rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 11, 2015 13:09:22 GMT -5
Do you mean "weaklink" as in an in-universe weakness (ie. Superman needs to save Lois from Lex) or a narrative weakness (ie. the characters are bad.) I can see the former but not the latter; I actually think Clark has a more interesting, characterful, likeable 'civilian' supporting cast than just about any other super. I guess to me, The characters have been around too long. I compare it to Spider-mans supporting cast which is always having people added and subtracted. For Superman it's been the same 3 people for 70 years. To be honest I don't see that much difference; while Spider-Man does indeed have blow ins and exits a lot of his core supporting cast has been set in stone since day one - only last year we had a Spider-Man movie with Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn and Aunt May (lot of deaths and ressurections in that group...) Likewise with Superman it is true Lois has been around since literally day one (though I don't see that as a problem - she's iconic in her own right) but we've still seen the likes of Cat Grant, Bibbo Bibbowski, Professor Hamilton and Maggie Sawyer show up. In fact even Lana Lang only showed up for the first time in 1950, 12 years into Superman's run.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 11, 2015 7:18:14 GMT -5
It's generally acknowledged that between the two characters, Batman has had the stronger body of stories published. It's also often acknowledged that Superman is a much harder character to write for. I think an interesting question to ponder is whether one's preference for one character or the other is affected by these factors. For example, Superman is a harder character to write for, therefore it requires someone of greater talent to do him justice, whereas any old hack can pump out a decent Batman story (note: this in not my actual opinion, just one line of reasoning that could be applied as to why Batman might have a higher volume of good material and thus somewhat mitigate against whether this is a contributing factor in his favor). I guess that's one theory. But Superman is written with opponents that are usually on his level or superior , powerwise. Personally, I always thought Superman's weaklink was Lois lane and most of his supporting cast. Do you mean "weaklink" as in an in-universe weakness (ie. Superman needs to save Lois from Lex) or a narrative weakness (ie. the characters are bad.) I can see the former but not the latter; I actually think Clark has a more interesting, characterful, likeable 'civilian' supporting cast than just about any other super.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 10, 2015 18:23:37 GMT -5
I'm a mix between 2, 3 and 6. I'm one of those people who was far too young to see the original films in the cinema (I turned 34 last week but was in my teens during the mid-1990s when Star Wars really took off again outside the movies. In a very real way I became a Star Wars fan as much because of Timothy Zahn as George Lucas. I'd always liked the films but Heir to the Empire and its sequels invested me in the fandom. I still have about 40 (not a typo) Star Wars novels from the 1990s and as I'm writing this I'm re-reading Tales From the Mos Eisley Cantina a 1995 short story collection about all the weirdos from the Cantina in the first film (if you ever find it it is a seriously fun read and well worth picking up.) Anyway I was only so-so on the prequel films but the point is for me Star Wars has never just meant the films. It's novels, short stories, the rpg (two different versions), computer games and of course comics. Of course this disadvantage of this was that I was heavily invested in the old continuity that grew up in the 1990s and got mangled by the prequels and then thrown out altogether once Disney bought the rights.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 4, 2015 11:39:55 GMT -5
Neat review as always Confessor. While I have serious issues with the way Williamson draws characters and expressions (which I promise I won't rehash from now on) I do like his vehicles and tech. That AT-AT is genuinely impressive, but I also really like the Star Destroyers and Snowspeeders.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 4, 2015 4:44:30 GMT -5
-- They're using quite a strange mix of 'damsel in distress' and partner so far... I'm not sure I like it long term Me neither but it does sort of make sense in universe and out: In-universe: Babs is a novice hero. She's capable and very smart (though maybe not the outright genius she is portrayed Post-Crisis) but she's still learning the ropes. Out-of-universe: Babs is a novice hero and its not yet clear she'll be able to make it on her own, so better to have the established heroes around to persuade people to start reading. A nearly identical process happened a decade earlier where the early Supergirl stories in Action Comics were dominated by Superman before she started going solo.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 2, 2015 10:53:45 GMT -5
Superman, and while I like Batman (and do think he has better villains) it isn't close.
For all his power I think there is something strangely more relatable to Superman. As Clark Kent he is far more of an everyman than Bruce Wayne ever was and even in those periods like the Silver Age when his civilian life was not who he 'really' was there was always a certain level there that Clark Kent mattered: Lois, Perry, Jimmy, Lana... Clark Kent has friends and a life as Clark Kent.
I think it's a coincidence that Superman's most iconic love interest is the civilian Lois Lane while Batman's is the villainess/anti-heroine Catwoman.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 2, 2015 10:38:34 GMT -5
I'm sure I'm about to get into trouble again but I have to disagree. Nah, disagreement is fine, we don't flame people here for their opinions. Even if they're wrong! Williamson's depiction of the faces and objects of Star Wars is certainly more accurate (Infantino never met a Star Destroyers he couldn't give the wrong number of engines too), but at least in the Empire adaptation - I've not read the other Star Wars stuff he did - there is a lifeless grimness to proceedings. The Empire Strikes Back is a dark film but characters still grin and smirk. Everyone in the comic seems to have the same look of stoic determination. Infantino's work has its valleys and peaks but there is a sense of action, humour and life flowing through them that do a better job of capturing the spirit, at least of the first film. I agree that Infantino's style better captures the more optimistic vibe of the original SW movie, but he would've been so wrong for the Empire adaptation. I just can't imagine how his style would've fitted in and worked. The only way it could've possibly worked would be if you paired him with an inker that had a really strong artistic personality of their own, to somewhat subdue Infantino's overly-angular and highly stylised art. I'm thinking of someone like Tom Palmer here and, in fact, if you look at the art that Infantino and Palmer did in issue #46 ("The Dreams of Cody Sunn-Childe"), that could've worked for an ESB adaptation, I guess. However, I in no way would ever describe Williamson's art as "lifeless". Quite the opposite. It has loads of energy and plenty of movement. Take a look at my favourite panel in my review of issue #39, for example -- the way in which the fallen Rebel soldier is hitting the ground, you can really sense the impact and the movement as he's bowled over on the floor. Likewise, the fury of the attacking Wampas and the desperate shooting of the remaining Rebel soldiers, is full of life and gives the reader a sense of frantic action. Phew, no flames! 'Lifeless' was I admit maybe the wrong word to use; I actually like his take on vehicles a lot and his landscapes too but I do think there is a grimness to Williamson's approach to character that goes beyond what is in the film. As I said before everyone seems to have a look of stoic determination that isn't always appropriate and the writing has to do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to other emotions: I'm getting ahead of things but I don't think we see Lando smile at all, which weakens the fakeout anger scene with Han; we also lose Luke's funny (if squicky in retrospect) smirk after Leia kisses him. The reactions of Captain Needa and Admiral Piett to the Falcon escaping are not shown at all - not big losses from a plot necessity point of view true but it does make me wonder if the art style couldn't handle their nuanced reaction. I agree Infantino would have been wrong for Empire, but I'm not convinced Williamson is 'more' right for Star Wars as a whole.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 2, 2015 6:23:41 GMT -5
OK, I give up on Barry Allen for now... I just don't like him that much when he's not fighting Grodd Instead, a bit further along in the Silver Age... Detective Comics #359 Robbins/Kane/Anderson 'Million Dollar Debut of Batgirl' Dr. Barbara Gordon makes a 'Batgirl' outfit for a masquerade party, and ends up trying to save Bruce Wayne from a shakedown by Killer Moth. Of course, Batman has to save her in the end... allowing Moth to escape. She decides she likes being Batgirl, and ends up first messing up Batman and Robin's plans, then bailing them out. Back home, Commissioner Gordon tells his daughter how she ought to be more like Batgirl. Notes: -- While the usual 60s comic book sexism is pretty rampant here, at least Batgirl does some useful stuff.. even if every time she does so Batman says some variant of 'I coulda done that!' -- I had no idea pre-crisis Barbara Gordon was so old... she's got to be in her mid-20s anyway.. make the whole Batgirl-Robin couple thing pretty weird -- I could have done without the last page at home with dad... which is the usual silver age DC hero-in-civilian-id-ironically-interacts-with-signifigant-other.. only with her dad. - Love that Killer Moth's henchmen are Larva and Pupa... way to stick in some science! There's also a book auction reference -- A little heavy on the bad puns.. is that the TV shows influence, or did the comic do it first? I'd say this is the best 60s DC origin story there is.. no nonsense science or ridiculous co-incidences, just a smart, adventurous woman who has an oppertunity and seizes it. Rating: B+ Historical Signifigance: A (1st Barbara Gordon Batgirl) I just read the Batgirl Showcase book and loved it, so I'm looking forward to seeing what you make of the rest of them. Really enjoying this thread btw, even if most of the comics are ones I've never read - most of my Silver Age interest has been in Superman, Supergirl, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and the Legion. Being much too young for the actual Silver Age those Showcase books are a godsend!
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 1, 2015 20:38:03 GMT -5
I know, Williamson was just made to draw SW and Infantino...just wasn't. I do like Infantino's art a whole lot more than I used to as a kid, but he's just not really suited to the SW universe, in my opinion. Though obviously he's a great artist in his own right. But yeah, I'll take the likes of Al Williamson, Walt Simonson or Ron Frenz over Carmine Infantino any day, as far as my SW comics are concerned. I'm sure I'm about to get into trouble again but I have to disagree. Williamson's depiction of the faces and objects of Star Wars is certainly more accurate (Infantino never met a Star Destroyers he couldn't give the wrong number of engines too), but at least in the Empire adaptation - I've not read the other Star Wars stuff he did - there is a lifeless grimness to proceedings. The Empire Strikes Back is a dark film but characters still grin and smirk. Everyone in the comic seems to have the same look of stoic determination. Infantino's work has its valleys and peaks but there is a sense of action, humour and life flowing through them that do a better job of capturing the spirit, at least of the first film.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 1, 2015 15:28:16 GMT -5
i love this one. The sparks coming out her ears are a great touch!
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 1, 2015 11:01:20 GMT -5
I do sort of see what you mean, and I'm not against adaptations - just sticking with Star Wars Matt Stover's novelization of Revenge of the Sith is much better than the film. That said, maybe it's just because I am not nearly as keen on the artwork, but to me it feels like the Empire adaptation takes time and effort away that could have been spent on the richly developing world that Marvel had been developing for three years. Honestly I'd rather have had even a fairly weak but original story over a well crafted adaptation and so in that context the Empire comics are an unwelcome intrusion - and again for me the merits of the adaptation aren't strong enough to sweeten the pill. That's fair enough. But you can certainly see why Marvel wanted to do an adaptation of the film. At this point, Marvel were having lots of success with licensed comics or film adaptations, and their adaptation of Star Wars was already one of the company's biggest selling and most reprinted comics ever. So, from a business point of view, it was a no brainer. Oh absolutely, and in their shoes I'd have done the same. To be clear while I'm a fair bit more critical than you, I do think this adaptation is a good comic.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 1, 2015 10:40:01 GMT -5
I'm probably going to be in a minority of one here but I'm actually not all that enthused by Williamson's art... Get out!! Only joking. ...maybe because the photorealism is such a jarring shift from the regular Marvel run, though I also find the colour palette rather dull at times. Strangely I much prefered the adaptation of A New Hope (as it wasn't called then), even if a lot of it wasn't quite 'correct' for the film. I kinda know what you mean about the change in art style being jarring...I think the abrupt change from Infantino to Michael Golden in SW #38 was quite a surprise too. However, I tend to think of the phrase "breath of fresh air" to describe the change from Infantino's art to Williamson's, rather than "jarring". As for the colouring, I know what you mean. Glynis Wein's colouring is more muted and earthier than, say, Carl Gafford's colouring of the same story in The Marvel Illustrated Version of The Empire Strikes Back. I discussed the two different colouring jobs and posted side-by-side comparison samples here, if you're interested. That might be part of it though - the Marvel version of Empire is a superior adaptation of an excellent story, but that makes it feel more constrained too. I can simply watch the film instead, which even aside from my feelings about the art would automatically disqualify it for best issue status. At least with the first film, quite apart from the idiosyncratic version of the art used the comics were reaching people who had never had a chance to see the movie. The Empire adaptation seems... superfluous, and a distraction from the original Marvel fare I've been enjoying. Oh, I couldn't disagree with this more, as you might've guessed from my review. I think -- and have always thought, since I was a lad of just 7 -- that the ESB adaptation is an exceptional piece of comic storytelling and I would never, ever call it superfluous, just because I could watch the film instead. Really, that's the magic if it: what Williamson and Goodwin created is so good that it functions as both a companion and an entirely viable alternative to the movie itself. That is to say that, given some hypothetical Judgment of Solomon-esque choice, whereby from this moment on I could only watch the movie or read the Marvel comic adaptation, but not both...I'd be hard pushed to choose one over the other. Seriously. I do sort of see what you mean, and I'm not against adaptations - just sticking with Star Wars Matt Stover's novelization of Revenge of the Sith is much better than the film. That said, maybe it's just because I am not nearly as keen on the artwork, but to me it feels like the Empire adaptation takes time and effort away that could have been spent on the richly developing world that Marvel had been developing for three years. Honestly I'd rather have had even a fairly weak but original story over a well crafted adaptation and so in that context the Empire comics are an unwelcome intrusion - and again for me the merits of the adaptation aren't strong enough to sweeten the pill.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Sept 1, 2015 7:43:04 GMT -5
I'm probably going to be in a minority of one here but I'm actually not all that enthused by Williamson's art, maybe because the photorealism is such a jarring shift from the regular Marvel run, though I also find the colour palette rather dull at times. Strangely I much prefered the adaptation of A New Hope (as it wasn't called then), even if a lot of it wasn't quite 'correct' for the film.
That might be part of it though - the Marvel version of Empire is a superior adaptation of an excellent story, but that makes it feel more constrained too. I can simply watch the film instead, which even aside from my feelings about the art would automatically disqualify it for best issue status. At least with the first film, quite apart from the idiosyncratic version of the art used the comics were reaching people who had never had a chance to see themovie. The Empire adaptation seems... superfluous, and a distraction from the original Marvel fare I've been enjoying.
I recognise it is well done objectively, but I'm desperately waiting to get back to normal services.
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Aug 28, 2015 18:53:14 GMT -5
Thanks Icctrombone I will!
|
|
rossn
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by rossn on Aug 26, 2015 7:01:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I understand what you mean even though my favourite character in the Marvel run doesn't even show up until well into the post-Empire run (and no I don't mean Shira though I like her fine.) You're a Plif fan, aren't you? Go on, admit it. (Though yes I do also like Plif. )
|
|