself otherwise. He’s always been a hired thug and killer, and he’s finally realised it. But, maybe that says more about me than the book and character...


What I don’t entirely understand is why you’re backing away from what this comic is, man. What makes it less serious to you now?


AB: It’s not that I think Sleeper’s suddenly now a joke or bad. Very much the opposite. It’s just no longer some sacred cow for me, as the above discussion shows. As for being “less serious,” I still see Sleeper as a great story about the grey area and feel it contains a strong universal core. It’s just not some straight as fuck drama, anymore, as I can see the lighter elements in it now.


But, yeah, the book.


Sleeper does illustrate a common ground between ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ and it even goes as far as to sort of destroy the idea of ‘good’ entirely, or at least make a joke of it. I like what you point out - about the lack of difference between Carver working for Lynch or Tao - but I feel volume 2, as Carver goes from sadly accepting that truth you mention to obtaining a very “burn everything,” self-focused attitude, drives shit home. The dude goes from caring about the bigger picture to simply living for his own survival, and all of this becomes so because he realizes the bigger picture’s a joke, more or less. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ don’t exist but rather the agendas of men and what makes agendas so different from one another when all they simply are are desires and beliefs?


Lynch and Tao both desire to shape the world a specific way, and they both implement violent, backstabbing techniques to meet the goal. Supposedly, one of these goals makes things a little better, but as Carver may tell you, casualties arises still the same. Any scenes with the alien sell this thought. Or, hell, any scenes of Carver under the interrogation of the ‘good guys’ works just as well.


The work gathers a cynical tone from this choice, bringing in the noir influence, but simultaneously it’s not so cynical in which it makes the work seem unbelievable. If anything, you could consider something like Guantanamo Bay and see this comic as sensible.


While the core of the book goes to big places, I like that a thug stands trapped in the middle of it. Granted, he’s a trained operative - a smart one at that - but, for the most part, I feel Carver could be any of us. He’s a working man simply trying to do his job, go home and be happy, but, because of the world he lives in, finds himself sucked into scenarios which cause him to ask the big questions. We’ve all been there, and I think in this age of people versus corporations, Carver’s story gains this new light. He’s a guy working for an entity and eventually realizes this entity may have intentions of its own rather be on the look out for his own best interests or the peoples’.


Also, as an aside, Carver’s a total blueprint for Tracy Lawless.


CN: I get what you mean (and, really, got it before, but felt like being a bit of a jerk). Things that seem groundbreaking and life-altering when you’re younger usually seem less so as you get older and come into contact with more and more things. If you want disappointing, try rereading the Millar/Quitely Authority sometime...

Is there anything left to say? Probably, in the sense that you can always find more things to say about a work. But, do we have anything left to say? I think I’m good. This conversation has been going on far too long, mon ami. Any final thoughts/words?


AB: This has been a long one. We’ve been writing since November, I think … (delays are on me).


Could we say more? Probably. In some ways, I feel we only scratched the surface on this one, and I’m sure someone reading this has sludged through what we’ve written and feels we’ve missed shit, but at this point, I feel it’s best we move on and tackle something else. If anything, this has been a nice exercise of you and I butting heads. We did a lot of that.


To sum it all up, though, Sleeper still holds a spot on my must read list. Out of all the Brubaker/Phillips collaborations, it’s the one of the more interesting for its structure, and thematically, Sleeper goes to some places which can only leave you thinking, whether they’re real world scenarios or comments on comic books themselves (a point I didn’t even touch on).


Ok. I’m done. Next time I promise a quicker turn around with less burnout. Oh. And more Moon Knight.

Direct Message 01: A&C: DC Part Three

[Continuing the first in a planned series of discussions between myself and Alec Berry. Parts one and two...]

Alec Berry:Along with Animal Man, Wonder Woman was the highlight of the entire relaunch. At least for me.

That said... I have little to say about the comic because all that really hits me is … damn, that was good.

Wonder Woman just does what a comic book should, I think. When you break it down, the actual plot is fairly simple - gods are planning something big and some mortal woman, through destiny or fate or whatever, has been thrown into the mix - but the execution and illustration brings everything home.

For one, Cliff Chiang captures motion so well and turns what could have been a routine fight into a few pages of fast, hard hitting fisticuffs. He manages to characterize Wonder Woman through her battlefield tactics, and the way he depicts the character completely brings home the whole aspect of “Amazon Warrior.” I mean, there’s a panel where she head-butts a fucking centaur! Talk about a great moment. I think I clapped.

And, I mean, the script in terms of events doesn’t contain much, but I do respect Brian Azzarello here because he takes what’s really like three scenes and makes the comic feel heavy with content. He makes your mind work, along with Chiang, even though its an issue of centaur pillaging, and a lot of that has to do with being thrown into the world without being baby fed information. Read over the comic once more. Azzarello never explains who Wonder Woman is, why mythic figures run amok in what seems to be a world similar to ours, or what our supposed villain wants or gains from his oracles. Yet the entire comic book makes sense, and I never felt lost reading it.

The story conveys excitement, a world existing beyond ours, and a real sense of threat. Plus, Chiang and Azzarello work in some nice moments of horror. Horse decapitation!

And, hey, the book looks fantastic and does it’s job by way of those looks. Like a comic should.

Chad Nevett: Azzarello never explains Wonder Woman. He shows, he doesn’t tell. That’s what sets him apart from pretty much every other writer of these new books. He just presents Wonder Woman and expects us to understand her by what she says and does. Direct and simple. So direct and simple that I honestly don’t have much to say about Wonder Woman #1. Then again, it’s hard to talk about single issues by Azzarello. If you’ve read at least one of his books, you know that a single issue is just a small piece of what’s there.

‘Funny’ story: when Wonder Woman #1 came out, the guy at my shop, Retailer Tim, mentioned that I was the first person he’d come across in the store who liked Cliff Chiang’s art. And this was Thursday. He likes Chiang’s art, too, and we were both amazed that many customers actively hate his art. Comics fans, people! We’re doomed!

I did find all the talk about this book being ‘appropriate’ for little girls fun. Is fun the right word? It’s like, what, little girls can’t enjoy horse mutilation like little boys? Tim Callahan’s son loved this comic. Then again, I have no idea what little girls like -- I have no idea if DC was right or wrong for not trying to target an audience that doesn’t seem to care at all about their product in the vague hopes that someone somewhere will begin forcing it upon that audience because DC is making comics they’d love. I dunno. I guess I’m left wondering how many little girls comics lost because of a horse getting chopped up in this comic... listen to the internet and their numbers are legion, but I imagine it’s a bit less.

Though, who was the audience for this relaunch? Was it you and I? The lapsed comic readers? Little boys and girls? All of the above?

AB: The internet zeitgeist is really just that. The internet. The dominate tweeters, bloggers and podcasters may shout from the mountain tops of how great Chiang is, but in reality the internet opinion holds the minority. Why that is … I don’t know. Maybe we’re just paying more attention? Or maybe everyone does like Chiang, and you just live in a sucky area of Canada.

Questions, questions...

As for target audience? Whoo, boy. That’s the big question, isn’t it? I’d say a mix between lapsed readers and fresh faces. The TV advertisements said a lot. I mean, they included terrible music, but the way they flowed said to me, “hey, there are still comic books, and DC possesses the characters you’ll care about.”

I’m sure someone has written an immense article on such question. I’ll save everyone the pain.

CN: I never actually saw the commercial, mostly because I don’t care. That’s where I seem to be out of line with most people. I don’t really care about the business side of things. Like when the sales figures began to leak right away. Good for DC... I don’t have a horse in this race.

The question of who the target audience is interests me to a degree, because I’ve gotten into the mode of not caring if comics target anyone but me. I think it was around Final Crisis that I realised that here was a big event completely meant for me and that’s fantastic. I love comics that are meant for me. I don’t know what other people actually want, so I can’t even speak about if a comic effectively targets another type of reader -- and why bother? And I have to agree with you that this feels like it was meant for people who aren’t me. I’ve liked a bunch of books, but haven’t really LOVED any. There hasn’t been that one book that just completely wows me, that becomes one of those books that I can’t wait to read every month. I think that’s what disappoints me.

AB: I’m moderately intrigued by the sales. Usually I try to ignore the numbers, but in a case of this magnitude (and, come on, the purpose of this was a sales boost) I’m paying attention because, well, did DC accomplish what it set out to do? Did this relaunch really attract anyone new or boost sales? I feel its partially necessary to account the sales because in a holistic sense they are a vital piece of the relaunch.

But, hey, we’re here to discuss the quality of the actual content, and I think I can agree with you in your “nothing really wowed me” assessment. Although, I would give such ranking to Wonder Woman. I can’t wait to read the next issue. Besides it though, yeah, DC’s 52 is really just a collection of character spotlights with some moderate aesthetic pleasure. Then again, I never expected anything different. DC is all about property awareness with this push. They want people to know of their brands, and they would like those people to read and follow those brands. I believe there’s plenty of room for creators to still be creative in such an environment, but not much of what I read shouted creative shock to me. There were, however, plenty of solid super hero comics published in the 52. I mean, of what we’ve covered thus far, I’ve been fairly positive about most of it.
But back to my point of “aesthetic pleasure” … Honestly, I feel DC has enough skilled artists to make me buy some of their books. We’ve mentioned Travel Foreman and Greg Capullo. I would also say Jim Lee, Doug Mahnke, Francis Manapul, J.H. Williams, Alberto Ponticelli, Ivan Reis, and Freddie Williams fit the bill. While all the scripts these artists draw from may not light the world on fire, DC is still publishing some sharp looking comics, and that’s kind of enough for me at this point. You make a super hero comic look cool, and as long as the script is decent, I’ll purchase more than one issue.

Great examples are Flash and Batwoman #1. If you took away the artwork from these comics, they would read like any ordinary thing because the substance belongs to the visuals. Williams and Manapul both show their skills as visual storytellers via these first issues. Certain scenes in Batwoman - like the soap opera max father/daughter confrontation - come off as overplayed and forced, but Williams depicts them as Williams does and they feel exciting and new. Manapul takes his expected Flash chase scene and bumps it up to pure eye candy.

Both comics are complete examples of how great artwork can improve mediocre writing. It’s oddly refreshing because it leans the entire success of the comic book on, well, the panels. How odd is that for this writer driven age we inhabit? Kind of why I agree with Grant Morrison when he says the writer age is over.

CN: Is it weird that I still don’t really think of Batwoman as a NEW comic in the same way as the rest of the relaunch? It’s been so long coming that I almost see it as a carryover from before. I mean, it was on my pull list before the relaunch was announced -- it’s like considering Green Lantern by the exact same creative team a new entity in any way at all.

And the writer age isn’t over. What, because there are a few artist-driven books? I should damn well hope that, out of 52 books, many would have good art and a few would have great art. I expect the same of the writing. I think Action Comics is a fairly strong writer-driven book. Take away Morrison and you’re left with Rags Morales. The other side of that is something like Detective Comics, which is totally artist-driven... and lacking in both quality writing and art. I still don’t know why that final page is supposed to be cool or awesome or... even interesting. It baffles me completely.

But, you’re right, take away the art from a book like Batwoman and you’re left with a fairly middle-of-the-road comic. It makes me wonder how well the comic will function when Williams isn’t doing the art. I know a lot of people love Amy Reeder’s art... but she’s not in the same league as Williams. The zero issue was almost painful in its demonstration of that. And that’s a concern that spreads across much of the line. With word of short lead times, how long before some of these stacked creative line-ups are replaced with less-than-stellar replacements? I guess this relates to the question of sales as well: it’s all well and good to look at the first month, but is that a good indication about the relaunch and its impact? Or, should we return to the question in nine months and see where things are at?

AB: Nine months will say a lot about this entire move. About sales. About impact. About longevity. And, yes, about the creative teams.

I believe we’re already seeing a few of the cracks in the art consistency. Action Comics looks to be in a visual tailspin for the next few issues - until Andy Kubert steps in. Marco Rudy was supposed to pencil Suicide Squad, but that didn’t happen. Leading the book away from a solid visual look. David Finch seems to do whatever he can on each issue of his Batman title. Completely squashing the original intent of the comic.

The books to really make an impact will be the comics that maintain their creative teams - especially on the art side. It seems the smart books of the industry switch artists between arcs. Daredevil is the perfect, current example. If DC could work to the DD model, hiring a pair of similarly styled artists to go back and forth, the comics could come out monthly and still carry a consistency while looking nice.

But, hey, even though plenty of great illustrators remain unemployed, DC will stick to their usual stable of talent. Gotta maintain that house style!

Strict deadlines could be good, though. Artists may experiment with different styles in order to produce faster. Kirby did that. Kirby’s good.

I mean, if artists want to keep the job, they’ll actually need to sit down and hammer out the work. Job on the line … artists may adapt in interesting ways.

The interesting story is Jim Lee. Man of the company. Can he keep up? What happens if he doesn’t? Looks bad when boss man misses deadlines.

So, shall I drop thoughts on Justice League?

CN: I just want the end of All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder. Who chooses Geoff Johns over Frank Miller? What the fuck? And, yeah, talk about Justice League while I lay back and think of O.M.A.C. until it’s all over...

[The conclusion is up on Alec's blog...]

Direct Message 01: A&C: DC Part One

[This is the first edition of Direct Message, the new series of conversations that I will be having with Alec Berry. Our first conversation is on the DC relaunch and will run four parts, alternating between our two blogs, over the next few days. Enjoy.]

Chad Nevett: Because the DC relaunch #1s haven’t been discussed to death, welcome to the first ever Direct Message. I’m Chad Nevett and you probably already know me from GraphiContent, my near-800 reviews for the two-time Eisner winning website Comic Book Resources, my Random Thoughts, the Splash Page, my writing on 411mania, and whatever other dumb thing I do somewhere online. Joining me is Alec Berry who co-hosts the Chemical Box podcast, posts on his blog alec reads comics, writes for his student paper, DJs for U92-FM, and... well, this. How do you like the pompous jerk persona I’ve put on for our discussions, Alec? Isn’t it lovely? Of course it is. We’re here to discuss the new DC first issues we’ve read. We overlap for the most part and differ in a few places, so it should be a mostly cohesive discussion with a few moments of “Uh, if you say so... I haven’t read that, so I don’t really know.” What’s our first book, Alec?

Alec Berry: You say pompous jerk. I say, “damn, Chad just owned that introduction.” Why have credits if you can’t talk about them?

While I know what book we’ll first chat about, I wanted to ask you about your reaction to the news. Granted, reactions to this publishing move are a dime a dozen, but I feel this piece would lack a little something without our initial thoughts and hopes and “dreams” for the relaunch. Plus, for readers aware of their Splash Page Podcast history, the word of complete relaunch came just shortly after the show’s end, and we never heard your thoughts (Tim’s we later did via his When Worlds Collide column as well as his Tor.com stuff).

So as a Splash Page listener, Chad, I would like to know your initial expectations and thoughts because I didn’t get them way back when. If you did blog them up before, I apologize for missing them. Just act like it’s July or whatever, and you’ve just received word of DC’s plan but you also know all of the associated creative teams. What hopes do you hold for this relaunch, and do you feel it’s good move?

We can come back to the overall, current viewpoint later. For the sake of response time and organization, I’ll just type my original thoughts now.

Months ago ...

This news, contrary to the few creators involved whom I actually enjoy, excites me about DC Comics. I’ve been losing interest in them as a publisher. I buy Morrison and Snyder’s Batman stuff along with Nick Spencer and CAFU’s T.H.U.N.D.E.R.Agents, but roughly three comics out of the numerous DC publishes is not enough to solidify the publisher’s place in my list of favorites. Which sucks, because I kind of always cheer for DC even though I don’t know why. I guess I see them as the underdog in the “Big 2 Equation.” Plus, I like the potential in the DC Universe and what its inhabitants stand for in terms of being icons or modern gods. But the way the line has been handled in the past year … it hasn’t capitalized on the potential I see. And the Vertigo line … pretty weak when compared to previous years.

But, even though it’s another relaunch headed up by a handful of the same creators who’ve been working at DC, I’m excited about DC Comics right now. I think it’s because it’s not just another relaunch. Not really. Look at the scale of this move. It’s unprecedented and feels bold. New titles across the line. Jim Lee’s art, even though very 1993, painting the Justice League in a light. Day-and-date digital. Talk of major advertising efforts. I don’t care who you are. This is at least mildly compelling.

As of now, I’m counting 15 books on my “to try out” list. Possibly 20. That’s more than the three I was buying, right? Could this mean success?

Time will tell. The move could be huge in terms of sales or completely end in disaster. Quality wise … I’m a little uncertain. J.T. Krul still appears to write for DC, and only a small handful of these comics seem to have any sense of solid creative direction. Quality will ensure any long term good will. Still, even though I’m doubtful of the quality, I’m buying at least 15 DC comics come September. They have my money for that month.

Now...

My original thoughts. I’m sure they were wonderful to read, Chad. Just wonderful. So, what book do I want to kick off with? Oh, how about Animal Man? I felt it really stole the show.

Animal Man #1

I don’t know about you, but Jeff Lemire has been a wild card in my book. I’ve enjoyed some of his previous work like Essex County and the first 12 issues of Sweet Tooth, but other things, like his Superboy or the other issues of Sweet Tooth, have really left me bored and begging the question, “why?”. Why are so many people hooked on this dude? I get it. He can make you feel something. Whether it’s the pain of some situation in Sweet Tooth or the colorful bounce on a page of Superboy, Lemire makes you feel something, but past that, when the emotional trick wears off, what does this guy offer? His artwork is quite enjoyable. I like the torment and gray he carries in his line, and he can produce an eye-keeping page design. But even then, with the tormented line, it feels like more of that emotional trick.

I just sometimes want to chalk this guy’s favor up to his ability to make people cry. I mean, people dig emotional, “deep” stuff right? Works with such qualities win awards. After a while, I just find it, I don’t know, cheap. You know, make people cry, and they will remember you. The idea of leaning your entire work on emotions just made me want to write Lemire off.

Reading Animal Man - as well as Frankenstein which we’ll get to - has shown me a little more of what Lemire is capable of. While I feel a majority of the comic’s success falls on the efforts of Travel Foreman, Lemire fills some other shoes on this first issue and does a fine job. The tone and situation resemble a typical Lemire project, but there’s an interesting psychologicial horror element to this comic. I find it intriguing and exciting because it takes Buddy Baker a little bit away from what I understand him to be. Now, I have yet to read the Morrison stuff (I know, shame - how can I write about comics?), but Buddy Baker, from my point of view, is the family man. The dude changes diapers, eats at the dinner table every night, and talks to elephants. He lives a safe lifestyle for the most part. Those elements are certainly still in Lemire’s take, but he’s made Animal Man edgier. He’s placing the character in freaky, vein-filled head trips and setting his daughter in questionable territory. The lifestyle no longer seems so safe. As a first issue, it’s very well done. Lemire sells the character’s core, his world and builds conflict for future installments. This would bring back first time readers. I know I’m coming back for #2.

But, yeah, Travel Foreman. Without his art, even with Lemire’s strong writing, I do not believe I would have enjoyed this comic as much as I did. Foreman, along with Lovern Kindzierski’s colors, sell the eerie, unsteady vibe of this comic book. Just something about it - and I suck when it comes to writing about art - elevates the entire work.

I’ll just shut up, and let you go, Chad. Maybe you can explain Foreman in a more attractive manner.

CN: Christ... and I thought Callahan was a long-winded bastard...

My first reactions to the DC news was a surprising non-reaction. I’d heard mumblings about a big relaunch or reboot for a while, so there wasn’t really any surprise. I was intrigued about what books would be launched and scoffed at doing 52 ‘new’ books right away. I still scoff at that, honestly. (Short reason why: they made it work for the first month, quite possibly the second and third months... but how long before the train goes off the tracks? Will it still be working in a year?) Like you, I wasn’t buying a lot of DC books and, now, I’m buying more. So, victory, yes? Again, my negative personality and instinct to trash things immediately pointed out that, out of 52 titles, I’d added only ten or so to my pull list. More than before? Sure -- but not an overwhelming victory. (And, if you want to get into that bullshit Marvel vs. DC thing, still less comics than I buy from Marvel monthly.) But, I also didn’t care about continuity problems or the idea that everything up until now ‘didn’t count’ like a lot of fans. This was just another move by a comics publishers, albeit on a larger scale. A scale that’s impressive no doubt... just not enough to really sway my cold cynical heart. Give me 52 comics I want to buy every month and maybe my heart will pound a little faster.

I’m surprised you wanted to start with Animal Man. I expected to start with Justice League #1 and the two of us having a nice big argument as our introduction as a criticism duo. Instead, we both get to say nice things about a good comic. Animal Man was actually a ‘gut pick’ book (a book that I decided to buy purely on the gut feeling that it would be good), which is strange, because I’m not a Jeff Lemire fan. I’ve tried out Sweet Tooth a few times and it left me cold. I haven’t read Essex County despite actually living in Essex County right now, though. I didn’t read any of his previous DC superhero work. Yet, I was looking forward to Animal Man #1. Go figure.

The horror element is what really sold me. And I’m not a horror fan. Go figure again. I was enjoying the comic up until the dream sequence (and I don’t like dream sequences!) and, then, I just fell in love with it. It was creepy without being overbearing or descending into unintentional comedy -- and immediately followed up by a big ol’ punctuation mark with Buddy’s daughter. The book started with the family and comes back to the family. I like that. I like that the comic is rooted in Buddy being a husband and father in an era where most comics are running away from the family life with such passion that I can’t help but wonder about the marriages of comics professionals.

The opening page of Animal Man #1 was a surprise. Both in DC letting it happen and in how no one who read it seemed to mind. People love that little text interview! Just don’t call it a recap page, of course...

The reaction to Foreman’s art has been very mixed, which suits his art, I think. I won’t lie and say there aren’t some rough spots. I do think those rough spots work with the tone of the book. Buddy lives in a shifting world of sensory experience and the art reflects that to a degree. Nothing is entirely stable or consistent. It’s a subtle way of reminding us that Buddy’s senses must be confusing as hell at times as he shifts from eyesight as dominant to hearing to smell depending on the animal he’s tapped into.

I’m not sure about Buddy himself. That stems mostly from my anti-hippie, meat-loving life. I’m not an animal lover, which makes a protagonist who’s an animal lover and environmental activist not as near and dear for me as others.

One thing that struck me from Animal Man #1 was how effective it was at horror and ending in a very creepy, disturbing place where Swamp Thing #1, ostensibly more of a horror book by its nature, didn’t land in the same way. Discuss.

AB: Don’t worry. I will bring up Justice League #1 at some point and defend its existence. Just wait.

You bring up a good point on comic book marriages. Not many of them seem to fly, and neither do any regular old, girlfriend/boyfriend relationships. Not that I necessarily care as, like any asshole would say, none of these “people” are real. I’ve never been one to get caught up in that very soap opera aspect of cape comics. I think most of it relates to my earlier years reading comics. As a 13 year old kid, I cared less about the relationship between Green Arrow and Black Canary. I read for the fights, bright colors, and iconic moments - not the make-out sessions or break-up tears.

I think part of the “single hero” trend relates to that idea. Super hero comics are constantly labled boyhood fantasies, and if we’re to take that label as the actual approach, it makes sense most super heroes would run around unchained. Girls are “yucky,” right? Men get shit done and kick ass? That’s always been the belief, correct?

You could also look at singleness as another form of escapism, which is another label hero comics are usually slapped with. I mean, I’m far from being married, but I could imagine it being nice to attach yourself to a super hero character, live vicariously throw him or her, and use the 20 page comic book as a means to break free of the nagging wife or husband. Both reader and author could receive something from that.

Of course, if these comics were true escapism, you’d think more heroes would date. Authors and readers would receive the chance to hook-up with hot, fictional women or men they’ll never meet. Oh, wait ... Red Hood and the Outlaws #1 …

Or, hey, maybe the lack of marriages and relationships is all a part of some giant conspiracy to keep women out of comics. Seems relevant, right? Internet, you decide!

But, yeah, I agree. I enjoy Buddy Baker as a family man. The quality gives his character a little something unique and removes his book from the equation of some conventions. As Morrison has said, that’s the only mainstream mark he’s made that he would like to see not changed, and it appears Lemire may bend it but keep it fixed.

I had forgotten about the text page! Lemire handled it well. Buddy Baker’s past in this DC Universe is explained, and any new reader can obtain an idea of who this guy is. I also enjoy it for its ability to give the character a personality before we even see him. Buddy comes off as a real guy. And, hey, The Believer Magazine conducts the interview …

Swamp Thing #1

And now I get to be a little negative. This comic was just one big “eh.” Though, Paquette gets my respect. He made this armor Superman suit look kind of nifty, and he brought his game on layouts toward the back of the comic.

I’ll simply say Swamp Thing #1 didn’t pack the punch I expected of it. Alec Holland spends multiple pages talking to me about planks of wood and the violence of nature. Snyder relies way too heavily on captions to communicate. The tone seemed to fluctuate without any real anchor point. And, that entire conversation between Holland and Superman is basically a cheap way to tell me who Alec Holland is. The scene fell flat.

You are also completely right. Animal Man and Swamp Thing switched roles. The supposed horror comic went all super hero, and the super hero comic went all horror. Snyder does attempt a horrific tone towards the end of this first issue, but when the first 3/4ths of your comic reads like standard super hero fair, such a sudden change in tonal direction just feels off and sloppy. The flies whom snap necks were somewhat disturbing, and I enjoyed the use of red by Nathan Fairburn in said sequence but none of it was enough to save this issue for me.

Nothing terrible. I just felt it came off as a mess of a first issue, and Snyder’s writing did little to interest me in this story or character.

CN: I thought it was good, but on the low side of good... if that makes sense. I tend to run a little colder on Snyder’s writing than everyone else online who, apparently, isn’t you. When David Brothers pointed out his narration trick, I sort of smacked my head for not noticing it myself.

Something I said that I didn’t see anyone else ever echo was that Paquette, while skilled, dropped the ball big time in that final sequence. It was a horror sequence and Paquette’s art doesn’t communicate horror well. His art is a little too clean and posed even when it’s trying to be messy and dark. I was like “This is pretty... not scary or disturbing in the least.” And that wasn’t the fucking point. The point was scary and disturbing and fucked up, not pretty. If Paquette can’t pull scenes like that off, then he’s on the wrong book. It happens. Sometimes, great artists just aren’t a fit for certain subject matter...

Superman’s appearance was kind of funny (his actual appearance was funny visually to a degree, too, in that stupid costume and giant chin) in the reaction it produced online. He mentions having died once before and I loved seeing people freak out, because Clark and Lois have never even dated let alone got married, so how could “The Death of Superman” have happened? Sometimes (often), comics readers are idiots, Alec. (The answer is: the same way it happened previously, but without the Lois stuff. Duh.)

I don’t know... I find myself not having much to say about Swamp Thing #1. It was a comic that I read and mildly enjoyed...?

Where Swamp Thing holds my interest mostly is in its approach to the character. It’s one of the titles that seems to pick up right from where the DCU was. You can easily imagine that, without the relaunch, Swamp Thing #1 would have come out this month as a new ongoing series. The way that each first issue approaches its characters and their pasts has interested me. This one is a ‘continued from where we last left off’ one, while ones like Justice League are practically full-blown reboots. I’m curious how DC can have these various approaches coexist if they want a coherent, whole universe (and they do). All that “It’s a relaunch, not a reboot” talk was a lie, because it’s kind of a reboot... except when it’s not.

Now, Animal Man kind of straddles the line. It doesn’t feel like a direct continuation of where we last saw the character, but it’s also not a full-fledged reboot. Maybe that’s why it’s so successful (beyond all of the other reasons). It genuinely satisfies both desires of this relaunch by serving two masters.

[Part two is on Alec's blog, so go read it!]