|
Post by spoon on Jul 15, 2017 11:06:20 GMT -5
I'm currently reading Secret Wars 2. It's totally uninspired tripe from Jim Shooter and it doesn't help that Al Milgrom is doing the art. I read Secret Wars 2 for the first time about a year ago. Man alive, it was...yeah, uninspired. Not outright terrible or anything, but just so "nothingy" and forgettable. I swear I'll never waste hours of my life again re-reading that one. So it's just like Secret Wars. Oh, I don't know...Secret Wars was great for what it was: big, dumb, superhero fun. It had a ton of pizzazz and energy to it, even if, ultimately, it was a totally unnecessary excuse for a big good guys vs. bad guys punch-up. I think the fact that I encountered it aged 12 might be a factor in my enjoyment of it though. Still, while the first Secret Wars is certainly no masterpiece, it is at least readable and fairly memorable as a gigantic superhero fight, if nothing else. The follow-up, on the other hand, is just dull and eminently forgettable. Of course, I've read several of the Secret Wars II crossovers, but never the series itself. I'm tempted by curiousity and a couple of the covers (#1 and #8), but then I read the essentially unanimous criticism of the series. I agree with your assessment of the original Secret Wars movie. It's like an action movie that has no real depth to it, but with a well-done roller coaster of action sequences.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 15, 2017 10:39:40 GMT -5
I finished the Captain America: Death of the Red Skull TPB, which ends with #301. There's a lot of build-up, but #300 doesn't end up a being a very big deal. Cap punches the Red Skull a few times and the Skull dies. Cap is about to die from the poisoning that has triggering the aging process stalled by his suspended animation, when he's temporarily saved by Black Crow, a Native American hero. It seems like an attempt to shoehorn in the one issue in this run that didn't seem to fit (Black Crow's previous appearance). And that's it. That's basically the issue. The permanent cure to Cap's aging comes in #301. That issue also wraps other aspects of the story. Really, #300 seems more like a lull between more consquential issues. Sure, the Skull "dies" in #300, but it feels like going out with a whimper after the build-up. The main strength of #300 is that Dennis Janke starts doing the inking, and he seems a better fit with Paul Neary than the previous inkers. Now, I'm on to the next Captain America TPB - Society of Serpents! One reason for 300 maybe feeling a little like a lull - and for black crow's appearance feeling random - is that my understanding is this story was not what was originally planned for #300. DeMatteis had planned to have captain America also die in thus issue, and black crow was going to become the new captain America. Editorial scrapped it at the last minute and he quit the book in protest, so it was finished by other people salvaging what they could. Now that you mention it, I think I heard that story years ago but forgot it (because I hadn't read these issues back then). That explanation makes sense. J.M. DeMatteis seems daring enough to try that, but TPTB probably wouldn't be on board. Black Crow seems superfluous in the story that was published, especially since he only provides a temporary fix for a problem the Avengers solve in #301. But if Black Crow replaces Cap and the last few pages were replaced by a new sequence, it could work. Even though DeMatteis is credited as plotter (with Mike Carlin as scripter), I can imagine where Carlin and/or editorial took over plotting with a few pages left. It's hard to believe that DeMatteis would decide not to script his final issue (and #300 at that) unless he quit in protest or was forced out. That explanation puts other events in a different context. In #297, Cap saves Nomad in a delusion induced by Baron Zemo to simulate Bucky's death. It is framed by as redemption or closure for Cap, but I didn't think he needed closure. However, if Cap is about to be killed off, it makes more sense for the writer to want Cap to be at peace regarding Bucky.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 14, 2017 18:43:38 GMT -5
I finished the Captain America: Death of the Red Skull TPB, which ends with #301. There's a lot of build-up, but #300 doesn't end up a being a very big deal. Cap punches the Red Skull a few times and the Skull dies. Cap is about to die from the poisoning that has triggering the aging process stalled by his suspended animation, when he's temporarily saved by Black Crow, a Native American hero. It seems like an attempt to shoehorn in the one issue in this run that didn't seem to fit (Black Crow's previous appearance). And that's it. That's basically the issue.
The permanent cure to Cap's aging comes in #301. That issue also wraps other aspects of the story. Really, #300 seems more like a lull between more consquential issues. Sure, the Skull "dies" in #300, but it feels like going out with a whimper after the build-up. The main strength of #300 is that Dennis Janke starts doing the inking, and he seems a better fit with Paul Neary than the previous inkers.
Now, I'm on to the next Captain America TPB - Society of Serpents!
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 10, 2017 23:15:57 GMT -5
It's odd that Don Jr. is describing the lawyer as wanting to remove restrictions on adoptions on Russian children and discuss the Magnitsky Act as if that's some sort of benign humanitarian issue out of left field. The problem is that U.S. didn't put restrictions on adoptions of Russian children. Russia did. The Magnitsky Act isn't the adoption restriction; the Magnitsky Act is the U.S. law sanctioning key Russian leaders for human rights abuses. The restrictions on adoptions of Russian children was a retaliatory policy by Russia to punish Americans who want to adopt. Of course, because Putin is awful, it has the affect of hurting Russian orphans.
In other words, this lawyer couldn't be contacting Americans to lift adoption restrictions, because the U.S. didn't impose the restrictions. Rather, she would be contacting Americans (the Trump campaign to seek removal of Magnitsky Act sanctions). So the action she wanted was to remove sanctions on Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats. The quid pro quo would be the hacked campaign dirt. The fig leaf is getting Russia to drop its adoption restrictions against Americans.
Also, the claim that Donald Trump didn't know about this meeting is suspect. It wasn't just attended by Don Jr. Jared and Manafort were also there. Three huge names from the Trump campaign inner circle go to one meeting. That seems like overkill unless the campaign considers the meeting to be a major thing. Wouldn't it be weird for all of them to be simultaneously busy in case Trump wanted to contact them?
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 10, 2017 22:48:17 GMT -5
Overall a real fun and entertaining movie. Captures many of the good things about our boy Spidey. Liked the Keaton Vulture concept. Now if he downsizes the wings into a more portable version he could become a really maneuverable villain of the skies. There were some plot flaws as any movie has (why would Stark allow all of his important toys being moved without protection, too short a set up with Pete/Liz crushing or dating) and also managed to update all of the Spidey school kids nicely without resorting to stereotypes. Keaton as the working man's villain was superb. Loved the bomber jacket/helmet motif. Maybe a touch too bloodthirsty/psychotic at moments but can see where he will make a grand recurring master villain. Nice in world set up's connecting and showing the "small" world concept where everyone knows everyone in some way when you live/work within a city. I have had several jobs and find it amazing that in each one I have managed to run across friends/family/school and many times seeing them in all 3. This works well in the Spidey-verse of villainy IMO. Spidey in the 'burbs was hilariously well done. Looking forward to more Spidey.... I'd guess were more likely to see the Vulture as a reformed ally or a victim of blackmail than a recurring master villain. In the mid-credits scene, Toomes seemed to be keeping Peter's secret despite pressure from Mac Gargan. Toomes seems to have a sense of honor, or at least indebtedness, toward Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 10, 2017 22:41:02 GMT -5
I'm the midst of my planned Captain America #286-350 readathon. Right now, I'm up to #299.
I'd read #286-289 before. It the Deathlok time travel 3-parter plus Mike Zeck's swan song as interior artist. Deathlok's story is very cool, but his future history is inconsistent with others and it seems the heroes were dispatched too easily to bring it about.
The Death of the Red Skull TPB begins with #290. I had never read any of those issues before. Paul Neary pencils most of the issues. I associate him with Alan Davis art, since he was one of his frequent inkers, so I expected it to be better than it is. It seems Neary's art varies widely depending on the inker. Sometimes it seems like Frank Robbins, other times like Don Perlin. I'm not a fan of either. But this storyline has horrific aspects, so somehow off-putting art is oddly fitting, like the grotesque Sisters of Sin.
I wish I had read more of the earlier part of J.M. DeMatteis's run, because these issues apparently draw a lot on that. I like how Cap's friends and allies in this issue are a diverse bunch. It really tries to broaden American-ness beyond blonde, WASPy Steve Rogers. I was thinking about this before the Red Skull brought it up in a derisive manner. Cap's friends/allies in these issues include a pacifist (Dave Cox), an African-American (Falcon), a brain-washed former unwitting villain (Nomad), his Jewish girlfriend (Bernie Rosenthal), and a gay man (Arnie Roth). Roth is particular seems fairly groundbreaking. He's not explicitly described as "gay", but the world's largest pile of hints an oblique references are made.
The Red Skull's origin in #298 is pretty disturbing. But the Skull reveals that his mother's name is Martha, so if Batman or Superman could somehow meet him, they'd figure he must be a swell guy.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 10, 2017 22:16:30 GMT -5
I don't recall if there was actually a moment when Scott and Jean were explicitly established as being a couple in the pre-reprint era. Maybe it was implied toward the end of the run. The closest we get to a confirmation that they're at last an item, is Uncanny X-Men #48, when the team has temporarily split up. Scott and Jean have decided to stay together, and there's a whole page on which Arnold Drake lets both of them fight off potential suitors. It's incidentally also the first issue Drake scripted by himself, so I guess he was eager to get rid off the "will they or won't they" stuff as well, and get some resolution. Jean is seen telling some other girls "You're poaching on MY reserve" and Scott refers to himself as Jean's "boyfriend". Ah, yes, Jean the model and Scott the disc jockey. And Jean gets hit on by her boss.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 11:34:16 GMT -5
Hadn't thought about that, but I think you're right. He did seem much more capable of handling Falcon than he did Vulture. Maybe...how long Toomes had been the Vulture vs how long Sam was Falcon was the difference? Maybe Sam was holding back? Spider-Man also fought many others in the course of the Civil War battle (Winter Soldier, Cap, Giant-Man) and seemed pretty skilled throughout. In Homecoming, Spidey had difficulty with the thugs robbing the ATM. After he knew they had high tech weapons, he still got caught two or three more times.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 11:26:25 GMT -5
The helmet is about severity, not causation, so I think it makes perfect sense for the media to mention lack of a helmet when a drunk cyclist is hurt. One of my problems with bicyclists or motorcyclists not wearing helmets, is the impact on a driver who is involved in a collision. If someone dies or is brain damaged, because they weren't wearing a helmet, it's little solace to the motorist to say it's not your fault. They have to deal with being involved in a fatal crash. And someone who is all about personality when they want to go without a helmet may change their tune after an accident. Failing to wear a helmet is not a bar to a lawsuit after an accident. Failure to wear a helmet could come into play when assessing damages, but there is work to be done to get there. So I don't see this as merely a "personal consequences" situation, because failure to wear a helmet to impose consequences on other people. So many of my buttons pushed, Spoon! The majority of severe head traumas are caused by car accidents and simple falls, so all your valid arguments apply to car drivers and pedestrians more than to cyclists. Yet I see no media saying "the car driver was not wearing a helmet" when there is an accident. Failure to wear a helmet imposes consequences on other people when a cyclist has an accident and hits their head, I agree. This also applies to anything that makes any given situation worse when something bad happens. Should we legislate on every aspect of our lives to reach a point where nothing bad eve happens? It's not possible. Here's an example: people who are overweight and out of shape endure much worse health problems when they get older, suffering disproportionately from diabetes and heart problems. These health problems have consequences on other people too, from doctors who have a harder time treating their patients to family members who have to take care of their loved ones, to parents who feel guilt because they really should have forced Timmy to put down the playstation and become a health nut. Should we consider laws that impose limits on our weight, and force people to run regularly? I really don't think so, but it must be pointed out that a lot more people are overweight that fall on their head while riding a bike, and so such a law would actually make more sense than a mandatory helmet law. We would save way more lives that way, because hundreds of thousands of people die each year due to problems associated with their being overweight, while merely a few dozens die for not having worn a bicycle helmet. And I'm not even addressing the fact that cogarettes are still legal, despite being proven agents of mass destruction. The obsession with bike helmets is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned. The numbers of times a cyclist actually falls on their head is very low, and that number would be close to zero if bike accidents were made more infrequent by having cyclist respect traffic laws, having them use a headlight at night (as is mandatory, but rarely observed) and by having infrastructure better suited to the proper sharing of the road between bikes and motor vehicles, as is often the case in Europe. I wish the media were quicker to point out that a cyclist was riding at night withoutna headlight than that he wasn't wearing a helmet, especially when he was hit by a truck (in which case the helmet isn't going to be much help). I wouldn't be surprised if there are more head injuries from walking or driving than biking in absolute terms, because people (at least in North America) spend a lot more time in those activities. But I'm really skeptical that walking causes more head injuries relative to time in similar situations. I'd need to see the stats to buy that. There are also probably lots of elderly people with great falling risks who are simply too ill to bike. Also, I don't think the slippery slope you suggest is really isn't very slippery at all. Requiring that a person maintain a certain weight is a much, much, much greater imposition on a person's autonomy than requiring them to wear a bike helmet. Your weight involves the very state of your body. A helmet is just something you put on. Your weight is condition you must maintain every moment of your life. A bike helmet is just connected to a specific activity. Controlling one's weight can be a tricky thing due to metabolism and how many factors go into it. Wearing a helmet is a straightforward decision. Furthermore, the toll one arrest in being killed by a motorist because you didn't wear a bike helmet seems a lot more direct, immediate, and dramatic than a doctor treating a patient who refuses to maintain a healthy weight. Health protections shouldn't be an all or nothing thing, and there's a big gap between these two "somethings." And as far as cars go, we have other elements in place to very directly mitigate the problem. Seat belts mitigate a big part of the head injury danger.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 11:10:02 GMT -5
Claremont and Byrne were apparently impatient for something to happen, too. In Uncanny X-Men #138 (one of my favorite issues), they retcon in a scene where Jean and Scott finally reveal their feelings. When I re-read my X-Mens few years ago, I was shocked by how long it took for them to do anything, and how little of a romantic relationship they actually had prior to the "All New, All Different" era. They mostly just pined away for each other in thought balloons, issue after issue. I don't recall if there was actually a moment when Scott and Jean were explicitly established as being a couple in the pre-reprint era. Maybe it was implied toward the end of the run.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 8:59:39 GMT -5
X-Men #32 'Beware the Juggernaut, my son!' Thomas/Roth/Tartaglione It's Bobby's 18th Birthday, and the gang are celebrbating at Coffee A-Go-Go, courtesy of Zelda, who has a Bebop band and Bernard the Poet as entertainment. Warren brings Candy Southern to meet everyone, and Scott actually dances with Jean! The party ends when a biker gang busts into the coffee shop, and the X-Men use some powers on the sly to chase them off. Back at the mansion, the Professor goes to the secret basement door to reveal... the Juggernaut! He says it's his duty as his step brother to fix him. It fails, and his machine blows up, but Juggy is not only all better, but has mental powers, too! He leaves in search of the X-Men. Back in town, Bobby is on cloud nine after a birthday kiss (he's always been gay my butt)... Warren gets shot down by Candy, and Scott and Jean spend some quality time. They return to a dark mansion, and get into uniform.. Cerebro goes off, but it's sensing them, not the bad guys... they quickly find Juggernaut, and the fight is on! Juggernaut wins fairly easily, but then a voice tells him to go to Europe to joing Factor Three, since it was they that freed him. He says no, then goes anway, leaving the X-Men before he finishes them off. The team finds Xavier alive.. barely. To be Continued! Blah... never a good sign when you job the stars of the book out, and the bad guy just ignores them to do something else! They did that a lot in the beginning, but this was the first time in a while, and it's still bad. Story: C- History: B (major villain, part of ongoing Factor Three story) Notes: - I guess this is during the time when they mandated single issue stories, as Stan (or Roy) apologies on the title page for this being a 2 parter. - 'Disko' Is that some early alternate spelling I'm not aware of, or are the Marvel guys that out of touch? - Speaking of out of touch, all our heroes are still wearing suits at the party, even though it's a beatnik coffee shop. I guess Stan just thought that what good guys do. - Scott and Jean dance! Buy still angst about each other while doing it.. just let this two kids be happy already! They talk later is vague tones, but they're getting there! Claremont and Byrne were apparently impatient for something to happen, too. In Uncanny X-Men #138 (one of my favorite issues), they retcon in a scene where Jean and Scott finally reveal their feelings.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 8:31:16 GMT -5
I think I made a clear case for what it did right and, besides that, I still found it visually appealing and saw potential in the characters. Days of Future Past was a far better film, but it didn't give us an X-Men team. This one did. Putting aside your comparing this film to that one, are you saying Last Stand isn't as bad as XO: Wolverine?? I absolutely agree that the quality dipped. Maybe it's Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn not being attached to this one, wheres they were a major part of the writing for First Class and Days of Future Past. But I wonder if your (and, really, most people's) utter contempt for the film stems from that disappointment more than from a fair analysis of the film in its own right. I'd still rather watch Apocalypse than any of the pre-First Class films. Last Stand is my #3 worst X-Men film, but I find it a head taller than this one. It had lots of great story points and character moments, but failed to make a cohesive whole out of them. Superhero movies live or die on their characters and character arcs. And that's where this one died. Storm's story alone is enough to condemn this film. EDIT to add: I missed your last comment. I think X-Men and X-Men 2 are great films, and X-Men 2 is one of the best superhero films ever. X-Men 2 is at least a 4.5 star film. This is at most a 2 star. X-Men 3 is a pretty poor film, but I rewatched both recently enough to be confident that Apocalypse is worse. EDIT again: I checked my film logs. I last watched X2 about a year ago and gave it 5 stars. I think that was too high. I previously watched it about a year before that and gave it 4. 5 stars. That seems about right. I gave X-Men 4.5 stars when I watched it last year about the same time and 4 stars when I previously watched it back in 2014. I go back and forth between the two ratings. It's all about how many points I want to dock it for the Statue of Liberty sequence. I gave 2 stars to both Apocalypse and Last Stand. I watched both together last March specifically to compare them and decide which was worse. Apocalypse was a drop-off from Days of Future Past, but I liked it. Apocalypse was just too overstuffed to give various characters proper focus. It needed less action in exchange for more character moments with the new students. I wish the deleted scenes from the DVD had made their way into the finished film. I can't watched Last Stand to compare it to Apocalypse, because I'm not that much of a masochist.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 8:27:33 GMT -5
But seriously, I really liked the casting for Jean, Scott, and Xavier, and Rogue was fine. James Marsden did absolutely nothing with the role beyond throw shade at Wolverine, Anna Paquin just wasn't Roque (though that's the fault of casting and writing, not of the actor herself), and I truly don't think Famke Janssen can act. Patrick Stewart was good enough, but I think he got the role more for being bald and professor-like than for being Professor Xavier-like. I did love Ian McKellan as Magneto. Yes, Anna Paquin's portrayal has little to do with the comic book character. All the vitality was sapped out of her. A big part of her character is the contrast between outward bravado and inward vulnerability. They just dumped the bravado part. But I agree that it seems like a writing problem. Paquin can't act out what isn't in the script. The irony for me regarding Patrick Stewart a Professor X is that if Stewart had just acting like Jean-Luc Picard it would have been closer to Prof. X he portrayed in the original trilogy. Xavier can be a demanding teacher at times. But Stewart just played him as a sweet, nice guy. Ian McKellan gives the closest performance to his comic book counterpart in the original trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 8, 2017 7:49:14 GMT -5
I am completely fed up with the Bicycle Helmet Crusaders. Each time a cyclist is injured, news report insist on pointing out that "the person was not wearing a helmet", even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the incident. A cyclist going the wrong way, at night, without a light, gets hit by a truck? "No helmet". A cyclist, drunk as a sailor, falls off a bridge? "No helmet". A cyclist fails to do their Stop and ends up as a fender decoration? "No helmet". That @&$# helmet, which is at most a nice complementary safety feature, has become the only socially acceptable discussion point when it comes to bike safety. Never mind obeying traffic laws, never mind being seen at night, never mind getting drivers and cyclist to learn how to share the road. It's all about the helmet, and our cowardly politicians are only too happy to vote more and more laws forcing people to wear them, even if research after research shows that such laws have no net effect on safety. It is pure laziness on the part of news reporters to keep harping on that point, and it is counterproductive: because as long as we focus on that @&$# helmet, we won't be talking about important safety issues. This obsession with new coercive measures meant to replace common sense is turning me into a cranky survivalist type. Now we're even talking about laws against kids below 14 crossing the street alone, because "studies" suggest that they're not as careful as grown-ups when doing so. Oh, for crying out loud! What's next? Mandatory testing to check if we are all wearing sunscreen before going out? Mandatory buoyancy vests when we leave our house just in case we fall in a swimming pool or a river? Mandatory parachutes in case we fall off a cliff? When does it end? There! I said it. The helmet is about severity, not causation, so I think it makes perfect sense for the media to mention lack of a helmet when a drunk cyclist is hurt. One of my problems with bicyclists or motorcyclists not wearing helmets, is the impact on a driver who is involved in a collision. If someone dies or is brain damaged, because they weren't wearing a helmet, it's little solace to the motorist to say it's not your fault. They have to deal with being involved in a fatal crash. And someone who is all about personality when they want to go without a helmet may change their tune after an accident. Failing to wear a helmet is not a bar to a lawsuit after an accident. Failure to wear a helmet could come into play when assessing damages, but there is work to be done to get there. So I don't see this as merely a "personal consequences" situation, because failure to wear a helmet to impose consequences on other people.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 7, 2017 19:01:44 GMT -5
I'm pretty excited and looking for a forum where people can discuss this film openly. I expect to see it a second time today. I'm curious on your thoughts about the inclusion of Iron Man on "helping" Spider-Man with his suit, etc. Do you feel it enhanced the story or put a damper on it somewhat (which is what I felt)?
I feel the inclusion of Iron Man takes something away from Peter. Instead of relying on his own genius, intellect & will he now has a high tech "fairy" godfather backing him up.
I dislike the emphasis on the suit for the same reasons you did. Spider-Man has a cool, diverse set of abilities, so it diminishes them somewhat by putting so much focus on the costume. But I didn't mind it as much as thought I would based on the trailers. It served storytelling purposes, so there are pros to go with the cons. But speaking of Spidey's powers, his spider sense was noticeably absent. In fact, it had to be absent for several plot points to work. For instance, I can't see Peter overlooking Ned in his room if he had spider sense. I liked the movie a lot. It was clever, funny, action-packed, well-constructed, heart-felt, etc. They messed with the canon a bit, but I think the changes worked well. I don't mind them so much, since we've had opportunities to see more traditional portrayals of Aunt May, MJ, etc. on screen already. I think Sony/Marvel may have created a fake spoiler to take movie-goers by surprise. I heard that Michelle's last name was revealed in some materials to be Toomes. I never saw it coming when the Vulture turned out to be Liz's father, because I thought he was going to be Michelle's dad. Michael Keaton was great. I think his portrayal and the fact that Peter rescued him were helpful in explaining why he wouldn't reveal Spider-Man's identity. Civil War hinted that Tony and Pepper were on the outs. I felt bad about that, so I was glad to see Gwyneth Paltrow back as Pepper. One glaring inconsistency was the portrayal of Spider-Man's skills in Civil War compared to Homecoming. Spidey had skills to hold his own against various Avengers in Civil War. But I guess the storyline of Homecoming required Spidey to be less adept at this point.
|
|