|
|
Post by zaku on Jul 1, 2019 23:59:33 GMT -5
It's interesting how another mad-scientist-villain, Captain Marvel's foe Doctor Sivana, became a tycoon a la Lex Luthor in the Post-Crisis Universe. I suspect that for the writers it was difficult to manage characters that were almost a parody in a supposedly more "realistic" Dc Universe.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2019 7:06:49 GMT -5
I loved the black and red one. The design was overly simplistic, but the colors were bold and effective for me. That first costume was a nightmare on the level of Crazy Quilt, though. Tom Lyle did some other memorable work at DC, including Robin mini-series in 1990, as well as the unofficial sequel in Batman #467-469, Robin II: The Joker's Wild, and Robin III: Cry of the Huntress. But Wikipedia suggests your assumption is correct that he hasn't produced since Marvel. Yeah, he had a nice run at DC, with Tim Drake's debut as Robin, in costume, and a few other things (The Comet, for the Dc/Archie Impact line), then Spider-Man at Marvel (including the Clone mess) and then he disappeared and I saw that he was at Savannah (really good school, too). I checked out their site and he is listed on the faculty, in the Sequential Art department , which was originally set up by Bo Hampton. Savannah College of Art and Design offers online learning. How cool would it be to take a virtual class with Tom Lyle? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2019 9:57:33 GMT -5
Action Comics #659 (November 1990)  "Breakout" Script: Roger Stern Pencils: Bob McLeod Inks: Brett Breeding Colors: Glenn Whitmore Letters: Bill Oakley Grade: A Wow is this storyline more fun than I remembered, with each chapter proving more entertaining than the last. This time around, a de-powered Superman gets his first true test as Thaddeus Killgrave has just taken over Stryker's Island (which has been set up over the course of this entire storyline). Ironically enough, Killgrave's previous encounter with Superman was in Superman #19, another time in which his powers had failed. The irony is never noted in the story itself, but it might help to explain why Killgrave has such a poor understanding of what should and should not be able to hurt The Man of Steel. Anyway, we've got an increasingly unstable Lex Luthor clearly being manipulated by Mxyzptlk:  A really compelling characterization for Starman as he attempts to play the role of Superman:  Too bad this guy had already been cancelled by the time of Reign of The Superman, as I totally would have bought that book. We've got an all-out assault on Stryker's Island with Starman, Superman, Gangbuster, and The Guardian:  (Incidentally, I'd been wondering what became of Jose Delgado. We haven't seen him in ages!) And a final climactic battle in the halls of Stryker's Island that is beautifully crafted and, once again, showcases how Superman's reputation and character are his most powerful assets:  That this culminates in a powerless Superman clinging on to a fleeing rocket with Killgrave inside is really just icing on the cake. Nothing of particular significance in this issue, but man was it a great, plot-centered story all the same! Right now, Stern is the complete scripting opposite of Ordway -- ALL plot, no concern for building the B and C arcs in the background continuity, and yet both approaches are working. Minor Details: - Why didn't Clark call in The Justice League? Or Wonder Woman? Or Batman? Or Green Lantern? Or any of the dozens of other heroes he knows and has a close connection with? Seems convenient that he went with the only two heroes totally controlled by The Superman Office (Gangbuster and The Guardian), and the one hero totally controlled by Stern (Starman). I mean...this is Superman. He should be able to call in just about anyone for help. - Stern tries to explain away the ridiculousness of Prof. Hamilton being able to build Superman robotic armor on a moment's notice with few resources to speak of:  I don't buy it, but I respect the attempt all the same. - Having Superman point out that this doesn't make sense doesn't give you a pass, Stern.  Killgrave took over Stryker's Island several hours ago at most. How did he build these traps, gain this weaponry, and set up an escape rocket for himself in that short time? Plot synopsis (I really should get back to providing these, but they bore me so!): Starman keeps attempting to convince Luthor that he is Superman, but Mxyzptlk tells him the truth, which seems to make Luthor even more unstable. Killgrave takes over Stryker's Island, Starman goes in as Superman and gets captured, and Superman goes in with his robotic armor, along with the help of Gangbuster and The Guardian. Superman confronts Killgrave and survives a rocket launcher blast when his robotic armor takes the full brunt and explodes. He pursues Killgrave on to an escape rocket and Superman attempts to hold on, but he ultimately has to let go, allowing Killgrave to escape.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 2, 2019 10:53:37 GMT -5
Forgot how butch some of the Superman artists made Maggie Sawyer. Byrne always gave her a somewhat masculine face, to make sure we didn't miss the fact that she is a lesbian; but, some of the artists went a lot further with it, always having her scowling, like in that panel. It created an odd look, since she was also usually in tight mini-skirts or, in at least one issue, a bikini. It was rather like an early version of Boy George's recent era look where he added facial hair, yet was still doing the heavy make-up, making for a real gender mix in presentation.
I suppose I could chalk it up to superhero comics not being the most subtle platforms; but, Maggie Sawyer was a character that went through some inconsistent handling. It is a ridiculous notion that because she had a masculine face that she must be a lesbian, since there is no such thing as a typically lesbian face. Facial features, like everything else, are a product of genetics. However, if the intent was supposed to be that she was a lesbian who was more comfortable with a traditionally masculine presentation, it would seem more logical that she would not dress in tight,short mini-skirts. A pant suit would seem a bit more likely (and practical, for the job). Still, I suppose we should be glad that she was allowed to be such a strong and likeable character, and an important one in the comics, as it did at least show some efforts at being more inclusive, though I wish DC would have allowed her to be more of an open character. Her personal life was eventually given some illumination; though, again, they never come right out and say it, much like Alpha Flight had to imply, but never state Northstar's orientation.
Still, given that it would be nearly 10 years before Ellen Degeneres' coming out, within her show, I suppose we can forgive the slow evolution (though Billy Crystal had played a prominent gay character, on Soap, a decade before, who was then given a heterosexual relationship, after a couple of seasons).
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2019 12:27:57 GMT -5
Forgot how butch some of the Superman artists made Maggie Sawyer. Byrne always gave her a somewhat masculine face, to make sure we didn't miss the fact that she is a lesbian; but, some of the artists went a lot further with it, always having her scowling, like in that panel. It created an odd look, since she was also usually in tight mini-skirts or, in at least one issue, a bikini. It was rather like an early version of Boy George's recent era look where he added facial hair, yet was still doing the heavy make-up, making for a real gender mix in presentation. I suppose I could chalk it up to superhero comics not being the most subtle platforms; but, Maggie Sawyer was a character that went through some inconsistent handling. It is a ridiculous notion that because she had a masculine face that she must be a lesbian, since there is no such thing as a typically lesbian face. Facial features, like everything else, are a product of genetics. However, if the intent was supposed to be that she was a lesbian who was more comfortable with a traditionally masculine presentation, it would seem more logical that she would not dress in tight,short mini-skirts. A pant suit would seem a bit more likely (and practical, for the job). Bob McLeod is definitely my least favorite penciler in this office. I'm honestly not sure whether he was purposefully trying to make Sawyer masculine or was just drawing yet another awkwardly shaped face. As for Byrne's treatment of Maggie Sawyer, my mind can't help but go back to "Games People Play," from Action Comics #600. Talk about tactless. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jul 2, 2019 15:00:11 GMT -5
And that's the part which confuses me here - Byrne seemed to make it clear that Luthor had great business acumen, a skill for manipulation, and the intelligence required to come up with the LexWing, but that was about the height of his brilliance - anything else, such as creating Bizarro, finding out what Clark Kent's connection was to Superman, examining kryptonite - those were areas his intelligence couldn't quite probe into. Gone was the Luthor who was a genius at "science" with "science" being defined as everything from being an expert at chemistry, biology, robotics, quantum mechanics, botany, time travel, etc, etc. Post-Crisis, Luthor seemed to have certain limitations placed on him and I'm just curious as to what those limitations were. Could he singlehandedly create a kryptonite ray, enlarging ray, 2-D or 3-D ray, etc? I would have thought "no way" during the start of Byrne's run since he's a guy who needs others to do such things for him, but towards the end of Byrne's stint, he's got Luthor in lab coat creating the giant Kryptonoid Man and here he's mixing chemicals together to cure some disease no other doctor can as if it's child's play. Keep in mind that even the Lexwing and this cure for Lois' mother may have been created by Luthor's people and not the man himself. Would it be so out of character for him to take credit for the work of others? That's a good point and probably the truth of the matter. I can't imagine that the situation with Lois' mother is as cut and dried as it appears since even doing something decent for a down-the-road payoff seems still too benevolent for Luthor. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 2, 2019 15:10:11 GMT -5
I just now realized that we didn't get any annuals for Superman and Action Comics this year. The next set of Superman-related annuals is still nine months away, serving as part of the Armageddon 2001 event.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jul 2, 2019 16:55:01 GMT -5
I think you mean different artists, not writers. No, Really. EXACTLY Two Pages A WeekAnother way of looking at some of the information I've already presented: So Action Comics Weekly (Curt's steady Superman assignment that lasted 41 weeks) concluded seventeen months prior to Curt Swan Month. During the time between, he produced: 8 pages in Action Comics Annual #2. 6.5 pages in Action Comics Weekly #642. 11 pages in Superman #35. Unspecified number of pages in Action Comics #650 18 pages in Adventures of Superman Annual #2. 88 pages for Curt Swan month (no covers) Total: Approximately 135-140 pages Now, assuming Swan truly could only generate two pages a week by this point, the most he could have generated in seventeen months (68 weeks), working at 2 pages per week, would be 2 x 68 =136 pages. Thus Swan really had been producing consistently for DC in all the time since ACW concluded (and certainly while ACW was going) at pretty much exactly two pages per week. GCD says Swan pencilled 9.5 pages in Action Comics Annual #2 and 7 pages in Action Comics Weekly #642. Looking at Action Comics #650, I'd say pages 4 to 11 were pencilled by Swan and inked by Bob McLeod. Strange that GCD makes no attempt at a breakdown of who drew what. Seventeen months would only be 68 weeks if every month was February. I think it should be almost 74 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 3, 2019 8:48:24 GMT -5
No, Really. EXACTLY Two Pages A Week GCD says Swan pencilled 9.5 pages in Action Comics Annual #2 and 7 pages in Action Comics Weekly #642. Looking at Action Comics #650, I'd say pages 4 to 11 were pencilled by Swan and inked by Bob McLeod. Strange that GCD makes no attempt at a breakdown of who drew what. Seventeen months would only be 68 weeks if every month was February. I think it should be almost 74 weeks. OK, I've kind've lost the thread here, but could it be that the "two pages a week" thing was determined as the minimum Swan could contribute and still get health benefits through DC, not a limit? Before that, he was probably doing two pages a day.
EDIT: The benefits might be the thing to look at here--if it was just income, Swan probably could've gotten an agent and churned out commissions for as much or more than he'd get from DC.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 3, 2019 22:25:26 GMT -5
OK, I've kind've lost the thread here, but could it be that the "two pages a week" thing was determined as the minimum Swan could contribute and still get health benefits through DC, not a limit? The thing is, by the mid 1990s, we have Swan publicly stating at least twice that he was desperate for more work from DC and wasn't getting it, even while he was still receiving his full benefits for the amount of work he was being given. Before that, we can only guess. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 3, 2019 22:33:02 GMT -5
I think you mean different artists, not writers. Noted. Your math is correct, meaning there are roughly 8 pages of Swan work not accounted for. Not a huge number, but worth noting, I suppose. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 3, 2019 22:43:02 GMT -5
I have now updated the Curt Swan article to reflect some of the feedback I've received. Please continue to throw feedback at me that helps me to strengthen its accuracy and quality. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 9:44:11 GMT -5
What I didn't like: Pretty much everything else, especially watching a character more like Superman grow up in Smallville instead of a familiar Clark Kent, the weird uncertainty regarding the age of the Kents, and how Superman's Kryptonian Legacy is more of an embarrassment than a destiny, especially in the ridiculous depiction of his mother. The Superman comics/UK annuals I read as a kid bewildered me when it came to his Kryptonian legacy. He would shout something like "Great Rao!" or whatever. He seemed to have an affinity with Krypton that made no sense. If I'd been adopted by Americans before the age of 1, I am sure I'd have little-to-no affinity with the United Kingdom. My terminology would be specific to the United States. I most likely wouldn't use British phrases. So when Superman did shout "Great Rao!" or something, or had an affinity with Krypton, it made little sense to me. So I like that Byrne's Superman had more of an affinity with the United States. It felt more real. Great reviews, by the way. Working my way through them slowly. Be interesting to "revisit" them via your eyes. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 4, 2019 12:51:47 GMT -5
Great reviews, by the way. Working my way through them slowly. Be interesting to "revisit" them via your eyes. You give an old reviewer a new sense of purpose, my good man. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jul 4, 2019 15:31:26 GMT -5
What I didn't like: Pretty much everything else, especially watching a character more like Superman grow up in Smallville instead of a familiar Clark Kent, the weird uncertainty regarding the age of the Kents, and how Superman's Kryptonian Legacy is more of an embarrassment than a destiny, especially in the ridiculous depiction of his mother. The Superman comics/UK annuals I read as a kid bewildered me when it came to his Kryptonian legacy. He would shout something like "Great Rao!" or whatever. He seemed to have an affinity with Krypton that made no sense. If I'd been adopted by Americans before the age of 1, I am sure I'd have little-to-no affinity with the United Kingdom. My terminology would be specific to the United States. I most likely wouldn't use British phrases. So when Superman did shout "Great Rao!" or something, or had an affinity with Krypton, it made little sense to me. So I like that Byrne's Superman had more of an affinity with the United States. It felt more real. I tend to agree. On the other hand, Clark regarding all the Kryptonian history/lore/etc. bequeathed to him from his parents as "ultimately meaningless" is still unseemly characterization. |
|
