|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 18:28:58 GMT -5
You are the best. This right here is why I adore you so. That, and your love for Bill Everett. (I missed this! The one post a year where someone is nice to me!) Aw thanks. You're pretty great yourself - and have impeccable taste in comics artists. I have been nice to you in at least two other posts here.  And thank you.  |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 14, 2016 4:21:23 GMT -5
I've just read the first three issues of Titan's Johnny Red, by Garth Ennis and Keith Burns. This is an updated version of a character who began life in the British war anthology title Battle back in the 1970s, an unfairly disgraced British pilot fighting as part of a group of Russians, the Falcon Squadron, in World War II while facing a court martial if he goes home. Ennis excels at this kind of stuff and manages to stay true to the spirit of the original series while giving Johnny rather more depth than he was allowed to have forty years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 14, 2016 12:14:01 GMT -5
I've just read the first three issues of Titan's Johnny Red, by Garth Ennis and Keith Burns. This is an updated version of a character who began life in the British war anthology title Battle back in the 1970s, an unfairly disgraced British pilot fighting as part of a group of Russians, the Falcon Squadron, in World War II while facing a court martial if he goes home. Ennis excels at this kind of stuff and manages to stay true to the spirit of the original series while giving Johnny rather more depth than he was allowed to have forty years ago. Ennis definitely does the best war comics today. And he's right up there with Kurtzman and Goodwin as amongst the best of all time. I admit I've never had the opportunity to read Charleys War. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Feb 14, 2016 13:26:57 GMT -5
I've just read the first three issues of Titan's Johnny Red, by Garth Ennis and Keith Burns. This is an updated version of a character who began life in the British war anthology title Battle back in the 1970s, an unfairly disgraced British pilot fighting as part of a group of Russians, the Falcon Squadron, in World War II while facing a court martial if he goes home. Ennis excels at this kind of stuff and manages to stay true to the spirit of the original series while giving Johnny rather more depth than he was allowed to have forty years ago. Ennis definitely does the best war comics today. And he's right up there with Kurtzman and Goodwin as amongst the best of all time. I admit I've never had the opportunity to read Charleys War. is an absolute classic, possibly the best war comic ever written. And its artist, the late Joe Colquhoun, was also the artist of the original Johnny Red series. His work is well worth seeking out, he paid incredible attention to detail. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 21:25:32 GMT -5
Read Annihlator by Grant Morrison and Frazier Irving from Legendary Comics. If you are familiar with Morrison's metafictional themes and ideas of beings using writers of fiction to shape the world, you could paint the plot by numbers (which pretty much sums up how I feel about everything Grant has written since Invisibles), but it's got some gorgeous art by Frazier Irving. Read it from the library, so I didn't waste any money on it. Again, Frazier did some brilliant stuff, but it's Morrison being Morrison, which is pretty much the same riff for the last 15 years or so and getting old now.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 22:34:14 GMT -5
Read Hellboy and the BPRD 1952 trade. Very much enjoyed it. I really like Maleev's stuff, and it fits the moody Mignola paradigm for the Hellboyverse very well.
I love the note in the sketchbook that Mignola bases the arms on a lot of things he draws on those of the 11 1/2 G.I. Joe gigures of his (and my youth)-now I want a gorilla monster with kung fu grip to show up!
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Feb 15, 2016 13:27:48 GMT -5
Read Hellboy and the BPRD 1952 trade. Very much enjoyed it. I really like Maleev's stuff, and it fits the moody Mignola paradigm for the Hellboyverse very well. I love the note in the sketchbook that Mignola bases the arms on a lot of things he draws on those of the 11 1/2 G.I. Joe gigures of his (and my youth)-now I want a gorilla monster with kung fu grip to show up! -M Ha! That's funny. I know a Hellboy cyborg gorilla action figure was made a while ago; maybe that has a kung fu grip! The Hellboy: Conqueror Worm collection is partially dedicated to the 11 1/2 inch GI Joes. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 16, 2016 10:09:46 GMT -5
I'm re-reading Brian Bendis X-Men run. It's got many good moments, but overall it reads as if there was no definite long-term plans for either the "All-new" or "Uncanny" titles.
It has several minor but annoying problems. Lots of gratuitous and continuity-challenging "revelations", lots of people suddenly acting out of character for no other reason than to provide some dramatic exchange. Hank McCoy was in love with Jean Grey since day one? Bobby Drake is gay? Charles Xavier married Mystique? What the..?
The time travel thing works much better than I first thought it would. I feared that bringing the X-Men from 1964 (or whatever date it was when they first joined on the sliding timeline Marvel uses) to the present was just an excuse to have young and continuity-free characters around, allowing writers to just kill off the old ones. That didn't happen. The young characters interacted in interesting ways with their older counterparts, the way the young SW6 Legionnaires never really did over at DC in the Legion of Super-Heroes in the early 90s. I'm not even against the concept that the young X-Men can't go back to the past again, since it sort of makes sense if we accept that the moment they were plucked from the past created a new timeline: in our regular one, young X-Men from the past appear in the 2010s; in their universe, the young X-Men disappeared one day, never to be seen again. I suppose there might be a way to find their way back to their proper universe, but perhaps one needs a Kang or an Immortus at the wheel of the time machine.
However, some time travel-inspired scenes make no sense. When a young Scott is momentarily killed (he got better, don't worry), the old one vanishes... presumably because if his younger self dies, his older self can never exist. But that would be the case anyway if the young one can not return to the past: he will never grow into the adult we know today! If the older characters can only exist if their younger self remain alive, then the adult Jean Grey we knew would not have existed at all, since we learn that her younger time-displaced self never goes back to the past, gets older in our timeline and eventually dies. The time-displaced Jean never got back in time to resume her normal existence and become the Phoenix, and yet everyone remembers that one. This can only be if the young X-Men are disconnected from their older selves, and are simply their equivalents from a parallel timeline.
Character development is sometimes engaging, sometimes infuriating, and few people end up looking sympathetic. I think the one who fares the best is Maria Hill!
The art is generally extremely good. Immonen and Bachalo (and Sara Pichelli, during the first cross-over with Guardians of the galaxy) produced some of the best art I've seen in recent years.
|
|
|
|
Post by antoine on Feb 16, 2016 13:03:51 GMT -5
I've just read the first three issues of Titan's Johnny Red, by Garth Ennis and Keith Burns. This is an updated version of a character who began life in the British war anthology title Battle back in the 1970s, an unfairly disgraced British pilot fighting as part of a group of Russians, the Falcon Squadron, in World War II while facing a court martial if he goes home. Ennis excels at this kind of stuff and manages to stay true to the spirit of the original series while giving Johnny rather more depth than he was allowed to have forty years ago. I also LOVE Ennis war comics. Just read the TPB War Stories 3, from avatar, and ordered #4 who is coming out soon. Can't get enough |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Feb 16, 2016 14:24:47 GMT -5
I'm re-reading Brian Bendis X-Men run. It's got many good moments, but overall it reads as if there was no definite long-term plans for either the "All-new" or "Uncanny" titles. It has several minor but annoying problems. Lots of gratuitous and continuity-challenging "revelations", lots of people suddenly acting out of character for no other reason than to provide some dramatic exchange. Hank McCoy was in love with Jean Grey since day one? Bobby Drake is gay? Charles Xavier married Mystique? What the..? The time travel thing works much better than I first thought it would. I feared that bringing the X-Men from 1964 (or whatever date it was when they first joined on the sliding timeline Marvel uses) to the present was just an excuse to have young and continuity-free characters around, allowing writers to just kill off the old ones. That didn't happen. The young characters interacted in interesting ways with their older counterparts, the way the young SW6 Legionnaires never really did over at DC in the Legion of Super-Heroes in the early 90s. I'm not even against the concept that the young X-Men can't go back to the past again, since it sort of makes sense if we accept that the moment they were plucked from the past created a new timeline: in our regular one, young X-Men from the past appear in the 2010s; in their universe, the young X-Men disappeared one day, never to be seen again. I suppose there might be a way to find their way back to their proper universe, but perhaps one needs a Kang or an Immortus at the wheel of the time machine. However, some time travel-inspired scenes make no sense. When a young Scott is momentarily killed (he got better, don't worry), the old one vanishes... presumably because if his younger self dies, his older self can never exist. But that would be the case anyway if the young one can not return to the past: he will never grow into the adult we know today! If the older characters can only exist if their younger self remain alive, then the adult Jean Grey we knew would not have existed at all, since we learn that her younger time-displaced self never goes back to the past, gets older in our timeline and eventually dies. The time-displaced Jean never got back in time to resume her normal existence and become the Phoenix, and yet everyone remembers that one. This can only be if the young X-Men are disconnected from their older selves, and are simply their equivalents from a parallel timeline. I'm not really a big X-Men fan, but I did read the first couple of issues of All-New, mostly because time travel is so uncommon in comics these days and I'm kind of a sucker for the Rip Van Winkle "man out of time" trope |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 16, 2016 15:29:21 GMT -5
I'm re-reading Brian Bendis X-Men run. It's got many good moments, but overall it reads as if there was no definite long-term plans for either the "All-new" or "Uncanny" titles. It has several minor but annoying problems. Lots of gratuitous and continuity-challenging "revelations", lots of people suddenly acting out of character for no other reason than to provide some dramatic exchange. Hank McCoy was in love with Jean Grey since day one? Bobby Drake is gay? Charles Xavier married Mystique? What the..? The time travel thing works much better than I first thought it would. I feared that bringing the X-Men from 1964 (or whatever date it was when they first joined on the sliding timeline Marvel uses) to the present was just an excuse to have young and continuity-free characters around, allowing writers to just kill off the old ones. That didn't happen. The young characters interacted in interesting ways with their older counterparts, the way the young SW6 Legionnaires never really did over at DC in the Legion of Super-Heroes in the early 90s. I'm not even against the concept that the young X-Men can't go back to the past again, since it sort of makes sense if we accept that the moment they were plucked from the past created a new timeline: in our regular one, young X-Men from the past appear in the 2010s; in their universe, the young X-Men disappeared one day, never to be seen again. I suppose there might be a way to find their way back to their proper universe, but perhaps one needs a Kang or an Immortus at the wheel of the time machine. However, some time travel-inspired scenes make no sense. When a young Scott is momentarily killed (he got better, don't worry), the old one vanishes... presumably because if his younger self dies, his older self can never exist. But that would be the case anyway if the young one can not return to the past: he will never grow into the adult we know today! If the older characters can only exist if their younger self remain alive, then the adult Jean Grey we knew would not have existed at all, since we learn that her younger time-displaced self never goes back to the past, gets older in our timeline and eventually dies. The time-displaced Jean never got back in time to resume her normal existence and become the Phoenix, and yet everyone remembers that one. This can only be if the young X-Men are disconnected from their older selves, and are simply their equivalents from a parallel timeline. I'm not really a big X-Men fan, but I did read the first couple of issues of All-New, mostly because time travel is so uncommon in comics these days and I'm kind of a sucker for the Rip Van Winkle "man out of time" trope How did you like them, batflunkie? I love a good time travel story, but I really prefer when it is well thought out in advance. In comics, some of my favourite time travel stories included the Swamp Thing story arc by (mostly) Rick Veitch and the multiple instances of modern heroes travelling to the past at the same time the Fantastic Four met Ram-Tut. With the All-new X-men, some of my favourite moments were of the "man out of time" type you mention: young Cyclops asking why water is now sold in bottles, not understanding why people ask him about his phone being broken when he asks for a road map, or Bobby Drake being amazed that there are TV channels entirely devoted to food. I would have liked some Hank McCoy techgasm too, but apparently he took all our modern developments in stride! |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Feb 16, 2016 15:42:09 GMT -5
How did you like them, batflunkie? I love a good time travel story, but I really prefer when it is well thought out in advance. In comics, some of my favourite time travel stories included the Swamp Thing story arc by (mostly) Rick Veitch and the multiple instances of modern heroes travelling to the past at the same time the Fantastic Four met Ram-Tut. With the All-new X-men, some of my favourite moments were of the "man out of time" type you mention: young Cyclops asking why water is now sold in bottles, not understanding why people ask him about his phone being broken when he asks for a road map, or Bobby Drake being amazed that there are TV channels entirely devoted to food. I would have liked some Hank McCoy techgasm too, but apparently he took all our modern developments in stride! I thought it was decent for the first couple of issues, kind of served as a sharp contrast to Cyclops being a cult of personality, which still felt largely out of character for someone who had been rather "by-the-books" for so long. The "man out of time" trope however really never worked in Captain America's favor during his 60's revival. While it is crucial to his origin, there was not much of a gap in terms of societal evolution between the nineteen-forties and the nineteen-sixties. The South Park episode, "Prehistoric Ice Man" probably surmises it better than Marvel ever could |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Feb 17, 2016 11:48:21 GMT -5
Just got done reading the new Power-Man & Iron Fist comic, was pretty decent. Not amazing, but enjoyable
Art was a bit weird though
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 17, 2016 16:35:20 GMT -5
Not a modern comic, but the wikipedia page on Star-Lord quoting a modern comic...
So they've retconned his origin to better fit the GotG movie?
I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 16:42:06 GMT -5
Not a modern comic, but the wikipedia page on Star-Lord quoting a modern comic... So they've retconned his origin to better fit the GotG movie? I am shocked. Shocked, I say. Well the opening of GotG movie with the young Star-Lord being taken up is pretty much straight out of Bendis GotG zero issues or .1 issue or however they numbered it when Marvel Now launched in 2012 i.e. the first Bendis Guardians issue, and that was the revamped origin of Star-Lord issue, so the change was in place before the movie was released and became popular. Now I am sure they had the movie script in place by then, so they may have been trying to create synergy between the two before the movie came out, but the change to the oprigin was in place pre-movie release. -M |
|
