The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The Nu DCU - TODAY WE MOURN OMAC... ALSO, SOME NEWS (pg. 59)
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I saw a scene of Action Comics #7 where Jimmy compares the glass bottling to the Simpsons movie, but the Simpsons movie came out in July 2007 and this is supposed to be 2006 at the latest, if not earlier. The timeline is irrevocably destroyed!
0
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
I saw a scene of Action Comics #7 where Jimmy compares the glass bottling to the Simpsons movie, but the Simpsons movie came out in July 2007 and this is supposed to be 2006 at the latest, if not earlier. The timeline is irrevocably destroyed!
He also references a 2009 Stephen King novel.
Speaking of Action #7 why the hell was there so much focus on the bartender?
I saw a scene of Action Comics #7 where Jimmy compares the glass bottling to the Simpsons movie, but the Simpsons movie came out in July 2007 and this is supposed to be 2006 at the latest, if not earlier. The timeline is irrevocably destroyed!
He also references a 2009 Stephen King novel.
Speaking of Action #7 why the hell was there so much focus on the bartender?
It's been kinda hinted that he is Mister Mxyzptlk.
"Ride or Die?" asked Goku
"Ride or Die" confirmed Dominic Toretto, as they took off to find the Dragon Balls in hopes of reviving their friend Sonic
0
ArrynAsk not the InnkeeperFor destiny is thy name!Registered Userregular
So the DCU blog just put up Jim Lee's cover for the FCBD book here
First thing I noticed was Batman holding a Three-eyed skull. I'm guessing that's connected to the skull badge with 3 eyes from JLA #7 we've all been wondering about?
Maybe they want Despero to be a badass in the DCnU?
Really? Awful? I mean, it's a bit bland to my eyes, but awful? I might have saved that for Land, or Chaykin's work over the last couple of years. What do you think is awful about it?
P.S. I can't help but laugh every time I see Howard Chaykin's name, because in Russian, "Chaykin" means "seagull's".
0
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Really? Awful? I mean, it's a bit bland to my eyes, but awful? I might have saved that for Land, or Chaykin's work over the last couple of years. What do you think is awful about it?
P.S. I can't help but laugh every time I see Howard Chaykin's name, because in Russian, "Chaykin" means "seagull's".
Altogether, it's pretty weak. Composition-wise. The face in the left side is dominating the image but the composition is still trying make Superman the focus, and it doesn't work.
Then there's that whole thing with Wonderwoman spinning her lasso behind her, which...no.
Maybe I'm funny, but I don't think of people with guns when it comes to mainstream DC.
Well, I will say this much: if that shit is supposed to be Wonder Woman's lasso, then that particular portion of the image is a complete an utter failure.
"Conceived in a controlled test aboard a Russian space station, the man known as Vostok-X was genetically designed to be the perfect cosmonaut," "Aquaman" writer Geoff Johns told DC. "Heightened endurance, enhanced strength and intelligence and most importantly to the scientists overseeing the project, he was psychologically programmed through intense experimentation to embrace human isolationism. Vostok struggles with making emotional connections with other people."
Probably my favorite so far Vostok-X is a great comic book-y name
Really? Awful? I mean, it's a bit bland to my eyes, but awful? I might have saved that for Land, or Chaykin's work over the last couple of years. What do you think is awful about it?
P.S. I can't help but laugh every time I see Howard Chaykin's name, because in Russian, "Chaykin" means "seagull's".
Oh, I wouldn't call it bland. It's aggressively terrible. The composition is terribly boring, Superman's back is broken about where his ribcage starts and both of his shoulders are dilocated, Wonder Woman's lasso looks ridiculous, Batman's cape is stretched so tightly it's obvious he's been pinned to the floor by it, SUperman's suit has folds despite being some kind of armour, oh, and everyone knows that lots of unnecessary lines and horrible pen scratches make something good, right?
Yeah, i think that cover would qualify as "awful." "Abominable" might even be appropriate.
Because it is super cheesy and hamfisted and I didn't like it?
Morrison is terrible about writing things with
the internet. Final Crisis, Batman Inc. and now this.
We need to shut off the internet! All of it!
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I remember seeing a joke about the Final Crisis scene where basically the anti-life equation spread on the internet because Darkseid sent a spam e-mail about seeing naked ladies by opening the attached file.
Watching from the sideline it kind of feels like the bloom is off the rose in terms of Morrison and Superman, with the fill-ins and confusing storylines.
I'm still really enjoying Action Comics, I mean yeah the fill in Kubert issues were horribly misplaced (But still good). It'll be interesting to see what the 2nd arc will be when it finally starts.
It's still Grade A quality Morrison world building.
UltimateInferno on
"Ride or Die?" asked Goku
"Ride or Die" confirmed Dominic Toretto, as they took off to find the Dragon Balls in hopes of reviving their friend Sonic
0
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
It is curious how Morrison sees the internet, but I think the real problem is most people see the internet as this banal thing, like a utility. Like hot and cold running water, or the lights. Morrison likely sees it more as this amazing, not-technically sentient superstructure growing over the surface of the earth (and beyond), but he's not willing to spend a lot of time sharing the viewpoint that fuels his versions of it.
Making Darkseid's internet invasion seem dumb, when with the right framing it would make total sense. The rest of it follows that logic.
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Really good article by Chris Sims about how bad the first Justice League story was. The points about Batman and Green Lantern, and Batman's plan to save Superman really stand out as flaws in the story. For as much as I disagree with the man about his hate of the Joe Kelly JLA era (it was a unicorn wrapped in sunshine), his points about the basic failings of the opening JL story are strong.
And then to counterpoint it, David Uzumeri takes the position that JL has good characterization. It's shorter than Sims article and feels a bit like it was someone on the staff who had to write a positive thing about it less DC get upset with CA. The main point of his argument is that Johns is character first instead of theme first with this book, although when he starts to list it, it's the themes that stand out the most (alien invasion, no one trusts the heroes, father issues, etc). It doesn't focus on the story given but rather on the potential of future stories, which doesn't seem like a fair thing to judge a comic by, as though nothing but positive encouragement is allowed.
Also, I have to say that I read the new Night Force.
It was... a comic.
Wolfman's dialogue is in a middle-ground between the Bronze age and the current style of comics. So, it's not completely bizarre and stilted and expository, but sometimes it has choppy moments.
The bigger problem was that the book just felt totally generic.
This was something I was worried about. Wolfman was great back in the day, but I wondered if he was going to go down the same path as Byrne, Claremont, Stan Lee, etc.; namely that weird trend where creators who were acclaimed a few decades back just can't seem to recapture that magic.
Nowdays I'm skeptical about blaming the writers for bad or mediocre runs like this at DC after the Static debacle.
I don't think DC's at fault for that one, really.
Why do you think that?
The story was pretty clear from both McDaniels and editorial that Rozum hadn't kept up and someone had to step in and fix things.
It was more complex than that. Had you read the explanation on McDaniel's blog? According to him editorially was paying very close attention to everything and didn't do a damn thing about it. He was very vague on why Rozum was late, as well. Though Rozum should have left, at least temporarily, if he was too busy. Then he plotted the first few issues behind Rozum's back with the editor after they had a falling out which lead to him scripting the issues. All without telling Rozum shit. Any writer would be pissed at that. Then he kept adding new stuff while Rozum was on time with his scripts. It didn't help that the editor played favorites with McDaniel during the whole process.
Really? Awful? I mean, it's a bit bland to my eyes, but awful? I might have saved that for Land, or Chaykin's work over the last couple of years. What do you think is awful about it?
P.S. I can't help but laugh every time I see Howard Chaykin's name, because in Russian, "Chaykin" means "seagull's".
Oh, I wouldn't call it bland. It's aggressively terrible. The composition is terribly boring, Superman's back is broken about where his ribcage starts and both of his shoulders are dilocated, Wonder Woman's lasso looks ridiculous, Batman's cape is stretched so tightly it's obvious he's been pinned to the floor by it, SUperman's suit has folds despite being some kind of armour, oh, and everyone knows that lots of unnecessary lines and horrible pen scratches make something good, right?
Yeah, i think that cover would qualify as "awful." "Abominable" might even be appropriate.
Superman's armor does fold! We just saw it's super-cloth in Action #7!
On Morrison: Honestly Action so far has been pretty great. As someone new to Superman, the Kubert issues were really good for issuing a call about the wonder and majesty that is Superman. There's been something kind of confusing in every one, but that's kind of Morrison's sprawling style and that's cool.
0
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
I'm still really enjoying Action Comics, I mean yeah the fill in Kubert issues were horribly misplaced (But still good). It'll be interesting to see what the 2nd arc will be when it finally starts.
It's still Grade A quality Morrison world building.
You know, I'm not sure the fill-ins were fill-ins. If it wasn't for that recursion to Clark's sense of wonder, his choice in #7 would make no sense at all.
Really good article by Chris Sims about how bad the first Justice League story was. The points about Batman and Green Lantern, and Batman's plan to save Superman really stand out as flaws in the story. For as much as I disagree with the man about his hate of the Joe Kelly JLA era (it was a unicorn wrapped in sunshine), his points about the basic failings of the opening JL story are strong.
And then to counterpoint it, David Uzumeri takes the position that JL has good characterization. It's shorter than Sims article and feels a bit like it was someone on the staff who had to write a positive thing about it less DC get upset with CA. The main point of his argument is that Johns is character first instead of theme first with this book, although when he starts to list it, it's the themes that stand out the most (alien invasion, no one trusts the heroes, father issues, etc). It doesn't focus on the story given but rather on the potential of future stories, which doesn't seem like a fair thing to judge a comic by, as though nothing but positive encouragement is allowed.
I did think Batman running off to save Superman was really goofy.
0
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
How was it goofy? It makes perfect sense from the Batman as mastermind angle.
The only issue I had was Bruce sprinting through Washington without the cowl on like no one could see, but that was pretty obviously Lee forcing a good image.
Really good article by Chris Sims about how bad the first Justice League story was. The points about Batman and Green Lantern, and Batman's plan to save Superman really stand out as flaws in the story. For as much as I disagree with the man about his hate of the Joe Kelly JLA era (it was a unicorn wrapped in sunshine), his points about the basic failings of the opening JL story are strong.
And then to counterpoint it, David Uzumeri takes the position that JL has good characterization. It's shorter than Sims article and feels a bit like it was someone on the staff who had to write a positive thing about it less DC get upset with CA. The main point of his argument is that Johns is character first instead of theme first with this book, although when he starts to list it, it's the themes that stand out the most (alien invasion, no one trusts the heroes, father issues, etc). It doesn't focus on the story given but rather on the potential of future stories, which doesn't seem like a fair thing to judge a comic by, as though nothing but positive encouragement is allowed.
I'd definitely call Johns' a writer who does theme's first, characters second. Except when he was writing pre-Green Lantern.
I liked the first arc of Justice League well enough but Bruce pulling of his mask and revealing himself to these dudes he just met meanwhile Flash and Green Lantern have theirs intact was really goddamn stupid
I liked the first arc of Justice League well enough but Bruce pulling of his mask and revealing himself to these dudes he just met meanwhile Flash and Green Lantern have theirs intact was really goddamn stupid
Yeah. I guess the idea was supposed to be Batman realizes he needed a big gesture to get GL to do what he asked but it felt pretty weird.
Then when he jumps back out of the portal Cyborg opened he just has the thing again. What does he carry extra?
Is that 5 issue Batman miniseries Snyder wrote part of the new continuity? I think it was called Gates of Gotham.
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
ArrynAsk not the InnkeeperFor destiny is thy name!Registered Userregular
Hmm, I guess I read the "Batman takes off his mask" thing sort of differently.
For some reason, I assumed it was because he wanted a Parademon to come by and drag him away to the tower like it would a normal citizen. If the parademon saw a guy in a mask and a cape, he'd register it as "one of those guys we'd been fighting" and attack, instead of carrying him off with no extra precautions. Thus why Batman removed the symbol on his chest too.
GL being there was just a consequence of the immediate surroundings, I thought. Get in the grand gesture as icing.
Not really sure why I thought it was all that, since nothing explicitly spells that out, but that was how I read it the first time.
Hmm, I guess I read the "Batman takes off his mask" thing sort of differently.
For some reason, I assumed it was because he wanted a Parademon to come by and drag him away to the tower like it would a normal citizen. If the parademon saw a guy in a mask and a cape, he'd register it as "one of those guys we'd been fighting" and attack, instead of carrying him off with no extra precautions. Thus why Batman removed the symbol on his chest too.
GL being there was just a consequence of the immediate surroundings, I thought. Get in the grand gesture as icing.
Not really sure why I thought it was all that, since nothing explicitly spells that out, but that was how I read it the first time.
Hang on, Batman never explicitly stated why he unmasked himself to the Justice League? o_O
0
RobchamThe Rabbit Kingof your pantsRegistered Userregular
Hmm, I guess I read the "Batman takes off his mask" thing sort of differently.
For some reason, I assumed it was because he wanted a Parademon to come by and drag him away to the tower like it would a normal citizen. If the parademon saw a guy in a mask and a cape, he'd register it as "one of those guys we'd been fighting" and attack, instead of carrying him off with no extra precautions. Thus why Batman removed the symbol on his chest too.
GL being there was just a consequence of the immediate surroundings, I thought. Get in the grand gesture as icing.
Not really sure why I thought it was all that, since nothing explicitly spells that out, but that was how I read it the first time.
Man, that fills in so many blanks.
Thank you. I got that he was trying to pep Hal by showing him they all needed to step up, and that they all had more in common than they think, but I totally did not get the bat symbol thing at all.
Really good article by Chris Sims about how bad the first Justice League story was. The points about Batman and Green Lantern, and Batman's plan to save Superman really stand out as flaws in the story. For as much as I disagree with the man about his hate of the Joe Kelly JLA era (it was a unicorn wrapped in sunshine), his points about the basic failings of the opening JL story are strong.
And then to counterpoint it, David Uzumeri takes the position that JL has good characterization. It's shorter than Sims article and feels a bit like it was someone on the staff who had to write a positive thing about it less DC get upset with CA. The main point of his argument is that Johns is character first instead of theme first with this book, although when he starts to list it, it's the themes that stand out the most (alien invasion, no one trusts the heroes, father issues, etc). It doesn't focus on the story given but rather on the potential of future stories, which doesn't seem like a fair thing to judge a comic by, as though nothing but positive encouragement is allowed.
I'd definitely call Johns' a writer who does theme's first, characters second. Except when he was writing pre-Green Lantern.
Justice League was really flawed, by Sims went so far as to call it everything wrong with comics? No way, José.
0
RobchamThe Rabbit Kingof your pantsRegistered Userregular
everything wrong with comics being published by DC in the past 8 years would be more accurate
I kind of wish I'd read JLA, so I could comment on it.
But that would mean spending money on JLA.
Oh hey, OMAC was pretty good this week.
I'm not sure how I feel about putting characters from Kamandi, into the present day, though. Like, this book's already using a bunch of the tertiary New Gods stuff. And while it's fun, I think I'd rather have someone more creative than Dan Didio re-introducing and re-interpreting all of Kirby's old stuff.
Still, taken by itself, it was a fun comic. I appreciated Kevin Kho's resigned attitude, regarding the weird crap that's constantly thrown at him.
Posts
He also references a 2009 Stephen King novel.
Speaking of Action #7 why the hell was there so much focus on the bartender?
It's been kinda hinted that he is Mister Mxyzptlk.
"Ride or Die" confirmed Dominic Toretto, as they took off to find the Dragon Balls in hopes of reviving their friend Sonic
First thing I noticed was Batman holding a Three-eyed skull. I'm guessing that's connected to the skull badge with 3 eyes from JLA #7 we've all been wondering about?
Maybe they want Despero to be a badass in the DCnU?
P.S. I can't help but laugh every time I see Howard Chaykin's name, because in Russian, "Chaykin" means "seagull's".
Altogether, it's pretty weak. Composition-wise. The face in the left side is dominating the image but the composition is still trying make Superman the focus, and it doesn't work.
Then there's that whole thing with Wonderwoman spinning her lasso behind her, which...no.
Maybe I'm funny, but I don't think of people with guns when it comes to mainstream DC.
Probably my favorite so far Vostok-X is a great comic book-y name
Oh, I wouldn't call it bland. It's aggressively terrible. The composition is terribly boring, Superman's back is broken about where his ribcage starts and both of his shoulders are dilocated, Wonder Woman's lasso looks ridiculous, Batman's cape is stretched so tightly it's obvious he's been pinned to the floor by it, SUperman's suit has folds despite being some kind of armour, oh, and everyone knows that lots of unnecessary lines and horrible pen scratches make something good, right?
Yeah, i think that cover would qualify as "awful." "Abominable" might even be appropriate.
was super dumb
Morrison is terrible about writing things with
We need to shut off the internet! All of it!
Watching from the sideline it kind of feels like the bloom is off the rose in terms of Morrison and Superman, with the fill-ins and confusing storylines.
It's still Grade A quality Morrison world building.
"Ride or Die" confirmed Dominic Toretto, as they took off to find the Dragon Balls in hopes of reviving their friend Sonic
Making Darkseid's internet invasion seem dumb, when with the right framing it would make total sense. The rest of it follows that logic.
And then to counterpoint it, David Uzumeri takes the position that JL has good characterization. It's shorter than Sims article and feels a bit like it was someone on the staff who had to write a positive thing about it less DC get upset with CA. The main point of his argument is that Johns is character first instead of theme first with this book, although when he starts to list it, it's the themes that stand out the most (alien invasion, no one trusts the heroes, father issues, etc). It doesn't focus on the story given but rather on the potential of future stories, which doesn't seem like a fair thing to judge a comic by, as though nothing but positive encouragement is allowed.
It was more complex than that. Had you read the explanation on McDaniel's blog? According to him editorially was paying very close attention to everything and didn't do a damn thing about it. He was very vague on why Rozum was late, as well. Though Rozum should have left, at least temporarily, if he was too busy. Then he plotted the first few issues behind Rozum's back with the editor after they had a falling out which lead to him scripting the issues. All without telling Rozum shit. Any writer would be pissed at that. Then he kept adding new stuff while Rozum was on time with his scripts. It didn't help that the editor played favorites with McDaniel during the whole process.
I presumed it wasn't literal. That whichever planet he started on he sprang from their version of the internet.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
He straight up says "I am the internet."
Superman's armor does fold! We just saw it's super-cloth in Action #7!
On Morrison: Honestly Action so far has been pretty great. As someone new to Superman, the Kubert issues were really good for issuing a call about the wonder and majesty that is Superman. There's been something kind of confusing in every one, but that's kind of Morrison's sprawling style and that's cool.
You know, I'm not sure the fill-ins were fill-ins. If it wasn't for that recursion to Clark's sense of wonder, his choice in #7 would make no sense at all.
I did think Batman running off to save Superman was really goofy.
The only issue I had was Bruce sprinting through Washington without the cowl on like no one could see, but that was pretty obviously Lee forcing a good image.
So bad I have to laugh. Glad I gave up on AC's when I did.
I'd definitely call Johns' a writer who does theme's first, characters second. Except when he was writing pre-Green Lantern.
Oh jeeze, even if he did mean it literally it was far from bad.
There can be something bad about a comic and have it still be good.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
Yeah. I guess the idea was supposed to be Batman realizes he needed a big gesture to get GL to do what he asked but it felt pretty weird.
Then when he jumps back out of the portal Cyborg opened he just has the thing again. What does he carry extra?
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
For some reason, I assumed it was because he wanted a Parademon to come by and drag him away to the tower like it would a normal citizen. If the parademon saw a guy in a mask and a cape, he'd register it as "one of those guys we'd been fighting" and attack, instead of carrying him off with no extra precautions. Thus why Batman removed the symbol on his chest too.
GL being there was just a consequence of the immediate surroundings, I thought. Get in the grand gesture as icing.
Not really sure why I thought it was all that, since nothing explicitly spells that out, but that was how I read it the first time.
Hang on, Batman never explicitly stated why he unmasked himself to the Justice League? o_O
Tumblr blargh
Man, that fills in so many blanks.
Thank you. I got that he was trying to pep Hal by showing him they all needed to step up, and that they all had more in common than they think, but I totally did not get the bat symbol thing at all.
Justice League was really flawed, by Sims went so far as to call it everything wrong with comics? No way, José.
Tumblr blargh
But that would mean spending money on JLA.
Oh hey, OMAC was pretty good this week.
I'm not sure how I feel about putting characters from Kamandi, into the present day, though. Like, this book's already using a bunch of the tertiary New Gods stuff. And while it's fun, I think I'd rather have someone more creative than Dan Didio re-introducing and re-interpreting all of Kirby's old stuff.
Still, taken by itself, it was a fun comic. I appreciated Kevin Kho's resigned attitude, regarding the weird crap that's constantly thrown at him.
"Talking animals. Sure. Why not?"
Tumblr Twitter