tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post7710906327254696163..comments2024-03-28T03:13:15.831-04:00Comments on Remarkable: Planetary 27Geoff Klockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-10809378469711809712013-10-10T00:33:18.176-04:002013-10-10T00:33:18.176-04:00This is very informative to do this.It is very sma...This is very informative to do this.It is very smart site.<br /><a href="http://www.prophecycomics.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Spiritual Comic Books</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05939257845301875860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-50664482306166005382009-11-08T17:05:36.785-05:002009-11-08T17:05:36.785-05:00After buying Planetary 27, I re-read the entire se...After buying Planetary 27, I re-read the entire series. And after seeing the ecstatic reviews on the internet, I wonder if everybody just decided to love it instead of facing what it (and the whole series) turned out to be... not much. That's why I'm glad you're one of the few reviewers pointing out the severe drop in story quality after the fourth man reveal. Because I knew it was a finite series I kept buying it to read the whole story, even though I soon started thinking it was really poor on every level (except for the art). The last ten issues or so were just... empty. Uninspired, lacking energy. At best, Planetary was an amusing analogy (especially the Wonder Woman/Green Lantern/Superman and Hulk issues), but relying on riffs of other creators work isn't much of a story, is it? So if Planetary would work at all, the war with The Four needed to deliver in spades. It didn't. Issue 26 is surely one of the most anticlimactic reads you could find. Afterwards I felt like, "That's it?" Ultimately, there was very little point to this series. There was no interesting story arc, the characters were shallow (like all Ellis characters) and the creators' gradual disinterest shone through. A waste of time and money.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-17977348967828202272009-10-26T04:38:51.029-04:002009-10-26T04:38:51.029-04:00I actually think Cassaday just sort of hacked it o...I actually think Cassaday just sort of hacked it out, in this issue.<br /><br />No one else had that impression?plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-81562730362978240572009-10-23T17:17:47.513-04:002009-10-23T17:17:47.513-04:00I reread the entire series over the month of Octob...I reread the entire series over the month of October in preparation for issue 27. I feel the same way Geoff does, I wish I could have my younger self read this. After 10 years, I have seen Ellis' ticks and tricks and have become less enamored with him. His protagonists are almost always grumpy old men and he often has characters quoting silence theories who have no business doing so (Drummer excluded). But going back and rereading the old issues did remind me how great this series was back then and how much enjoyment I got out of it. The first 12 issues are amazing, the back 14 have some great moments, but nothing like those first 12. The back 14 read much better in succession, but the dismantling of the four as Geoff said is a disappointment. I doubt any of us could maintain their creative level on a sequential story of this size over 11 years.<br /><br />Then there's issue 27. I don't have too much to add other than what's been said b4. I think many are reacting to the sense that in the end, there was no consequence or threat. None of three main characters really suffered. I was expecting Snow to die in exchange for Ambrose to live. And if we are to infer that Planetary has become the four and are murdering potential time travelers, then Ellis needed to drive that home a lot harder.<br /><br />Final point: Let's all praise the awesome talent of John Cassaday. To watch his art go from good to amazing over these 10 years was a real treat. He has a vast imagination and a great 3d space. You feel like his characters and objects have weight and curves to them. He does great dynamic poses and facial expressions for the quieter moments. I'll try any book he drawsAndyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10726627161136598287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-64173247173640906852009-10-23T06:12:59.382-04:002009-10-23T06:12:59.382-04:00Really not very good sci-fi writing at all, althou...Really not very good sci-fi writing at all, although I think a good deal of blame for that must lie with the artist as well.<br /><br />I am happy Ambrose gets saved, but that's about it.plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-53670067226136075262009-10-22T22:19:48.555-04:002009-10-22T22:19:48.555-04:00"what's all the griping about?" -- t..."what's all the griping about?" -- the post above covers this. <br /><br />I will admit that I am not smart enough to have come up with such a "refreshing and referential and twisted story to begin with" but me and about half the people here could have ended it better, because we cared about it more than Warren Ellis did.Geoff Klockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-77422737317944573072009-10-22T14:55:26.493-04:002009-10-22T14:55:26.493-04:00Gentlemen (and presumably, ladies) - what's al...Gentlemen (and presumably, ladies) - what's all the griping about? Mr. Ellis finished the tale, and he tied it up nicely. They rescued Ambrose Chase, and the drummer's momologue about time travel and deascription engines and how Chase's reality bubble worked was great sci-fi writing, regardless if it was "just" in a comic book or not. Could ANY of you writing here have done better for an ending, let alone have created such a refreshing and refrential and twisted story to begin with? I think Planetary is probably the best comic book ever written, as much for what is not said as for what IS said. Bravo Warren Ellis!Daiv Whaleyhttp://www.satellitehoney.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-43178883120425789522009-10-17T19:53:44.462-04:002009-10-17T19:53:44.462-04:00Thanks! This does absolutely nothing for my opinio...Thanks! This does absolutely nothing for my opinion of Ellis, but good to know.Marchttp://notthebeastmaster.typepad.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-20174223816577632152009-10-16T17:49:31.023-04:002009-10-16T17:49:31.023-04:00Ditto what Nick says. Ronald Mallett is the physi...Ditto what Nick says. Ronald Mallett is the physicist whose theories involve time travel via a ring laser/circulating light beam/cylinder of light. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett<br /><br />From the Strange Magazine article on Mallett's book:<br /><br />"There was an important limitation to his concept of a time machine, in that nothing could theoretically travel back before the machine was first activated. If such a device was turned on and kept on, future things and people could be sent back as far as when the machine was put into use, but could not visit a time before it was working."<br /><br />http://www.strangemag.com/timetravel/timetraveler.html<br /><br />This American Life does a great piece on Mallett in their "My Brilliant Plan" episode:<br /><br />http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1227j.liangnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-72771412579944612812009-10-16T15:22:51.949-04:002009-10-16T15:22:51.949-04:00Well then, Ellis is just plagiarizing somebody els...Well then, Ellis is just plagiarizing somebody else. Got a name or a link?Marchttp://notthebeastmaster.typepad.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-33919913292667125882009-10-16T10:57:20.315-04:002009-10-16T10:57:20.315-04:00Marc, it's not plagiarism / PRIMER's rule ...Marc, it's not plagiarism / PRIMER's rule - it's a well-known principle wrt this theoretical time machine. <br /><br />A good review, summed up some of my feelings about Planetary too; it's the weariness that shines through, even brighter than the sense of wonder (which is still there, if a little strained). <br /><br />Nick CoulterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-31143091193603234642009-10-16T03:18:59.065-04:002009-10-16T03:18:59.065-04:00Ugh, I just bought it and pretty much agree with M...Ugh, I just bought it and pretty much agree with Marc. May post on the infuriating inadequacy of its technobabble.plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-357427504378934432009-10-15T17:16:02.286-04:002009-10-15T17:16:02.286-04:00Plok: It's not Ellis's rule, it's the ...Plok: It's not Ellis's rule, it's the rule of the guys who created a great little movie called PRIMER. I find it sadly fitting that this voracious and unimaginative series should end with one final act of plagiarism.<br /><br />I'm not a fan of PLANETARY, obviously--the Vertigo issue pretty much soured me on Warren Ellis forever--but I appreciated this review a lot, Geoff. It helped me see the appeal this frustrating series held for others; perhaps more importantly, it also showed the benefit of those intervening ten years.Marchttp://notthebeastmaster.typepad.com/weblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-7412011613919959052009-10-14T19:01:46.738-04:002009-10-14T19:01:46.738-04:00Oh, right, I forgot that you can't go back bef...Oh, right, I forgot that you can't go back before time travel was invented, and they just invented it. <br /><br />So you'll go back as far as you can, and as far as you can is issue 27, so we'd expect all sorts of other critters to show up.<br /><br />The physics in Planetary always bugged me. In the first issue a computer programmed wrong creates infinite parallel universes or something, while there are already infinite parallel universes, aliens, ghosts, and whatnot.<br /><br />I find it implausible to say the least that Planetary is the first group to develop a time machine. Their world is chaotic, perplexing, vast, and unpredictable, as Ellis would presumably throw in any weird thing he felt was cool. <br /><br />I would just look at the final issue as representing the character's (pointless) personal drama, and Ellis likes the dopey quantom imagery so its the same folks repeated cause it looks cool.<br /><br />Why were the Four ever a credible threat in a world where the Authority ruled anyway? I don't think coherent world building is really Ellis's thing.Pallashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409693747482226529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-89375197730497452202009-10-14T17:46:00.267-04:002009-10-14T17:46:00.267-04:00Well, it's Ellis' rule that people would g...Well, it's Ellis' rule that people would go back as far as they could, not Geoff's...<br /><br />But, hey, maybe somebody else did create a time machine later on, and the world ended anyway -- you're just not seeing any Planetary staff from <i>after</i> that happened...plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-34581642105242578362009-10-14T15:12:42.742-04:002009-10-14T15:12:42.742-04:00"“It is probably over-reaching to say this, a..."“It is probably over-reaching to say this, and even more over-reaching to claim that they also snuffed out anyone else coming up with this time travel tech at all points in all future -- but then where IS everyone else when the time machine is switched on?”<br /><br />I don’t entirely get this position. Why would anyone else but Planetary go back in time to watch some random buddy of Planetary be saved from bleeding to death?<br /><br />Granted, I don’t get the whole technobabble thing about the future becoming the present or whatever stupid thing it was, but I just dismissed it as Ellis being infatuated with his own pseudo-physics gibberish, a feature of the book since the first issue…Pallashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409693747482226529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-11421632166359327232009-10-14T15:11:20.349-04:002009-10-14T15:11:20.349-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pallashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01409693747482226529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-32700019073861915472009-10-14T13:27:13.816-04:002009-10-14T13:27:13.816-04:00This discussion actually reminds me of the Gaiman ...This discussion actually reminds me of the Gaiman and McKean Black Orchid, where the ending was consciously written without a typical superhero fight ending and just with a talk. I remember that being unsatisfying, but I like the attempt. Curiously, this Planetary issue has the physical activity crammed in (boy, hugging the lamp thing was dumb) and it could've done with a less "action packed" story. I wouldn't replace it with a lecture, per se, but since Ellis actually called Planetary #26 the ending and this was going to be the epilogue, I expected more strolling looking at changes made to the world, which funnily enough, would make Planetary the second such supergroup to do so, as Joe Casey's WildCATS 3.0 run gave it a go as well. It's almost as if in covering the influence of the pulps and the like, Ellis himself couldn't shake free of set up. I know a sense of responsibility for the characters is there, so they can't ride off into the sunset, but proclaiming themselves ready keep the world strange, atop their pillar of science, feels strangely regressive, or undemocratic, considering the feel of Planetary as some vast science/library, do-gooding organization. I'd hazard to say that whatever tonal changes/flaws it may have to feel more like exhaustion and weaker execution than anything else.hcduvallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271032072494870642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-49004179346482395312009-10-14T11:52:38.041-04:002009-10-14T11:52:38.041-04:00Y'know, I'm not really sure if Planetary d...Y'know, I'm not really sure if Planetary did keep the time-travel technology exclusively to themselves.<br /><br />It could be that the reason you only see alternative versions of Planetary turning up when the machine is turned on is because it's Planetary's personal time machine. If Elijah did share the technology with others, it could just mean that those who built their own time machines with it are only visiting where/when their own time machines took them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-80178426884596809122009-10-14T10:19:48.773-04:002009-10-14T10:19:48.773-04:00Their mission *becomes* to change the world, but a...Their mission *becomes* to change the world, but at *first* it's just to learn the world's secrets -- their archeologists (a trope that gets lost by the end). In the earliest version just hearing stories would be a fine role for them. (And I don't think superpowers requires being active -- they have to be used, but their used sufficiently in digging up the stories.)<br /><br />SFStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-76955705180817823512009-10-13T23:28:04.491-04:002009-10-13T23:28:04.491-04:00Oh, absolutely! I mean, that's where we saw t...Oh, absolutely! I mean, that's where we saw the loop of light the first time, right? So, I didn't mention it, but yeah: I'm pretty much in total agreement with your "Planetary Becomes The Four" thing, right down to the "they must have killed anybody who ever came up with a time machine independently". Absolutely they must have, and I don't see how the callback to the JLA thing can suggest anything else to us.<br /><br />Somewhere, in some other universe, there's Planetary #27 in which using the light-loop is a <i>horrible mistake</i>, and all that saves Planetary is the "complicated relationship" we're in with our fiction. I really thought that was going to come out at some point, I really did -- not an "Animal Man" metatextual conclusion, but one a bit subtler and more science-oriented. I mean think what he's got in there, how many hints at a buried cosmological order...it isn't just "the pulps influenced the superheroes", it isn't even just "oh, the 2D science in Planetary is <i>real</i>, because it's a comic book"...there's something else there, too. All the "ominous bits" that the thing is studded with, right up until the final movement...it seems to be going somewhere, promising something. Then suddenly it's all just gone, somehow: forgotten about.<br /><br />And on another note: how does Planetary keeping the light-loop to themselves not collapse the possibilities of the future anyway, eh?<br /><br />There was a lot I think I disagreed with you about in re: The Four, in "How To", but your conclusion here seems hard to assail. <i>Just</i> Planetary, forever. It's far from a satisfying place to leave things.plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-33917672413107677262009-10-13T21:04:56.278-04:002009-10-13T21:04:56.278-04:00Jason - -thanks!
SF -- Fair points. I think it WO...Jason - -thanks!<br /><br />SF -- Fair points. I think it WOULD have been better unfinished. The passive nature of the team though is not like CONRAD because the goal of the team is to CHANGE THE WORLD and plus they have superpowers, so they need to be ACTIVE. But you are right: those issues were not bad, it is just that you can see the problems that would later arise there hidden in the central structure of the book even at the beginning. <br /><br />Plok, yeah when Ellis announced IN THE BOOK that the Four were not the point he pulled the legs out which can be fun, but he never put anything else in its place. <br /><br />Also, as far as my Planetary becomes the Four thing, remember in the JLA/Planetary crossover the Four were the bad guys, playing with that villain is mirror of the hero theme that is so much fun in comics.Geoff Klockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-36122244082445745192009-10-13T20:00:11.191-04:002009-10-13T20:00:11.191-04:00Thank God for spoilers -- I really needed to know ...Thank God for spoilers -- I really needed to know what kind of disappointment I'd be facing when I went into this issue. Even already knowing, when #26 came out, that there would be absolutely <i>no room</i> left to deal with the fugitive from Planet Fiction...<br /><br />Surely inexcusable!<br /><br />...Still I had my hopes. Well, actually from just about the point where the Drummer says "I know everything" I felt like, okay...there are three <i>astoundingly</i> wasteful words, what are they doing there? Oh God, it's all going to slip very drastically now, isn't it? But I thought, maybe a little Snowflake, a little 2D science...maybe it'll be fine in the end. And I confess I'm pleased to hear that the gorgeous "loop of light" time machine makes a return appearance (that's a great sort of time machine for a comic-book to have in it!)...but I'm not sure it counts as a win, as far as finishing Planetary off goes. I guess the worry we're supposed to have is that to save Ambrose Elijah will be willing to get rid of all the world's "strangeness" just as he was willing to sacrifice the Rama-planetoid in order to get himself anticlimactically rid of Jakob Greene, and that's fine...it isn't like there's <i>nothing</i> there, there's actually quite a <i>bit</i> there, and it's all stuff that <i>only</i> Planetary was ever talking about...but from your review I'm not confident it's there to be explored, so much as shut off. I also noticed people talking about #27 as an epilogue, and I've been trying to wrap my head around why anyone thinks the story got concluded enough to <i>warrant</i> thinking of this issue as an epilogue...when I've basically been hoping just for a good <i>penultimate</i> issue to close off the series. I mean, the anticlimactic nature of the way Elijah beats the Four...it's because Elijah vs. the Four <i>never was the real story</i>, and we're actually <i>told</i> this...so...<br /><br />I'll read it anyway, of course.plokhttp://circumstantial.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-2729089506787657092009-10-13T13:47:24.139-04:002009-10-13T13:47:24.139-04:00Geoff,
Fabulous review. As someone who got back ...Geoff,<br /><br />Fabulous review. As someone who got back into superhero comics (I was already reading comics again) through Planetary, specifically due to your book, I was incredibly eager to read it; and you did not disappoint. Further, most of the other reviews I've seen have said either that it's fabulous or that it will make a fine epilogue, and I've been tearing my hair out thinking 'Did they ship an issue with an alternate story that was actually good?' I thought you would see through it, and you did.<br /><br />Personally, I think the main point, which you appropriately hit home several times, is Ellis's exhaustion with the idea. He just didn't give a gorram any more, and hasn't for a number of issues, and it shows. Personally I wonder whether I wouldn't rather have had him leave it unfinished -- so that the imagined shadow of the brilliance that might have been the ending would have been left unspoiled. Sometimes it's better to have no ending than a disappointing one.<br /><br />A few quibbles with what you said.<br /><br />I think you actually somewhat underestimate the best issues of Planetary. In particular, your complaint that "From its first issue Planetary had a bit of trouble with story just in terms of structure: a lot of the time, like Hellboy, the characters would stand around while something happened in front of them, or hear a story (like Doc Brass's story in the first issue) and then be done." -- which to be fair, you say wasn't that big a deal at first -- strikes me as somewhat beside the point. Lots of great stories are structured as stories told to their narrators (Conrad comes to mind here...), and the idea of having a series of these -- with the continuing characters being the ones to hear the various tales -- strikes me as totally fine; at least at first, as you said. When Ellis tries to make a plot of it, he struck out -- probably, again, because he no longer was trying.<br /><br />A slightly contradictory quibble: I'm not sure the series divides quite as neatly into the good beginning & bad ending as you suggest. The lecture-about-drugs issue you refer to was late -- but it worked. So did issues #17 (Tarzan/origin of Jakita), #18 (19th cent. moonshot & capturing William Leather), the torture of William Leather issue, and others. Granted, the big plot issues -- most especially the last few -- didn't work at all. But there was some good stuff longer than you suggest.<br /><br />Ah well. It was a great series when Ellis cared about it -- and, occasionally, afterwards. Once he tired of it, he ended it in a quick & slapdash fashion, and left us with a great beginning with a rotten ending. This is hardly unique in narrative (although perhaps it's unique *to* narrative?) -- there are lots of great stories (greater than Planetary, for that matter) that have bad endings. And it complicates, but does not erase, the quality of the openings.<br /><br />I'm really glad I read Planetary. I agree with most of your review. And I wish Ellis had either put his best work into this, or simply walked away.<br /><br />Stephen FrugStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-16576283416046068012009-10-13T10:55:13.618-04:002009-10-13T10:55:13.618-04:00I've not read a page of Planetary, but this is...I've not read a page of Planetary, but this is an exhilaratingly good review. <br /><br />You should bump me more often!<br /><br />-- Jason PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com