|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 13, 2015 2:15:01 GMT -5
JH Williams III's Batwoman: What do our Classics people think of this series? I remember it received some pretty high praise when it was coming out but even though I liked the look of Williams's artwork I was put off by the title character, as I always am put off by any kind of Super-girl, She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, etc knock-off version of an established figure. So this has caused you to miss out on Batwoman? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yet it makes me so glad! I'm kidding a little there, but only a little. I disagree with the whole idea of female knock-off versions of male characters and think they're a step backwards for female representation in comics, especially when there are many independent - as in not directly and obviously derivative of some established male hero - female characters with tremendous potential that have been ignored or even denigrated by both Marvel and DC. I'm aware that it's possible I've missed some good comics because of this attitude, because you never know when something worthwhile might emerge from the most unpromising premise - hence my question about the JH Williams Batwoman. I also have the back-issues of Steve Gerber's She-Hulk run, though I haven't gotten round to reading them yet. And I can see myself trying a Captain Marvel series if one ever catches my eye - there have been so many different characters using that title by now that it no longer makes much sense to view them as knock-offs of the original (Marvel) hero. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any later CM that is based on nearly as strong a concept as Kree Captain Mar-Vell, so Marvel has consistently dropped the ball there. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 13, 2015 2:28:53 GMT -5
The story was very well written, but it took a "Lost" / "X-Files" approach, where the dramatic power of each issue hinged on questions being asked that would only get answered later down the road. I stopped reading around the time Rucka stopped writing the book, so I didn't get a lot of questions answered and, therefore, didn't get much closure on the series, but that artwork truly was to die for. The characterization was okay, the action strong, but so much being left unresolved makes it hard for me to really weigh in on the overall quality of the series. I'm not an art guy, generally, but Williams' work leaves me truly glad that I read the series, even without knowing how I feel about the series as a whole. I concur with pretty much everything you said...the artwork was definity a major draw. Unfortunately Williams stops drawing and it goes downhill after that...too many plots going on also. It definity read better in a few sittings than it did monthly when I originally read it. Nowhere near as good as Rucka's run...unfortunately Rucka left on a cliffhanger that was not resolved by Williams in a manor that was underwelming.
JH Williams III's Batwoman: What do our Classics people think of this series? I remember it received some pretty high praise when it was coming out but even though I liked the look of Williams's artwork I was put off by the title character, as I always am put off by any kind of Super-girl, She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, etc knock-off version of an established figure. However, I can probably force myself to overlook that if I think the writing is anywhere near as good as the artwork. Is it? Great when illustrated by Williams; slightly better than average when illustrated by someone else. One thing I do like about the series is that it establishes its own world with more of a supernatural edge for Batwoman, and Kane herself is very, very different from most derivative Bat-characters with her identity as a child of privilege who chose a military career. It's not "Batman-lite" like so many other Bat-family books aspire to, like-- cough, cough-- every issue of Nightwing ever. When I saw the red hair I assumed it was Barbara Gordon - wasn't she the original Batwoman? These comments more or less confirm my previous impressions, but still, the Williams artwork is so good that I'll probably give his run a shot anyway one of these days. Looking at his wiki entry it seems he hasn't done much since then, just a few covers. I wonder if he has any new projects in the works. Would love to hear he's working on something independent. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2015 2:31:00 GMT -5
JH Williams just finished the 6 issue Sandman Overture series with Neil Gaiman from Vertigo. The 6 issues took over a year to come out even though it was intended to be monthly.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 13, 2015 2:49:10 GMT -5
JH Williams just finished the 6 issue Sandman Overture series with Neil Gaiman from Vertigo. The 6 issues took over a year to come out even though it was intended to be monthly. -M I still haven't read the original Sandman, and I'm not sure I ever will - Gaiman's become the victim of another of my irrational prejudices since I read his Eternals miniseries a few years ago, which I found a depressingly cynical exercise in giving Marvel's managing editors what they wanted with minimal regard for the intrinsic nature of the concept and characters set down in Kirby's series. I was so disgusted that just seeing his name on anything gives me a feeling of revulsion to this day. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Oct 13, 2015 12:31:46 GMT -5
The story was very well written, but it took a "Lost" / "X-Files" approach, where the dramatic power of each issue hinged on questions being asked that would only get answered later down the road. I stopped reading around the time Rucka stopped writing the book, so I didn't get a lot of questions answered and, therefore, didn't get much closure on the series, but that artwork truly was to die for. The characterization was okay, the action strong, but so much being left unresolved makes it hard for me to really weigh in on the overall quality of the series. I'm not an art guy, generally, but Williams' work leaves me truly glad that I read the series, even without knowing how I feel about the series as a whole. I concur with pretty much everything you said...the artwork was definity a major draw. Unfortunately Williams stops drawing and it goes downhill after that...too many plots going on also. It definity read better in a few sittings than it did monthly when I originally read it. Nowhere near as good as Rucka's run...unfortunately Rucka left on a cliffhanger that was not resolved by Williams in a manor that was underwelming.
Great when illustrated by Williams; slightly better than average when illustrated by someone else. One thing I do like about the series is that it establishes its own world with more of a supernatural edge for Batwoman, and Kane herself is very, very different from most derivative Bat-characters with her identity as a child of privilege who chose a military career. It's not "Batman-lite" like so many other Bat-family books aspire to, like-- cough, cough-- every issue of Nightwing ever. When I saw the red hair I assumed it was Barbara Gordon - wasn't she the original Batwoman? These comments more or less confirm my previous impressions, but still, the Williams artwork is so good that I'll probably give his run a shot anyway one of these days. Looking at his wiki entry it seems he hasn't done much since then, just a few covers. I wonder if he has any new projects in the works. Would love to hear he's working on something independent. No, the new Batwoman is Kate Kane. The original was Kathy Kane, but there's not much similiarity between the two besides the name. (The biggest difference being that the original Kathy Kane Batwoman had been created as a love interest for Batman, and Kate Kane is a lesbian.) Barbara Gordon has been Batgirl since the New 52 began. A lot of people like the series since it got a Cam Stewart makeover, but I don't think it's all that great. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Oct 13, 2015 12:35:23 GMT -5
JH Williams just finished the 6 issue Sandman Overture series with Neil Gaiman from Vertigo. The 6 issues took over a year to come out even though it was intended to be monthly. -M I still haven't read the original Sandman, and I'm not sure I ever will - Gaiman's become the victim of another of my irrational prejudices since I read his Eternals miniseries a few years ago, which I found a depressingly cynical exercise in giving Marvel's managing editors what they wanted with minimal regard for the intrinsic nature of the concept and characters set down in Kirby's series. I was so disgusted that just seeing his name on anything gives me a feeling of revulsion to this day. I'd try to give Sandman a chance at some point. It is a monumental work in the medium, and it's of a far, far, far higher quality than Gaiman's Eternals mini, which was basically Neil doing a Joe Quesada a favor. I'm not sure I'd begin with Sandman: Overture, though-- while it is probably the best "prequel" I've seen in any medium, I think it will definitely read better if you've read Sandman first as the events of Overture inform so much about the series. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 13, 2015 14:10:01 GMT -5
When I saw the red hair I assumed it was Barbara Gordon - wasn't she the original Batwoman? These comments more or less confirm my previous impressions, but still, the Williams artwork is so good that I'll probably give his run a shot anyway one of these days. Looking at his wiki entry it seems he hasn't done much since then, just a few covers. I wonder if he has any new projects in the works. Would love to hear he's working on something independent. No, the new Batwoman is Kate Kane. The original was Kathy Kane, but there's not much similiarity between the two besides the name. (The biggest difference being that the original Kathy Kane Batwoman had been created as a love interest for Batman, and Kate Kane is a lesbian.) Barbara Gordon has been Batgirl since the New 52 began. A lot of people like the series since it got a Cam Stewart makeover, but I don't think it's all that great. To expound on Batgirl & Barbara Gordon's history, the original Bat-Girl was the kid sidekick of the original Bat-Woman. In the late sixties they introduced the Barbara Gordon version of Batgirl. She continued as Batgirl until she was shot by the Joker and was confined to a wheelchair. She created the role of Oracle to assist the Bat-characters fight crime from behind a keyboard, and was succeeded as Batgirl by Cassandra Cain and later by Stephanie Brown. In the New52 revamp, she was given back her mobility and the role of Batgirl. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Oct 13, 2015 17:50:07 GMT -5
JH Williams III's Batwoman: The original run with Greg Rucka is one of my top ten favorite superhero comics of the last decade. I liked the New 52 stuff less. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Oct 13, 2015 19:54:26 GMT -5
I still haven't read the original Sandman, and I'm not sure I ever will - Gaiman's become the victim of another of my irrational prejudices since I read his Eternals miniseries a few years ago, which I found a depressingly cynical exercise in giving Marvel's managing editors what they wanted with minimal regard for the intrinsic nature of the concept and characters set down in Kirby's series. I was so disgusted that just seeing his name on anything gives me a feeling of revulsion to this day. The Eternals miniseries is probably where Gaiman started to be really self indulgeant in comics. This and his Batman story are amongst his least enjoyable material. It's weird though The Eternals was your chosen entry point in his bibliography as pretty much everything he did before that has een at least interesting, even 1602. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Oct 13, 2015 20:28:50 GMT -5
I still haven't read the original Sandman, and I'm not sure I ever will - Gaiman's become the victim of another of my irrational prejudices since I read his Eternals miniseries a few years ago, which I found a depressingly cynical exercise in giving Marvel's managing editors what they wanted with minimal regard for the intrinsic nature of the concept and characters set down in Kirby's series. I was so disgusted that just seeing his name on anything gives me a feeling of revulsion to this day. Well not to reduce the story itself to nothing but that cynicism is there to me. Death kept me in it but by the end I was getting disinterested. I didn't read the last volume. And I read it via local library so no monetary investment whatsoever. Im almost certain it's the only Gainem I've read outside a stray issue(s) in a series I might have already been reading. Much like Miller and mayo I can't take too much. And I know to most it's a plus but the extremely varying art was also getting in the way of me enjoying by the second half. Actually the only thing I down that I also read from the library is the Death spinoff mini series. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 13, 2015 20:48:42 GMT -5
I was coming to it than more out of interest in the Eternals than in Gaiman: think the Eternals is one of the great under-appreciated concepts in comics and has been treated with an abysmal lack of understanding since Kirby first created it back in the 70s.
I had tried 1602 previously and found it pretty average, to be honest - so much so that I didn't read past the 2nd issue or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2015 23:23:39 GMT -5
I'm a pretty big Gaiman fan, especially his prose work and Sandman is one of my all time favorite series, but I can't abide 1602, his Eternals or even his Batman story. If those were the only things I read by him, I would not want to read anything else either. But they are by far the exception, not the rule of his quality of work, at least in my estimation.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Oct 14, 2015 6:55:44 GMT -5
I'm a pretty big Gaiman fan, especially his prose work and Sandman is one of my all time favorite series, but I can't abide 1602, his Eternals or even his Batman story. If those were the only things I read by him, I would not want to read anything else either. But they are by far the exception, not the rule of his quality of work, at least in my estimation. -M Yeah, I've only read tidbits of his other comic works, and was never very impressed, but Sandman is (insert every positive descriptor imaginable). |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Oct 14, 2015 12:33:09 GMT -5
I was coming to it than more out of interest in the Eternals than in Gaiman: think the Eternals is one of the great under-appreciated concepts in comics and has been treated with an abysmal lack of understanding since Kirby first created it back in the 70s. I had tried 1602 previously and found it pretty average, to be honest - so much so that I didn't read past the 2nd issue or so. None of his Marvel work is particularly representative of Gaiman's overall ouevre (unless you count things like Miracleman and The Last Temptation of Alice Cooper, which both have been published by Marvel, but neither is something I would consider an actual "Marvel" comic.) Basically, Joe Quesada had Marvel intervene in the legal quagmire over Miracleman, and Neil did those series as a means to subsidize the legal work. He displayed more enthusiasm for 1602, but Eternals was clearly just a "paying you back" gig. I think the biggest problem with Marvel's continuing use of The Eternals is that they just don't fit well in the Marvel Universe, but it's a double-edged sword in that no Eternals series is going to survive in the market without the Marvel Universe connection. Even Kirby's series lasted less than two years. Marvel was clearly hedging their bets with Gaiman's name on the cover as he has a fanbase that's a lot larger than your usual comics fanbase, but that still didn't spark interest in the concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on Oct 14, 2015 12:54:47 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever read Night Force. October seems appropriate. Worth digging out?
|
|
