|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 20:23:15 GMT -5
In 1994 Kurt Busiek did an amazing series with Alex Ross called "Marvels". It told the history of the Marvel Universe from WWII until the death of Gwen Stacy. It was seen thru the eyes of one of us - Phil Sheldon - a photojournalist. I loved it. Part of the appeal was Ross' painted realistic art. Part was Busiek telling the story thru "our eyes" using Sheldon.
Then 2 years later (1996) Ross teamed with Mark Waid to tell a story at DC called "Kingdom Come". Instead of revisiting DC's past they tell the story of a possible future. This time the narrator is a minister named Norman McCay. It featured a war between the heroes & a classic fight between Superman & Capt Marvel.
IMO both are classics that should be on every reader's top 20 list of stories to read.
I'm curious how CCF members felt about these 2 series. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 27, 2016 20:29:36 GMT -5
I know I loved Kingdom Come when I read it about 9 years ago, but I can't for the life of me remember anything about it other than some vague impressions of Magog.
I really enjoyed Marvels but, encountering it only after hearing about it, I couldn't help feeling it was oversold. Clever idea retelling the history of the Marvel Universe from the perspective of an ordinary joe, but it wasn't exactly the pivotal moment in comic storytelling some often make it out to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 27, 2016 20:33:42 GMT -5
I have very very fond feelings for Kingdom Come. Not because of the book itself. I liked it at the time, but don't think it's aged well. But it gave birth to the Kingdom Come Message Board that ultimately evolved into Comic Book Resources. So Kingdom Come is responsible for me meeting and interacting with all of you and a ton of friends who haven't made it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 27, 2016 20:43:10 GMT -5
Alex Ross's art is a turn-off for me. The respective concepts don't really grab my interest much but I would probably give them a shot if a favourite artist had worked on them - just as I'm probably going to read Crisis on Infinite Earths one of these days just because I like George Perez's artwork so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 20:48:34 GMT -5
I know I loved Kingdom Come when I read it about 9 years ago, but I can't for the life of me remember anything about it other than some vague impressions of Magog. I really enjoyed Marvels but, encountering it only after hearing about it, I couldn't help feeling it was oversold. Clever idea retelling the history of the Marvel Universe from the perspective of an ordinary joe, but it wasn't exactly the pivotal moment in comic storytelling some often make it out to be. KC was sort of bashing the new violent stuff coming from Image & others. It featured several factions: Superman's Justice League. Batman's Outsiders. Luthor's Mankind Liberation Front. Magog's Justice Battalion (which had the Charlton characters). Magog was modeled after an Image style type of hero.
After the defection of their top artists to Image Marvel did hype this series because they knew they had a hit on their hands. The success of Marvels led to Busiek creating Astro City.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 27, 2016 20:51:41 GMT -5
I caught both stories after the furer had died down. I think I enjoyed KC more than Marvels. KC had a better story and the art was very involved. Everytime you read it , more hidden details of artwork jump out at you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 27, 2016 21:18:52 GMT -5
I enjoyed both, and the art is beautiful to look at in both, but in terms of actual story, my vote goes to Kingdom Come. While I enjoyed it, Marvels didn't really have much in the way of a plot, whereas Kingdom Come had more of a conflict and resolution. Also, Mark Waid's characterization of Superman really resonates with me -- in this work and others he's written, as well as various blogs and commentaries he's written. To me, Waid just gets Superman like no other writer does. It's a shame we'll probably never see him do a proper run on any of the main monthly Superman books.
And while I love Alex Ross's art, I think I've come to the conclusion that he's more of a pin-up/covers artist than a true visual storyteller. That might just be an inherent limitation of the painted format that he uses -- it must be really labor intensive and therefore more difficult to do dynamic sequential types of panels compared to penciled art. If you look at any given panel, it looks beautiful as a moment in time, like a good photograph, but the overall sequence lacks a sense of dynamism.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 27, 2016 21:31:36 GMT -5
Kingdom Come was, IMO, what made Alex Ross... he brought painted art into the main stream. The story, I agree, hasn't aged well, but the art and character designs are amazing. And, really, when you come down to it, Kingdom Come's popularity essentially brought back the DC multiverse and started the path to the 52 worlds and such.
Marvels I've always thought was overrated.. it's good for what it is, but I don't find it particularly good.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Sept 27, 2016 21:58:49 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand the love people have for Kingdom Come. Superman gives up on the human race when the public cheers the new guy on for killing The Joker - a guy who is in his third decade of mass murdering scores, if not hundreds, of people on a monthly basis?
Batman's a douchebag who talks down to Superman? Frank Miller did this 10 years ago and everyone's been following his template since then - why is this laudable?
It's nice that someone's written a thinly veiled attack on the uber violence found in Image Comics by making the new guys in town look like refuges from an Image Comic. By the way, which Green Lantern is that? Hal Jordan or Alan Scott? Oh, it's supposed to be Jordan but you can't come out and say it because in current continuity Hal Jordan is a uber violent mass murdering psychopath himself?
"I'm here to force peace!" THIS is supposed to be Wonder Woman?!
Kingdom Come is just so miserable, hopeless, uninspiring, and I suspect that's supposed to be the point. I just can't figure out why. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 27, 2016 22:19:43 GMT -5
I enjoyed both stories but don't think either are the best, or classics.
Some readers don't like Alex Ross' art, but I do. Both certainly put him on the map. Marvels really brought the spotlight to him, and KC moved him even higher.
The Image-style anti-heroes are ok, and the premise is decent. What I liked the most was Superman being the rock of the story, and the character designs Ross designed.
Seeing the whole Marvel Age through the lense of a photo-journalistic was a cool idea, but not as ground breaking as some would say. Not to say it wasn't enjoyable, but it was retreading history from a new viewpoint. Sort of like colorizing an old movie. It's a visual enhancement, mostly, but nothing we haven't seen before.
I'd recommend either but wouldn't call either a classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Sept 27, 2016 22:23:32 GMT -5
I liked Marvels. And it's counterpart Ruins, which takes a nihilistic and pessimistic take on Marvels and/or superhero origins. chadwilliams description of Kingdom Come makes me think I'm glad I never read it and now probably never will. Frank Miller *ucked Batman over with DKR and has done more damage to anyone comic book character than anyone else. And this is accounting Christian Bale playing Batman.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 28, 2016 1:32:54 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand the love people have for Kingdom Come. Superman gives up on the human race when the public cheers the new guy on for killing The Joker - a guy who is in his third decade of mass murdering scores, if not hundreds, of people on a monthly basis?
Batman's a douchebag who talks down to Superman? Frank Miller did this 10 years ago and everyone's been following his template since then - why is this laudable?
It's nice that someone's written a thinly veiled attack on the uber violence found in Image Comics by making the new guys in town look like refuges from an Image Comic. By the way, which Green Lantern is that? Hal Jordan or Alan Scott? Oh, it's supposed to be Jordan but you can't come out and say it because in current continuity Hal Jordan is a uber violent mass murdering psychopath himself?
"I'm here to force peace!" THIS is supposed to be Wonder Woman?!
Kingdom Come is just so miserable, hopeless, uninspiring, and I suspect that's supposed to be the point. I just can't figure out why. I find Kingdom Come to be the exact opposite of everything you just said. Moore and Miller broke the superhero down into tiny pieces and analyzed them. Subsequent writers took those pieces and used them to write stories without the analysis. Waid and Ross take those pieces and put them back together using those analyses. Superman turns his back on humanity for seeing a murderer as a great hero. It's as if Superman is looking at the then-current trend in comics and passing judgment on it. Superman represents the pre-deconstruction era of superheroes and the fans of that era. The public turns its back on Superman and looks to a new breed of hero, which disgusts Superman. The hero and the reader. There is a great feeling of hope and optimism in the story. Yes it is violent and yes the heroes act like assholes but that is the point. It's a learning experience and they come out of it all the better for it. The heroes start as their cranky, navel-gazing post-Watchmen selves, things reach their absolute lowest point and in the end they all experience some growth. In the beginning of the story Batman is barely a human being emotionally. At the end of the story he has patched things up with Dick and is a true friend to Superman. And it all comes down to the human perspective. It's the little guy who can see the light at the end of the tunnel and inspire Superman to not give up on himself and humanity. How is that miserable, hopeless and uninspiring? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 28, 2016 1:49:25 GMT -5
I really enjoyed both (and to echo what crazyoldhermit said above, I certainly saw KC as a triumph of hope over despair rather than just another parade of violence and misery for its own sake) but of the two, I think I actually enjoyed Marvels more, probably because the Silver Age Marvel characters really strike a chord with me which most of DC's don't. I think that image of a huge Giant Man striding across the city seen from the perspective of people on the ground is probably the greatest visual depiction of the character, ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 28, 2016 1:55:39 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand the love people have for Kingdom Come. Superman gives up on the human race when the public cheers the new guy on for killing The Joker - a guy who is in his third decade of mass murdering scores, if not hundreds, of people on a monthly basis?
Batman's a douchebag who talks down to Superman? Frank Miller did this 10 years ago and everyone's been following his template since then - why is this laudable?
It's nice that someone's written a thinly veiled attack on the uber violence found in Image Comics by making the new guys in town look like refuges from an Image Comic. By the way, which Green Lantern is that? Hal Jordan or Alan Scott? Oh, it's supposed to be Jordan but you can't come out and say it because in current continuity Hal Jordan is a uber violent mass murdering psychopath himself?
"I'm here to force peace!" THIS is supposed to be Wonder Woman?!
Kingdom Come is just so miserable, hopeless, uninspiring, and I suspect that's supposed to be the point. I just can't figure out why. The KC Green Lantern is actually Alan Scott. He's shown as being left handed; Scott is left handed, Jordan isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Sept 28, 2016 2:51:36 GMT -5
I really enjoyed both (and to echo what crazyoldhermit said above, I certainly saw KC as a triumph of hope over despair rather than just another parade of violence and misery for its own sake) but of the two, I think I actually enjoyed Marvels more, probably because the Silver Age Marvel characters really strike a chord with me which most of DC's don't. I think that image of a huge Giant Man striding across the city seen from the perspective of people on the ground is probably the greatest visual depiction of the character, ever. I think Marvels is also hugely aided by the realistic approach the Bullpen injected into those characters. The early Marvel universe occupies a real place, progresses in real time and is very carefully integrated into the culture of New York City. So a book like Marvels is really the next logical step and feels very natural because Stan, Jack, Steve and the rest had done the real grunt work decades earlier. |
|
