And yet, the entire appeal of the NTT run outside of Perez's art is the character progressions, which inevitably require a knowledge of previous stories and events.

That was really where I was going with my comment, yes.




At least with the floating city, the timing and visual similarities were suspicious.

Today marks the first time I've ever read Claremont's X-Men and Wolfman/Perez's New Teen Titans at the same time. While I've been a diehard fan of both since my adolescence, I've flocked to each at different times. But now, putting them side by side, I can see the fundamental differences:

WRITING - Wolfman is definitely simpler than Claremont. I find it too simple, but Claremont tends to fill every single panel with narration, and I can see how that would be tedious for younger readers.

ART - Perez draws the absolute best faces, but Byrne's pencils are more energetic and compelling. And he's got Terry Austin inking.

CHARACTERIZATION - Wolfman and Perez are working so intentionally to develop their characters. I appreciate it, but it feels forced compared to Claremont, who gives you the sense these characters already came fully developed, and it's just a matter of when and where he will reveal more. Of course, this wasn't true. Claremont changed direction on character backstories constantly, but it feels like the story is already there, waiting to be uncovered.

CONTINUITY - Claremont knows where he's been and seems to have a strong sense of where he is going. Wolfman/Perez know some of where they've been (some stuff -- Hyperion's manipulation of Donna, for example -- gets forgotten quickly), and they seem to have no idea where they are going after the first handful of issues. I know that will change again with the introduction of Terra, and the laying down of the basis for The Judas Contract, but then the sense of indirection kicks in again right after.

All in all, this takes me back to spoon's belief that NTT was aimed more at kids. Whether or not that's true, it's definitely more basic. Easier to follow, but clumsier too. I'll always continue to love the Titans because they were important to me first -- the nostalgia will always be there. But for me, Claremont's X-Men is clearly the superior work.

Might need to get around to reviewing that run one of these days, probably after I've finished a few of my other eternally on-going review thread projects

It can also be plenty tedious for older readers.  It ignores the fact that comics are a combined visual and written medium.  You can let the art do some of the heavy lifting.  This was a major problem throughout that period of comics.  

It's also possible that rather than being aimed at kids (and this is a point at which all news-stand comics are still somewhat aimed at kids) that Wolfman just isn't a very good writer.  I really think I need to go back and re-read Tomb of Dracula, because I remember loving it, but everything else I've read (or re-read) by Wolfman in the last decade is pretty awfully written. 

I felt the series had tremendous potential, but that Wolfman never really delivered. I'd kill for a premium cable TV series set in Baron Winters' Georgian manor.

I also think DC was battling bad optics over the Implosion and the mess that followed in the immediate aftermath. I've argued extensively that the Wein/Conway/Moench Batman run is one of the great under-appreciated runs in classic comicdom, but most folks weren't even reading Batman by that point. The Titans had an easier time getting attention because they were a new title with a clearly new approach on a classic team, but if you were a DC property and you looked like the status quo, there's a good chance you weren't getting picked up out of that spinner rack long enough to dazzle anyone, regardless of inherent quality.

I'm not as negative on this as a D+ grade, but I agree with this criticism. It's basically a story of the mythological figures, with Donna, Raven, and Starfire basically as supporting characters. And with Donna being mind-controlled, she's sort of not really there. We get a bit of her internal struggle, but it more like a prefunctory plot devise than an examination of an internal struggle of the character. And yes, the gods don't get developed enough for a rooting interest. The danger of Cronus imposing his worldview feels like it's tacked on toward the end.


Yeah, we could've used a "meanwhile" in there. I could see that Wolfman & Perez might want to give the guys the issue off to focus on the female members, but they don't really do that. As noted, the New Teen Titans are more like supporting characters in a story led by the mythological figures. 


Definitely all mixed up. And Wolfman sticks such Christian framing and terminology in there.


[quote}And Donna is on the same strength level as the strongest Greek demigod of them all?




If you're going to spend two issues upstaging a team in their own book in order to depict an epic story of the Greek gods, seems like you should at least do it right. These guys are under-powered, view mortals as their equals on occasion, and Zeus has some hippy groovy philosophy that humans should serve no one but themselves (??). It's just wrong.[/quote]
I think technically Ares is a god. Demigod would be a more minor figure in the pantheon or someone who has one mortal parent and one god parent.

I'm so used to the post-Crisis Ares, that it's weird to see how different pre-Crisis Ares is. His outfit is weird, and way too complex and showy. And yes, Donna dispatches him way too easily.



Agreed. She's given short-shrift in a two-issue arc that seemed at first that it would focus on her. The payoff in finally asserting her freedom from Hyperion was okay, but it could have been powerful if it was explored more in the story and the gods were less of a focus. I guess it's hard when there are so many characters between the Olympians and the ancient Titans.

Pretty much guest stars in their own book.