CBR Review: Secret Warriors #3

I recently reviewed Secret Warriors #3 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Secret Warriors is a special book that comes along rarely. Take this issue, where Jonathan Hickman manages to spend considerable time on an illuminating and character-rich conversation between Nick Fury and the Contessa, but also packs in an unpredictable action scene that will surprise many. In superhero comic terms, somehow, Secret Warriors gets to have its cake and eat it, too."

You can read the rest HERE!

Comic Arts Conference 2009

One month ago on Friday February 27 and Saturday February 28 I attended the Comic Arts Conference in San Francisco, CA (attached to Wondercon). This year marked my second annual attendance at this gathering of comics scholars; I presented there last year on the Chester Brown short story “Showing Helder.” This year I merely observed, although I do intend to present again next year.

I attended almost all the sessions of the conference on both Friday and Saturday (with one exception which I will note later). Sadly I was unable to attend the Sunday panels for the conference (which included a panel on copyright law, which I was very sad to miss) because I had to fly home, but the panels I attended on Friday and Saturday were all incredibly valuable and interesting. So I thought I would share here the content of some of those panels with you, the faithful GraphiContent reader.

First on the list was "Between Two Flashes" which gave an overview of the superheroes that were published between the Golden Age and the Silver Age. Very few heroes were successful during that time (apart from the major heroes like Superman and Batman), and the lecturers hypothesized that the reason for their waning popularity was due to the advent of television. Western and detective sows were popular on TV, so publishers of comics followed suit. It was only after Wertham and the comic censorship of the mid to late '50s that superheroes resurfaced because their cartoonish violence was less realistic and thus deemed "safe." (They also talked at one point about how Zorro and the Lone Ranger were proto-superheroes: crimefighters, secret identities, costumes.)

The second panel was on teaching comics, which I initially was very excited about. But this panel was the one that I decided to skip, because upon looking over the material for it and reading the description in the program, I realized it was aimed at using comics as a teaching tool in K-8 classes. That topic having little appeal to a college English instructor, I skipped it.

But I came back for the third and final panel for Friday, subtitled Barack Obama and the Superhero Metaphor. This panel was by a friend of mine Pete Coogan (who is in the STL area and actually interviewed me for a job once) but he didn't actually attend. He had prerecorded his presentation because he had had a family emergency at the last minute, but it was still an incredibly interesting lecture. It contrasted the media imagery associated with both Bush (who had a "cowboy" persona) and Obama (who is thought of as a superhuman savior). He discussed how Bush wanted to frame the war on terror as "us vs. them" like cowboys and indians, whereas he should have focused more on the "supervillain" of Osama Bin Laden. It was quite intriguing, even if it wasn't technically about comics per se.

Saturday's panels were even more interesting, although they varied widely in content. In the first panel of the day, Diana Green presented on homoerotic subtext in EC comics, which was quite enlightening. She discussed a few specific stories which involved crossdressing fraternal twins or asexual reproduction, and it really makes me want to seek out a lot of those old EC reprints. Also during that first panel Kate McClancy did a comparison between the graphic novel and film adaptation of V for Vendetta. She argued that the changes made in the film mean that the people of the film merely replace one leader for another, that the triumph of anarchy and the individual are replaced when the people simply begin to follow V. In the film V is no longer an idea, but he is a hero instead. Since I'll be teaching V in a few weeks, I found this presentation really valuable.

The second panel was by Randy Duncan whose new book The Power of Comics comes out soon (May 15 according to Amazon... and only $16.50 on sale). It's a textbook for comics classes, and his presentation gave an overview of the content of the book. He talked about how he (and his coauthor) tried to hit all the possible ways to approach a class on comics by devoting chapters to the history of comics, their form, and their place in the culture. It was absolutely riveting and I very much look forward to reading it. If it's half as good as it sounds, I might start requiring it for my class. He also mentioned the possibility of doing a companion reader in the future, which I have been wanting to do for AGES and am very excited about the possibility of helping him with.

Finally the last panel featured two presenters. One was talking about Legion of Superheroes and how Jim Shooter "Marvelized" the characters when he took over writing the series. It turned out to be an excerpt of an article in Tim Callahan's book Teenagers from the Future (about $24 on sale on Amazon), which is a book I've been meaning to pick up but haven't yet so that was quite nice.

Finally there was a presentation on female superheroes of the '70s by Jennifer Stuller. (Her book, Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors, won't be out in the US until 2010.) It mostly focused on Lois Lane and Wonder Woman, contrasting how Lois served as a feminist icon in the '70s while Diana Prince was a bit of a stepback in the comics of the time period. A friend and I have been tossing ideas around about doing a book on the portraits of women in comics, so I found this lecture greatly helpful.

All in all, it was a fantastic conference and I look forward to attending next year.

CBR Review: The Death-Defying 'Devil #4

I recently reviewed The Death-Defying 'Devil #4 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "For three issues, the ongoing subplot of whether or not this was really the Death-Defying ‘Devil has been raised with a former Wise Guy (the ‘Devil’s support team) stepping into the role of the Dragon, a ‘Devil lookalike, trying to prove the ‘Devil a fraud. Now, here’s the fourth and final issue of the series, so a resolution of this plot should have been the centerpiece of this issue, but, instead, all that’s given is another ‘to be continued.’ So, what was the point of this series exactly?"

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: New Avengers #51

I recently reviewed New Avengers #51 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Tan’s use of repeated panels is odd this issue as one instance features Spider-Man eating Chinese food with noodles hanging out of his mouth while talking. No, really, what’s up with that? He says some stuff, other people talk and when he says more things, the noodles are still hanging out of his mouth. Is Spider-Man a gross eater? Or maybe, more thought should go into which panels are repeated?"

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: Captain America #48

I recently reviewed Captain America #48 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "With all of the political intrigue and clashes between past and present in Captain America, it’s easy to forget just how much of an action book it is. While action has always played a large role in the book, it's always overshadowed by Brubaker’s wonderful characterization and innovative use of both Steve Rogers and James Barnes’ pasts returned to haunt them. Well, issue 48 seems intent on reminding readers that this book can bring some serious quick-paced and expertly-done fights."

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: Batman: Battle for the Cowl: Commissioner Gordon #1

I recently reviewed Batman: Battle for the Cowl: Commissioner Gordon #1 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Tom Mandrake may not seem the first choice for a story like this, but his gritty, creepy art is just what’s required. He works with shadows so well, not just illustrating a chained-up Gordon, but conveying the horrid feeling of imprisonment. His Freeze is also very spooky, a frozen metal monster with the vague hints of humanity beneath it all. His art captures the tone that McGraw is going for."

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: The Surrogates: Flesh and Bone

I recently reviewed the upcoming OGN The Surrogates: Flesh and Bone for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "You know what’s a sign that you’ve encountered a quality book? You read through the PDF copy you’ve been given to advance review without any breaks, completely engrossed, and then, when you’ve finished, you think to yourself, 'Wow, I should buy this when it comes out.' That how good The Surrogates: Flesh and Bone is: I still want to buy a copy once it’s out. That’s the sign of a quality book right there."

You can read the rest HERE!

Some Random Thoughts (Mar. 25 2009)

• Read the first issues BOOM's The Incredibles and The Muppet Show earlier this week and enjoyed both. The Incredibles suffers from the lack of voices since I think they really brought a lot to the characters in the film (come on, you need Holly Hunter and Sam Jackson!), but, otherwise, it's a cute little book. I never really watched The Muppet Show... at all, so the book didn't connect with me as it will almost surely connect with fans of the show. Really liked the art, though. Roger Langridge draws an awesome Kermit.


• With a couple of Marvel titles I reviewed for CBR getting second printings, I've joined the "Marvel cherry-picked my review for a pull quote" club finally. For Dark Avengers #3, they took part of an early paragraph in my review that's used accurarely and part of a sentence from the end that's not quite as accurate: "This is Bendis at his best... a must read each month." I actually said: "If future issues continue the dark, psychological interplay between these deranged characters, then Dark Avengers will be a must read each month." For Secret Warriors #2, they didn't really alter it much to get "One of Marvel’s best books." They've yet to take a negative review and make it seem like I loved the book yet. (Okay, this random thought is me just doing the lamest sort of bragging there is...)


• Has there been an explanation yet for the "Iron Fist is cancelled!--Oh wait, it's not!" business from Monday? After Marvel tried it with Captain Britain and MI:13, is it the new policy when trying to get fans all worked up and maybe increase sales on low-selling books?


• I will be buying Wednesday Comics.


• A while back, Brian Cronin had a post up at Comics Should be Good that I'm too lazy to link-hunt for about comic creators taking shots at one another in comics. Cronin argued that the practice has no place in comics. I'm going to disagree, if only because I love "Back in the USSR," which is, let's face it, a pot-shot song. The Beatles and the Beach Boys had a nice friendly rivalry going at the time, so the Beatles took it up a notch and did a song in the Beach Boys' style, but about America's big enemy at the time. It's a good song and wasn't really meant to be insulting to the Beach Boys, just a friendly jab. Now, comics are narrative and potshots can really detract from the narrative value, but, to me, that's just pointing out the difference between good and bad potshots: good ones don't detract, while bad ones do. To me, that's the only real rule: if it works, then it's okay; if it doesn't work, then it's not okay. As well, where do you draw the line? Is Brian Azzarello's use of the writers of 52 in Doctor 13: Architecture and Mortality wrong? Does the maliciousness of the potshot count? Does it come down to which side you're more sympathetic to? Hard questions to answer.


• Before anyone asks: no, I won't be reading or reviewing Flash: Rebirth or that Black Lantern story that's coming up. Not my thing and the only reason for me doing either would be to piss people off--and I don't go out of my way to do that. Most of the time. I'm really not a fan of bringing back Barry Allen (or Hal Jordan really), so that bias taints things. As for the Black Lanterns... I find the whole spectrum of Corps kind of silly/stupid.


• The current storyline involving Chris Jericho and Hall of Famers on Monday Night Raw is a story I really wish DC would do in JSA: a young, very skilled guy calling out the old-timers as has-beens and glory hounds. Jericho is the heel, obviously, but it's also very hard to disagree with anything he says. But, my problems with the amount of active senior citizen superheroes in the DCU are nothing new.


• The first issue of the new Seaguy series comes out next week. However, in a hypothetical universe, would you have rather Morrison gotten to complete the Seaguy trilogy or the Marvel Boy trilogy, assuming only one could happen? As much as I dig Seaguy, I'd probably pick Marvel Boy.


• A while back, I remebered a story I came up with once called "Fear and Loathing in Metropolis." Clark Kent and... I can't remember if it was John Henry Irons, Ron Troupe, or J'onn off in search of Truth, Justice and the American Way. It would have been godawful. And, yet, still strangely compelling.

CBR Review: Caped #1

I recently reviewed Caped #1 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "How is Caped clichéd? Superhero who the world loves, but is really a giant asshole? That would be the Edge, a Batman-like hero with a Clark Kent-like secret identity, which also fulfills the requisite ‘archetypal superhero rip-off characters’ part of the book. An innocent, naïve newcomer who just can’t believe his eyes? Meet Jimmy Lohman, a wannabe journalist whose need for a job accidentally lands him the position as the Edge’s newest assistant. He looks up to and admires superheroes and is just ever so shocked to learn the truth."

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: Hotwire: Requiem for the Dead #2

I recently reviewed Hotwire: Requiem for the Dead #2 and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Even more impressive is Pugh’s writing as he handles the pacing and dialogue deftly. This issue is a bit slower than the first, but that slowness is made up for with a greater focus on the book’s protagonist, Alice Hotwire, a police exorcist. Last issue introduced the concept that, at some point in the future, ghosts, or as they’re called here, blue lights, will manifest themselves until dampening technology keeps them at bay — at least in wealthy areas. Now, though, the blue lights are appearing within dampening fields and Alice needs to figure out why."

You can read the rest HERE!

Democracy doesn't Work for Superheroes: Team Dynamics of the JLA in Kid Amazo

JLA: Kid Amazo kind of slipped under the radar of many, gaining the odd mention here and there when it first came out as JLA Classified #37-41 and, then, later as a trade collecting the five-part story. Originally intended as a graphic novel proper (with a different artist and the lead character having a different first name), it reads quite well as a cohesive whole. The plot is simple: Frank Halloran is a philosophy student at Berkley, is dating a Jewish girl named Sara (the religion thing is one of the main issues in their relationship because of her family), and has just been informed that he's actually the two-year-old cyborg son of Amazo. He rejects his father's ways, but the JLA (Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Flash, Martian Manhunter, and the John Stewart Green Lantern) are concerned that he will turn evil. Most of the plot revolves around these outside forces manipulating Frank in one direction or another until he goes insane. We also discover that, as Amazo's son, he doesn't just have the ability to replicate the powers of the Justice League like his father, but he can also replicate their personalities and minds. While the story is really about Frank's struggle between his robot programming to hate the Justice League (his gestation was ended early) and his human free will to make his own choices, the aspect of Kid Amazo that I enjoy most is Peter Milligan's deconstruction of the Justice League, as they don't function well as a team here at all.

Milligan takes certain liberties with the League in this story. The characterisations may not ring true for some since Milligan amplifies certain aspects of each character. We're meant to see them as... not 'types' or 'icons,' but as something different than what they normally are. They represent broad groups, while also coming across as more human and petty. In many ways, a more realistic representation of a group like this and the personality conflicts that come out of it.

The main conflict is that there is no leader of the Justice League here. There are people who think they lead the League, like Superman or Batman, who feel that their opinions and decisions should inform the actions of the other members, but that's not the case. What penalty is there for acting autonomously? The League splits on how to handle Frank's emerging powers with the Flash and Green Lantern quick to argue that they should "destroy" him, even when his human side is raised ("HUMAN LIFE? IT'S A CYBORG.") Wonder Woman and Batman want to observe him, wait and see what he chooses, the Martian Manhunter wants to reprogram him, but Superman decides that they should wait. Except, that's not what happens exactly. Wonder Woman informs Frank's girlfriend of his true identity/history, causing their break-up; and the Martian Manhunter invades Frank's mind to get a read on where he's at. In each of these instances, another member of the League raises the point that they acted outside of the League, but, as J'onn says, "I WASN'T AWARE I NEEDED AUTHORIZATION TO USE MY INITIATIVE. [... WE'RE A TEAM] COMPOSED OF INDIVIDUAL, AUTONOMOUS UNITS." In short, the League is a democracy, which means that every individual has the right to choose their own course. The line that sums it up best is said by the Flash after it's revealed that Wonder Woman talked to Sara: "FUNNY... I DON'T REMEMBER US HAVING A VOTE ON THAT ONE."

The interactions between members of the League here are filled with sarcasm and bickering, which comes to a head when they fight Frank at the end of the story. Frank, as I said before, has the additional power of replicating the League's various personalities, and uses that to take down each member one at a time. He attacks them psychologically as well as physically, first destroying their will to fight and then beating them. That is, until Batman uses those various personalities against him by pitting them against one another inside Frank's head just as we've seen them arguing throughout the story. The League begins to argue with one another, revealing inner tensions and problems, spurring Frank on until he blows up, unable to deal with his own schizophrenia, basically. Before he dies he lets spew a confluence of statements:

BECAUSE YOU HAD IT EASY, SUPERMAN.

TRY BEING HUMAN FOR A DAY. NOT INVULNERABLE. A LOT SLOWER THAN A SPEEDING...

WE SHOULDA TAKEN HIM OUT RIGHT AWAY!

YOU CAN RUN, BUT YOU CAN'T THINK.

IF YOU WERE MARTIAN WE COULD TELEPATHICALLY BOND.

IF YOU WERE HUMAN YOU WOULDN'T BE SO CREEPY.

AND THAT NAME. SUPERMAN? TALK ABOUT EGOMANIAC! WHO ARE YOU KIDDING?

Frank reveals some inner thoughts of the League regarding its members, ones that barely go unsaid by the characters themselves up to this point.

After Frank's death, the Flash declares triumphantly that they've won, but Batman isn't so sure. That the Flash addresses Batman then as Socrates (Frank's nickname for him), immediately points to where Batman is thinking: they defeated Frank by demonstrating the disharmony of the League, all of the petty little bullshit that really exists. All the League did that day was defeat a schizophrenic man and bicker like children.

Is this the Justice League that fans are used to? No, but it really does ring true, working off Grant Morrison's conception of the League, which did have some of these issues, but never laid so bare. The League is not a team in the true sense: there is no leader, no real need to work together, no dependency, no trust... it's a collection of superheroes that pretend that they're all equal and working toward the same goals. But, democracy doesn't work for superheroes. I'm left wondering if the Justice League is really the United Nations of superheroes... a body that does good, but is actually ineffective in policing its own, in creating a unified agenda? Milligan raises some interesting questions in Kid Amazo... ones not easily answered.

The Splash Page: The Watchmen Movie Part II

[Since I finally saw Watchmen this week, Tim and I decided to arrive late to the party and discuss it. The first part of the discussion can be read on Tim's blog.]

Chad Nevett: Not really, because nothing in it suggests anything but genuine sincerity. It doesn't comment on the tradition of violence in superhero movies or movies in general -- it just continues it. It's not over-the-top enough to make a comment and it's similarily stylised to other modern action movies. Nite-Owl and the Silk Spectre kicking ass in the alley and prison looks like it would fit in fine with other contemporary action movies. There's the odd moment of extreme violence, but mostly just "cool" moves shot in a "cool" way and altered in post-production to look even more "cool." It wasn't realistic, so it can't comment in that way. And, Christ, those constant slo-mo/speed-up effects that Snyder loves so much... I knew they were going to be in the movie, but they still bugged me.

The only way that the violence could be a comment would be the superhuman manner in which all of the non-superhuman characters fight, which is something that happens in action movies all of the time. The regular human that can get his ass beaten for twenty minutes and keep getting up... except, again, there doesn't seem to be a comment here, more just another example of the same old, same old. If anything, it takes some of those feats to more extreme lengths, but does so sincerely. Rorschach doing odd gymnastic moves to break into Moloch's apartment, or jumping through a second floor window, and continuing along as if nothing bothers him. The same sort of stuff shows up in the new Bond movies or Crank. It bothers me here more than anything because, well, I can't separate the movie from the book. Sometimes, I can; others, I can't.

Does this movie disprove Terry Gilliam's claim that Watchmen is unfilmable? On their "House to Astonish" podcast this week, Al Kennedy and Paul O'Brien touched on this with Kennedy saying that, yes, in a technical sense, the movie was made, so it was filmable, but is that what Gilliam was talking about? Wasn't he really saying that it's impossible to make a film version of Watchmen that comes close to the original? It could always be made... if you don't care about the quality. People talk about how faithful the film is to the book, but since we (or, at least, I) think it couldn't replicate the tone and feel of the book, is it really faithful? Personally, I'd rather have a film that changes the plot in an effort to keep the meaning and feel of the book (like Robert Altman's adaptation of Raymond Chandler's The Long Goodbye) than something like Watchmen, which takes the superficial plot points and puts them all in there, but gets the subtext and feel completely wrong.

Timothy Callahan: I do think this movie proves that Watchmen is filmable, not simply because it's actually on film now. It has proven the "filmability" of Watchmen because the movie is frustratingly close to a good movie. It misses a lot of the heart of the graphic novel, but with a better-directed Ozymandias, better old-age makeup and wigs, better pacing and less of the explosive superhero megaviolence, it could have worked, I think. It's almost as if so much work went into the preproduction and postproduction that the actual production, the stuff like acting and getting the physical details right on the day of shooting, was less important to Snyder. And that's where the movie fails -- in that accumulation of details that he just plainly got wrong for this to be a great movie.

I also think that doing this version parodoxically frees Watchmen from ever being faithfully filmed again, but I would expect a remake in 20 years or less. A remake that's made by the next generation of filmmakers who won't make the same mistakes Snyder made, but will almost certainly make their own mistakes. But I'm looking forward to that happening. Not the mistakes, but the remake made with more freedom. There's no need to do the deep focus, superficial attention to superficial detail style of adaptation in the inevitable Watchmen remake. Take the core of the story and spin it at 24 frames per second, I say. Come on, next generation of filmmakers! Start thinking about what you'll do when you get a chance! Reinterpret Watchmen and put your vision up on the screen.

By the way, I'd just like to go on record saying I love the fast-slow-fast approach to fight scenes. It's probably not the best use of it in Watchmen, but it does fit with the overall amped up Snyder style, but in general, that kind of playful approach to time unfolding in the middle of a fight scene absolutely works for me. Anyone who doesn't like it is just a grumpy old fogey. Take that, internet!

Changing the subject back to Ozymandias and Matthew Goode...

Here's something that my local comic shop owner said to me today when I mentioned how wrong Ozymandias was portrayed in the movie. I said that the whole point of Ozymandias -- in the comics -- is that he's supposed to be the peak of human perfection, and he's shown as a super-nice, friendly guy in the series up until the climax. He's not sinister. He's doing what he thinks is for the good of humanity, because he's the only one smart enough to know what's at stake. My LCS guy said, "yeah, but in America we can't ever show someone who's smart AND nice. Think about it." And, yeah, that kind of made me stop and look around at the way genius is portrayed in American popular culture, and it always seems to come with either selfishness, social awkwardness, or pure evil. Smart and nice IS hard to come by in the media, at least in recent times.

What do you make of that observation and how it explains Ozymandias being a sleazy dickhead in the Watchmen movie?

CN: The portrayal of Ozymandias is, actually, the thing I probably hated most. He was a smug douchebag here and, even after saving the world, still seemed like a smug douchebag. Like you said, in the comics, he was a great guy and that's where a lot of the power of seeing his plan comes from: this genuinely nice and caring person choosing to kill so many people to save the world. Some may love Rorschach, but Ozymandias is still my favourite character from Watchmen and, probably, my favourite superhero of all time, if only because he does save the world no matter the cost.

The idea that you can't be smart and nice in America rings true to me. There's a certain fear/hatred of intelligence in the US that I've picked up on. My favourite example of that is a bit that Bill Hicks had about reading a book in a waffle house one night after a show. The waitress comes over and asks "What're you readin' for?" This causes Hicks to pause, because he's never been asked what he was reading 'for.' He's been asked what he's reading, just not what for. (He then adds, to the audience, that he reads probably so he won't end up as a waffle house waitress.) Then, a trucker comes over, stands over him and goes, "Well, looks like we got ourselves a reader." Hicks was mystified as to how reading a book can cause such reactions and so am I. Whatever causes reactions like that, that's why Ozymandias has to be a smug douchebag. I honestly don't understand it.

Beyond that, I think it may also have to do with Ozymandias being the 'villain' of the story. Of course, he's really the hero, with the other characters revealed as small-minded saps who didn't realise that they were trying to stop him from saving the world. Okay, it's more complex than that, but that's how I like to read it. But, is that too nuanced and, well, smart for audiences? I don't think so, but the idea that it could be probably went into his characterisation as well. He's a murderer of innocents! He's inhuman! Yes, he saves the world, but the ends don't justify the means! That the Comedian is presented more sympathetically than Ozymandias is troubling, I will admit.

Or, maybe... maybe, Matthew Goode is just naturally a smug douchebag? I don't know, this my first experience seeing his work. Judging from the rest of the movie, it's obvious that Snyder can't direct actors and seemingly lets them just do what they will, so it's possible that Goode took the character in that direction himself without Snyder meaning him to. But, given Nite-Owl's extremely violent outburst against Ozymandias, I'd guess that Goode did as Snyder intended.

TC: Goode can definitely act. Check out The Lookout when you get a chance. He's a douchebag in that movie, but with a completely different kind of performance.

I think it's safe to say that we found Watchmen, as filtered through Zack Snyder, to be far from perfect, but how does it compare to other superhero movies? Is it even worth ranking it on the list of say Batman and Robin, Superman III, X-Men, and The Dark Knight? I think it's fun to make lists, and I know you do too. So, where do you think this movie belongs? Would it even make your Top 10? By the sound of it, I'm guessing...not so much.

CN: It probably would, only because I haven't seen a lot of superhero movies. I've avoided them in the past for various reasons. The primary one being that I have no interest in seeing another version of these origin stories that I've read twenty million different ways. Another being that I find superheroes look really dumb in real life. Any time I see an actor dressed as Batman walk around, it takes me right out of it, because it just looks ridiculous. But, for the sake of argument, with The Dark Knight and Iron Man at one end, and Batman and Robin at the other, I'd say that I would rank this around Batman Forever, which is towards the negative side, yeah, but has some enjoyable parts. I will say that I plan on getting the deluxe DVD of Watchmen if only to give it a second chance and see what Snyder's "true vision" is. I'm not expecting it to be better. At all. But, who knows, maybe I'll find more to like.

TC: I think the extended cut will be interesting, and I suspect that it may make some of the performances more consistent by placing them in a larger context. Still, there's no excuse for Ozymandias. None.

I'd rank Watchmen as #6 on my all-time comic book superhero movie list, right after X2 and right before Mystery Men. It seems to belong between those two, somehow.

CBR Review: Punisher #3

I recently reviewed Punisher #3 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "The latest Punisher iteration seems to be finding a happy medium between the grim MAX series and the goofier Punisher War Journal, as Frank Castle is smack dab in the middle of the Marvel Universe, but possesses a serious attitude with villains played up as actual threats instead of walking punch lines. There’s still an element of fun here, though, with the odd little moment of cool goofiness like the Shaolin Scientist Squad, a group of Chinese doctors charged with harvesting organs."

You can read the rest HERE!

Book of the Week 10: Air #7

[Sometimes, a book that I don't review for CBR warrants its own discussion beyond a couple of barely strung-together sentences. Sometimes, a comic costs $1 and, therefore, gets purchased by me. Sometimes, today is sometimes. (And, sometimes, I'm very, very lame.)] So, Vertigo is offering new ongoing series' first issues at $1 (USD) and they've even been kind enough to extend that to Air #7. Me being me, I figured I'd give any and all $1 Vertigo books a look, mostly because I'm usually tempted to give any and all Vertigo books a look, so offering them at 1/3 the price really gives me no excuse.

I'd read mixed things regarding Air. Some praised it, others called it mediocre, few outright damned it. The worst comments were usually along the lines of "interesting, but not well executed," which, honestly, is the sort of comment that will make me pick up a book. It's no secret that I love works with ambition even that ambtion leads to horrible failure. Fuck it, I support ambition, because even if it only truly succeeds 1 time out of 50, it's worth it--and much better than supporting safe, spineless works that succeed because the bar is set so low that a blind monkey scripting and a deformed, stillborn tadpole drawing could still leap over it with kilometres to spare. But, I didn't pick up Air because of intuition. It didn't call to me. I know, that makes little to no sense, but a big part of what I decide to buy is based on what "feels" right. Why did I pick up Young Liars #1, but not Air #1? I honestly can't say, beyond I had a feeling that Young Liars would be my sort of thing and Air wouldn't. It's not any more or less complicated than that. And, you know what, my intuition is rarely wrong. I am damn good at walking into a comic, book or music store, browsing, and buying things sight unread/listened, and they turn out to be awesome. Sometimes, it's the description, sometimes it's the cover, sometimes it's the title... there's no logic or reason behind it, but it works for me. (And, obviously, it works for me, so I'm not suggesting anyone else adopt my odd methods. Even I don't really want to use my odd methods, but I sort of have to.)

Air #7 is a puzzler as I'm not sure it proved my instincts wrong. But I'm also not sure it didn't.

Before getting into that, I want to commend Vertigo and G. Willow Wilson on the way this issue is presented: the price in large print on the cover, a page of quotes from various sources praising the book and, then, an introduction from Wilson that recaps the first six issues in an interesting, non-recap manner. While I'm all in favour of direct recaps with headshots and character bios, I also never read those, because they're fucking awful, so good on Wilson for trying to make the recap interesting and more like an introduction you would find in a trade paperback or book.

The actual comic itself leaves me questioning the wisdom, while also not. In many ways, this is completely new reader friendly, mostly in relating to plot. I followed the plot perfectly fine: Blythe is in Zayn and lives through his life starting at ten, both aware of her situation and unable to deviate from what happened, slowly forgetting that she's not really him... until we reach a recent event involving Zayn and herself, and she snaps out it. Zayn's life is of a Saudi sent to the US for schooling and what happens there. It's an intriguing story, one that's not entirely original but still got me interested in the character and, as things progressed, the world he lives in. So, plot-wise, things are solid.

Where it fails is emotionally: the climax of the issue, at the end, as we see Zayn's perspective on the recent event with Blythe, giving her insight into what he was thinking, it's obvious that this scene would work if I'd read the first six issues. As it is, it reads like an in joke between a couple where you can tell that what's being said has meaning, but you just don't get it. You could ask about it, but you don't really want to. I know that this explicit lack of meaning is meant to make me want to read the first six issues and then keep on reading the book, but it doesn't quite.

I've been thinking about this on and off since reading the issue yesterday, and I'm sure I'll keep on thinking about it right up until seeing issue eight on the stands next month, but I'm honestly not sure if I'll keep reading Air. I can see how some would love this. I can see how it's meant to be more ambitious and interesting, but can't really express those ideas fully yet. The book has potential--and I really like MK Perker's art, but... I don't know.

But, I am closer to buying this series than I was on Tuesday and that's an improvement.

CBR Review: Dark Avengers #3

I recently reviewed Dark Avengers #3 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "The first nine pages of this comic are some of the strongest that Brian Michael Bendis has done in his time on the Avengers books and are a treat for anyone who’s been waiting for Bendis to address the Sentry’s mental problems and role in Norman Osborn’s group. CBR’s preview of the issue provides a large chunk of the scene and, as you can see, Osborn’s handling of the Sentry is both chilling and, surprisingly, humane. Obviously, Osborn’s primary goal is to get the Sentry under his control, but how much is also a genuine kinship that Osborn feels for Bob?"

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: X-Files #5

I recently reviewed X-Files #5 (yes, I'm going to do all six issues) for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "The stories have gotten progressively better in Wildstorm’s X-Files series. Doug Moench comes on board as the third writer with the first part of an investigation by Mulder and Scully into a possible serial killer who claims that he doesn’t kill anyone and that he works for monstrous ‘nasty ones’ who live underground. After two stories more thriller than horror, this creepy tale is a nice change of pace and shows the broader elements of this property."

You can read the rest HERE!

Splash Page: Battle for the Cowl #1 Part I

[After spending so much time discussing Grant Morrison's Batman run, it seemed fitting for Tim and I to take a look at Batman: Battle for the Cowl #1 this week. Gee, will we like it? I don't know...]

Tim Callahan: I have to admit that even though I came home with a big stack of comics on Wednesday (and a Jack Kirby hardcover), the first thing I read -- the thing I ended up being the most eager to read -- was Batman: Battle for the Cowl #1, written and drawn by Tony Daniel. I just couldn't wait to see how Daniel dealt with the post-"R.I.P." post-Final Crisis aftermath. I'm not the biggest fan of Tony Daniel's art, but I certainly didn't go into this book with any negativity. I went into this comic with a completely open mind, and I absolutely...

Well, I'll let you go first. What did you think of it?

Chad Nevett: I also read it first out of all my comics. Unlike you, I went in with all sorts of negativity. Tons of negativity. I went in expecting a comic that can only be described as "godawful." And I was disappointed, because it's just regular old bad. Not very bad, not the hoped-for godawful, just bad. (Oh, and to answer the obvious question of why I would buy a comic I expected to be godawful: for this column.) It's not a good comic. The art is typical Tony Daniel work, which is among some of the better heavily Image-influenced work out there right now, but it's still heavily Image-influenced, so... The writing wasn't nearly as bad as I expected, but it wasn't anything special. A rather mediocre, predictable plot, some moments of odd characterisation (Damian in particular stood out as bearing no connection to previous portrayals), and, really, an utter lack of drama. I was bored reading it, honestly. It didn't make me angry or ready to come online and trash it, it just made me shrug, put it aside and continue on with my other books. I think I'd be a bit harsher if I was a Bat-fan, but since I'm just waiting for June to arrive with Batman and Robin, I can't muster up the energy to care about Battle for the Cowl.

Beyond discussing it with you, of course... What did you think?

TC: I thought the art looked a bit better than it did on "Batman R.I.P." which made me think that he probably rushed to meet deadlines on that title, but he had a little more lead time here so it looked fine. I'm not a fan of the style, but except for a few jarring storytelling moments (like when the Arkham gang is all of a sudden out of the bus from one panel to the next), it was a decent version of that mediocre, post-Jim Lee style of art that some people seem to like.

But I thought the writing was absolutely terrible.

It reminded me of early Todd McFarlane writing, circa Spider-Man. It was all sentence fragments and on-the-nose descriptions. It was like reading Twitter messages from the most inane people imaginable. "This is what I'm doing now. I am doing it."

And though the plot may have been editorially imposed -- I don't know how much of this is actual Tony Daniel's story, and how much this is just connecting the dots established by DC higher-ups -- it's too packed with characters at the expense of story. And it has that Countdown feel to it, too. That feeling of, "oh, Grant Morrison's going to pick up with this new status quo in a few more months, so let's be really obvious about how we're going to get there, step by step."

One of our colleagues at CBR gave it 3 1/2 stars, but I would have given it maybe 1 star. 1 1/2 at the most. It's weak, and the only thing that saves it is the use of the Black Mask (who isn't used well, but I've always liked the Black Mask) and the way the Third Policeman Batman is tearing up the city. At least, I assume it's the third Batman doppelganger from Morrison's run who we see at the end of this first issue. I could be wrong.

CN: I think the solicitation for the third issue says that it's Jason Todd. I thought it was the Third Policeman when I first saw the teaser image for Battle for the Cowl, but, yeah, I remember the solicit saying that it was Jason. I figure if it were the Third Policeman, he'd just keep wearing the same costume from Morrison's run -- although, it's hinted that he may be the new Azrael or something.

I can't believe you hated the writing more than I did! I think we hated it equally or thereabouts, but my low expectations made it seem not quite as bad, while your neutrality made it seem worse. Yeah, it's bad, but it's that workmanlike going from point A to point B sort of writing. I think that because it so utterly lacks in ambition, I can't fault it too much for being so bad, because I don't think Daniel was shooting for anything beyond this (aside from thinking it's good). I don't think he's trying to be anything but obvious in dropping obvious hints and insultingly basic narration. While Todd McFarlane's writing always had a hint of pretention, like he thought he was a great writer, Daniel's work almost screams, "Hey, I know this isn't up there with Morrison, but I'm not trying to be that good! I just want to write an action comic that ends with someone as Batman!" Not good, but it could be worse. I would have probably given it two stars...

One element of the writing that really bothers me is just how messed up Gotham is despite there being so many costumed vigilantes. I get that Batman is the goddamn man and all, but considering he kept the city under control alone, are we to believe that his not being there is having such an impact despite the dozen or so people that have stepped up in his place? Was the terror of the Batman that strong, or is this just a lame attempt to make the idea of Batman more important than it really would be?

TC: And, really, how long has he been gone? He was gone for 12 freakin' months just a couple of years back, and Two-Face totally cleaned up Gotham pretty much on his own during that time. Now, Batman's gone for three hours and the city is overrun by baddies? Yeah, that's silly, but I don't have a problem with it because it's the whole basis for the story. (But it is a silly contrivance, given recent Gotham history.)

[To be continued on Tim's blog!]

CBR Review: Young Liars #13

I recently reviewed Young Liars #13 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Young Liars #13 reads like an episode of The Prisoner, with the audience very much aware that nothing is right and the protagonist slowly comes to the same realization. Who can he trust? Who’s a victim? Who’s a warder? And, so, he slowly pushes back, begins to test the limits of his new world to see just how far he can go. One day, he tramples Loreli’s rose bushes and the next day, they’re back. What if he were to burn his house down? What if his best friend, Kenny were to get his head beaten in? How far can he go until the illusion won’t hold, until the true nature of the world must reveal itself?"

You can read the rest HERE!

CBR Review: Charlatan Ball #6

I recently reviewed Charlatan Ball #6 for CBR and, in the process, wrote the following sentences: "Say what you will, but Charlatan Ball is a very fun comic. It doesn’t take itself too seriously. It begins with another metafictional reference, but even that is goofy and fluffy. Unlike the appearance of Joe Casey and Ashley Wood in Automatic Kafka, which did have moments of humor but was serious overall, Casey and Andy Suriano here are comic characters in their own right. The over-the-top art features exaggerated expressions, strange body dimensions and an utter disregard for the laws of physics."

You can read the rest HERE!

more Watchmen comments from my comic class

Steve here again, posting a wide variety of comments the students in my comic class had about Watchmen as we read it.

When we read chapter four, the Dr. Manhattan chapter, I had my students write about the character. I broke them into groups and had each group look at a different aspect of the character.

One group analyzed Jon Osterman's behavior before he became Dr. Manhattan to see how he was already displaying some of the detachment and belief in predestination that Dr. Manhattan is famous for. This group focused on how Jon was a bit of a pushover, planning to be a watchmaker because it's what his father wanted and then abandoning that career for physics when his father ordered him to. He only ever dated Janey Slater at her insistence, so it's no wonder that, after the fact, he claims that the universe was always his guide. He takes no responsibility for his actions because he never has, and his new unique perspective on time simply provides him an excuse for only intervening when he HAS to.

A second group focused on just that, Dr. Manhattan's view of the passage of time, which led to a pretty straightforward discussion of predeterminism v. free will. A third group looked at how Jon's abilities have shaped the world, in regards to society, politics, and pop culture.

Finally the fourth group discussed Jon's detachment from humanity in chapter four. I asked them whether or not there were any signs that he might care about people a bit more than he claims to. Some of the students argued that his claims of detachment were just sour grapes, the act of an outcast. Because the world treats him as different, he withdraws emotionally from the world as if to say "I never wanted to be in your stupid club anyway." He's not as completely emotionless as he claims, since he does react in anger when confronted about possibly giving cancer to those he loves and he runs away to Mars like a teenager hiding in his room when Laurie leaves him. (You could even make a case that while on Mars Jon is a stereotypical emo kid, making "profound" statements about the nature of the universe while lamenting over lost love.)

Other students then pointed out that these emotional responses were interesting when considered through the lens of his foreknowledge. Why would he get angry at the interview with Nova Express, they wondered, if he knew it was going to happen? My response was that foreknowledge of an event doesn't mean you're totally prepared for the emotional ramifications of it. I said to them, "I could warn you that I was going to punch you in the face, but it wouldn't make it hurt any less when I did so."

I also had my students write about symbolism when we got up to the seventh chapter, which is rife with symbols like reflections in glass representing the nostalgic remembrances of various characters or the embracing silhouettes/shadows/skeletons which could illustrate the emotional cost armageddon has on those at its heart. They also mentioned the recurring motif of the slashed circle (representing both impending doom and tainted innocence, depending on the scene) and of course the pirate comic. But one symbol a couple of students mentioned that I liked was Nite Owl's goggles. In issue seven, Dan makes mention of how he could always see more clearly when he wore them, and Laurie also wipes the dust from their lenses at one point, clearing the obstruction of her view (she does this also on the fogged-up window and on Archie's dust-covered eye). Each of these actions, my students argued, showed the characters of Laurie and Dan recognizing just how dependent they were on their costumed identities, how they need them to fully express themselves and how they are finally able to be honest about who they are when they're in costume.

Finally, when we got to the end of the book, one student pointed out that it was interesting how in one issue we see Adrian murder his three servants with poison, yet later he claims to Dan and Rorschach that they opened the dome themselves in a drunken stupor and died accidentally. We came to the conclusion that this disparity goes to show that Adrian is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions. He won't admit to personally getting his hands dirty killing these three men, even though he has just killed millions in New York. It also reveals his true nature, for if lying about the death of these three men is so easy for him, might he not be lying about his motivations for killing the population of New York? He claims to have altruistic reasons for his heinous crime, his desire for world peace, but he has also been maneuvering his companies in such a way to set it up that he will be the one to usher in this new age. He doesn't want world peace; he wants to shape the world in his image (as illustrated in his flier for the Veidt method) so his legacy will be remembered forever.