James wrote in the Free Form Comments
Watchmen, bloody Watchmen. Finally read my Absolute Edition, after what, 2 years? 3? (Actually, I haven't read all the scripts and stuff in the back, yet. It's a lot of book.)
It's a beautiful edition. There's recoloured versions of the regular trade now, but they don't come close to the quality of print and paper in the Absolute, and you can't imagine how different the art looks at this size. Proper gorge'.
I can't remember if I've linked to Andrew Rilstone's Watchmen essay before, but it's the best analysis I've read since Geoff's, check it out. He says he admires the comic, but can't bring himself to love it - a view I think Geoff shares, and one I've always resisted. It's not just a clinical literary exercise! It's a rollicking good story in its own right! Isn't it?
Showing posts with label James. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Sunday, August 03, 2008
James Wheeler Defends The Dark Knight
[We have had a great series of discussions on the Dark Knight, which I think is a movie with a lot to recommend it. But it was so universally praised by so many in and out of the comics community (it had a 94% metacritic rating) it fell to us to swing the pendulum the other way -- and perhaps we went to far. But I think it was a lot more than "hating" on a movie that everyone loved. Overpraise can be as much of a problem as under-praise, because in both we are in danger of loosing sight of the thing, and dulling our senses for the next thing.
Nevertheless, I think we could use something fully positive on the Dark Knight here, and James has written a very smart piece to that effect, one that nicely takes into account some of the things we said around here. The Hulk comparison seems particularly apt, as I have to admit to hating that movie, then turning around and seeing its brilliance years later.]
So it turns out it's impossible to overstate how good Heath Ledger is as The Joker. I know because I only just saw The Dark Knight, and if nearly a month's hyperbole isn't enough to oversell the performance, then nothing is.
But what of the movie itself? Geoff has said, and others have agreed, that by keeping the tension dialled up to fever pitch for the solid 2.5 hours, the movie ends up being exhausting. I think this is 100% accurate. I also loved the movie for it.
The Dark Knight in no way resembles the Summer Blockbuster it is supposed to be. It's too long, too intense, too upsetting. It reminds me of Ang Lee's Hulk in its ambition, refusing to conform to the expectations of a superhero comic adaptation. Where it beats Hulk however, is that I wasn't entertained only when the title character was onscreen.
It's a million miles away from the uncertain, try-to-please-everyone concessions of Batman Begins, which attempted an uncomfortable marriage of Year One's stripped-down realism and explosive action movie excess. This time out, I'm thoroughly convinced by Nolan's hyper-tech Batman, because now it's clear that Nolan is. Where Batman Begins seemed at pains to use technology to explain or justify the less plausible aspects of the comic book character, The Dark Knight is fully committed to the idea of a gadget-powered Batman. In hindsight, it's the ninja stuff that feels like the concession.
A lot of people have complained about the unexpected fourth (fifth, sixth, twenty-eighth?) act, but I found myself grateful they didn't cut the story in half: any other superhero franchise would've just ended the movie with the birth of Two-Face as its coda, teasing the next installment. Oh wait, I guess Spider-Man 3 doesn't, so we can be grateful that Harvey's treatment was infinitely superior to Venom's.
And then there's Gordon's speech, the hero Gotham deserves and the hero Gotham needs. My first thought was that this is the second time Nolan has ended a Batman film with a meaningless distinction (remember "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you"?). HCDuvall said he couldn't overlook the speech because it's given such import, and must therefore be Nolan's point of view. But it could just as easily be Gordon (and Batman) trying to impose meaning on a world where answers are cruelly lacking. There's a great discussion over at Neil's blog, about whether the Joker is truly a force for anarchy or whether he is in fact, another schemer, who's master plan was always to turn Dent. I have to agree with Omar Karindu and take the Joker at his word. He's so effective because he's a master of improvisation, and all the other players cannot fathom him. I read the hero deserved/needed rationalisation as an extension of this lack of understanding, and a pithy way to end the movie with its title, rather than a true statement of authorial intent.
We're told in both movies that the new breed of evil (that finds its apotheosis* in the Joker) is brought about by the Batman's existence, so he cannot be the answer to Gotham's problems. This irony is heightened in The Dark Knight when we see that Harvey Dent could have been the man to save Gotham, but is thwarted and corrupted by the new evil Batman brings with him. The film does offer a solution however; Gotham is saved, at least for the moment. But the Joker isn't defeated by Batman, or Dent - he falls when he realises that the people on the boats have not been corrupted, and refused to play his game. Maybe Nolan is telling us not to wait for Batman to save us, but to get on with saving ourselves.
(I mean, I don't know, I just really liked this movie. A!)
*Word of the blog?
[Editor's note: Yes, it is one of my favorite words. I got it from Bloom, of course, the master of the portentous].
Nevertheless, I think we could use something fully positive on the Dark Knight here, and James has written a very smart piece to that effect, one that nicely takes into account some of the things we said around here. The Hulk comparison seems particularly apt, as I have to admit to hating that movie, then turning around and seeing its brilliance years later.]
So it turns out it's impossible to overstate how good Heath Ledger is as The Joker. I know because I only just saw The Dark Knight, and if nearly a month's hyperbole isn't enough to oversell the performance, then nothing is.
But what of the movie itself? Geoff has said, and others have agreed, that by keeping the tension dialled up to fever pitch for the solid 2.5 hours, the movie ends up being exhausting. I think this is 100% accurate. I also loved the movie for it.
The Dark Knight in no way resembles the Summer Blockbuster it is supposed to be. It's too long, too intense, too upsetting. It reminds me of Ang Lee's Hulk in its ambition, refusing to conform to the expectations of a superhero comic adaptation. Where it beats Hulk however, is that I wasn't entertained only when the title character was onscreen.
It's a million miles away from the uncertain, try-to-please-everyone concessions of Batman Begins, which attempted an uncomfortable marriage of Year One's stripped-down realism and explosive action movie excess. This time out, I'm thoroughly convinced by Nolan's hyper-tech Batman, because now it's clear that Nolan is. Where Batman Begins seemed at pains to use technology to explain or justify the less plausible aspects of the comic book character, The Dark Knight is fully committed to the idea of a gadget-powered Batman. In hindsight, it's the ninja stuff that feels like the concession.
A lot of people have complained about the unexpected fourth (fifth, sixth, twenty-eighth?) act, but I found myself grateful they didn't cut the story in half: any other superhero franchise would've just ended the movie with the birth of Two-Face as its coda, teasing the next installment. Oh wait, I guess Spider-Man 3 doesn't, so we can be grateful that Harvey's treatment was infinitely superior to Venom's.
And then there's Gordon's speech, the hero Gotham deserves and the hero Gotham needs. My first thought was that this is the second time Nolan has ended a Batman film with a meaningless distinction (remember "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you"?). HCDuvall said he couldn't overlook the speech because it's given such import, and must therefore be Nolan's point of view. But it could just as easily be Gordon (and Batman) trying to impose meaning on a world where answers are cruelly lacking. There's a great discussion over at Neil's blog, about whether the Joker is truly a force for anarchy or whether he is in fact, another schemer, who's master plan was always to turn Dent. I have to agree with Omar Karindu and take the Joker at his word. He's so effective because he's a master of improvisation, and all the other players cannot fathom him. I read the hero deserved/needed rationalisation as an extension of this lack of understanding, and a pithy way to end the movie with its title, rather than a true statement of authorial intent.
We're told in both movies that the new breed of evil (that finds its apotheosis* in the Joker) is brought about by the Batman's existence, so he cannot be the answer to Gotham's problems. This irony is heightened in The Dark Knight when we see that Harvey Dent could have been the man to save Gotham, but is thwarted and corrupted by the new evil Batman brings with him. The film does offer a solution however; Gotham is saved, at least for the moment. But the Joker isn't defeated by Batman, or Dent - he falls when he realises that the people on the boats have not been corrupted, and refused to play his game. Maybe Nolan is telling us not to wait for Batman to save us, but to get on with saving ourselves.
(I mean, I don't know, I just really liked this movie. A!)
*Word of the blog?
[Editor's note: Yes, it is one of my favorite words. I got it from Bloom, of course, the master of the portentous].
Sunday, February 03, 2008
James at Newsarma (Comment Pull Quote)
[This is sort of a comment pull quote. James, in the free form comments, pointed us to his voice-of-reason response to a review of Messiah Complex over at Newsarama.]
Over at Newsarama Troy Brownfield, reviewing Messiah Complex, wrote:
Cyclops finally acknowledged what the readers have always known: the X-Men don’t stop bank-robbers; the X-Men are fighting for the survival of an entire species. There’s no time left to be nice, and people die in wars. The acceptance of this concept by Cyclops is the first significant advancement in his character in a while, and I think that it makes him a more modern, and believable, leader.
Our own James thankfully replied
Wow, really? Have you been reading Astonishing X-Men? Let's do some recent history.
- Morrison is brought on to give the X-Men a Bold New Direction. Early on in the run, Cyclops bombs a facility in China, and Wolverine comments "So we're allowed to do stuff like this now?" "Let's see who complains" comes Scott's reply. This stance becomes muddied as Morrison's run unravels, but it's a strong moment nonetheless.
- Morrison's run ends, and Editorial decides the X-Men have been moved too far away from their Identity Politics origins, and a Bold New Direction is needed. The mutant minority genie goes back into the bottle with House Of M, and celebrity writer Joss Whedon is given a new title to give Morrison's team an iconic, Claremont-esque re-makeover.
- Whedon ostensibly gives Marvel what they want, while actually writing a more-or-less direct sequel to Morrison's run. As the (much-delayed) run progresses, the focus shifts from a Kitty-centric introduction to the fulfillment of Morrison's rehabilitation of Cyclops. Scott becomes a heroic, decisive leader, has the stick removed from his ass and gains full control of his powers. This fanboy swoons.
- Meanwhile, editorial decides that what the X-Men really need is a mega-epic giant X-over, like from the 90s! And this can include a REALLY Bad-Ass Cyclops, who yells at Professor X and is all about the killing. It reverses most of the character development going on in Whedon's title? Who cares, that late-ass book is nearly over!
Responding to Brownfield's statement that
Wolverine has a new respect for Cyclops, and while I don’t see them becoming best friends, I think that this is important for the family of titles.
James wrote
This is a change in the status quo? Anyone still writing the Wolverine/Cyclops relationship as "You're out of line mister!" "You're a lame square Cyke snikt snikt bub" is some sort of nostalgic throwback maniac. Morrison had them interact like adults, even moving the Scott/Logan/Jean triangle out of the playground. Whedon starts his run with the classic Scott/Logan fight over Jean, but it soon becomes clear that this is to recap/introduce new readers to the relationship, and it's not long before Wolverine says "Sometimes I remember why you're in charge". We didn't need Messiah Complex to reconcile the two, and we certainly didn't need the catalyst to be "Cyclops becomes as bloodthirsty as Early Wolverine".
Over at Newsarama Troy Brownfield, reviewing Messiah Complex, wrote:
Cyclops finally acknowledged what the readers have always known: the X-Men don’t stop bank-robbers; the X-Men are fighting for the survival of an entire species. There’s no time left to be nice, and people die in wars. The acceptance of this concept by Cyclops is the first significant advancement in his character in a while, and I think that it makes him a more modern, and believable, leader.
Our own James thankfully replied
Wow, really? Have you been reading Astonishing X-Men? Let's do some recent history.
- Morrison is brought on to give the X-Men a Bold New Direction. Early on in the run, Cyclops bombs a facility in China, and Wolverine comments "So we're allowed to do stuff like this now?" "Let's see who complains" comes Scott's reply. This stance becomes muddied as Morrison's run unravels, but it's a strong moment nonetheless.
- Morrison's run ends, and Editorial decides the X-Men have been moved too far away from their Identity Politics origins, and a Bold New Direction is needed. The mutant minority genie goes back into the bottle with House Of M, and celebrity writer Joss Whedon is given a new title to give Morrison's team an iconic, Claremont-esque re-makeover.
- Whedon ostensibly gives Marvel what they want, while actually writing a more-or-less direct sequel to Morrison's run. As the (much-delayed) run progresses, the focus shifts from a Kitty-centric introduction to the fulfillment of Morrison's rehabilitation of Cyclops. Scott becomes a heroic, decisive leader, has the stick removed from his ass and gains full control of his powers. This fanboy swoons.
- Meanwhile, editorial decides that what the X-Men really need is a mega-epic giant X-over, like from the 90s! And this can include a REALLY Bad-Ass Cyclops, who yells at Professor X and is all about the killing. It reverses most of the character development going on in Whedon's title? Who cares, that late-ass book is nearly over!
Responding to Brownfield's statement that
Wolverine has a new respect for Cyclops, and while I don’t see them becoming best friends, I think that this is important for the family of titles.
James wrote
This is a change in the status quo? Anyone still writing the Wolverine/Cyclops relationship as "You're out of line mister!" "You're a lame square Cyke snikt snikt bub" is some sort of nostalgic throwback maniac. Morrison had them interact like adults, even moving the Scott/Logan/Jean triangle out of the playground. Whedon starts his run with the classic Scott/Logan fight over Jean, but it soon becomes clear that this is to recap/introduce new readers to the relationship, and it's not long before Wolverine says "Sometimes I remember why you're in charge". We didn't need Messiah Complex to reconcile the two, and we certainly didn't need the catalyst to be "Cyclops becomes as bloodthirsty as Early Wolverine".
Sunday, December 09, 2007
James and Neil Shyminsky on Astonishing X-Men (Comment Pull Quote)
In my post on Astonishing X-Men this week I was having a hard time articulating exactly how to feel about Whedon's repetitions of himself, of Claremont, and of other science fiction -- whether his revisions were enough to justify telling the story, or if has some big revision still coming, or if the apotheosis of Cyclops is enough. I was thinking if this in part because of Neil's posts, which I linked to, and Neil commented:
I'm still incredibly ambivalent about where I stand on Whedon's numerous repetitions and revisions, which I think is pretty clear if one were to read all of my blogs about the various issues: what I criticize grumpily in one issue I find reason to laud in the next; what I declare to be new, (like the riffing on Dune, science fiction in general) someone else identifies as old - but maybe old and better; and when I say that something is old but better, (like Cyclops breaking loose to save the team) someone will inevitably respond by saying that it's merely old and has, in fact, been done better before. And so I, too, am constantly revising my position. It's frustrating, but exciting in its own way, too.
Even in comparing your and my comments, I notice that we often catch the same repetition but value it in qualitatively very different ways. And I think you're right to say that our conclusions, ultimately, will hinge on how Whedon wraps the whole thing up. There's really a lot riding on the ending of this thing.
Then James comes in and comments with this:
It really doesn't matter to me if Whedon is repeating, improving, or just cutting and pasting Claremont scripts and getting John Casaday to draw them: this is the most fun I've ever had reading X-Men comics.
You can argue, and I might, that repetition makes a book less fun (because you are seeing something you already saw). But as fans of a genre with very tight storytelling conventions, we know there is fun to be had watching the same thing over and over again. I wonder if Whedon's Astonishing X-Men will end up succeeding just on the virtue that it is more fun than anyone has seen on the X-Men for a while. James's comment made me feel a bit like a guy watching a magic show and saying "but he didn't really cut the woman in half." Well of course he didn't, but there was a split second there, where he made it almost look like he did, and even though we know better, it was kind of fun.
I am going to keep thinking about this. In a weird way, Whedon's run on the X-Men has me thinking more than Morrison's run, if only because always knew how I felt about every issue of Morrison's X-Men. With Whedon, not so much.
I'm still incredibly ambivalent about where I stand on Whedon's numerous repetitions and revisions, which I think is pretty clear if one were to read all of my blogs about the various issues: what I criticize grumpily in one issue I find reason to laud in the next; what I declare to be new, (like the riffing on Dune, science fiction in general) someone else identifies as old - but maybe old and better; and when I say that something is old but better, (like Cyclops breaking loose to save the team) someone will inevitably respond by saying that it's merely old and has, in fact, been done better before. And so I, too, am constantly revising my position. It's frustrating, but exciting in its own way, too.
Even in comparing your and my comments, I notice that we often catch the same repetition but value it in qualitatively very different ways. And I think you're right to say that our conclusions, ultimately, will hinge on how Whedon wraps the whole thing up. There's really a lot riding on the ending of this thing.
Then James comes in and comments with this:
It really doesn't matter to me if Whedon is repeating, improving, or just cutting and pasting Claremont scripts and getting John Casaday to draw them: this is the most fun I've ever had reading X-Men comics.
You can argue, and I might, that repetition makes a book less fun (because you are seeing something you already saw). But as fans of a genre with very tight storytelling conventions, we know there is fun to be had watching the same thing over and over again. I wonder if Whedon's Astonishing X-Men will end up succeeding just on the virtue that it is more fun than anyone has seen on the X-Men for a while. James's comment made me feel a bit like a guy watching a magic show and saying "but he didn't really cut the woman in half." Well of course he didn't, but there was a split second there, where he made it almost look like he did, and even though we know better, it was kind of fun.
I am going to keep thinking about this. In a weird way, Whedon's run on the X-Men has me thinking more than Morrison's run, if only because always knew how I felt about every issue of Morrison's X-Men. With Whedon, not so much.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
James on All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder 7 (Comment Pull Quote)
[How did I fail to notice how hilarious this line from issue 7 is? Thanks you James.]
I wanted to mention something from All-Star Batman #7 that lept out at me, but I haven't seen picked up on. Batman mentions someone who can fly, and "the idiot doesn't even know he can". I thought that was a great line akin to DKR's "why do you think I wear a target on my chest"? It offers an explanation for the first Superman comics where he couldn't fly, and simultaneously paints Batman as such a badass that he knows more about Superman's powers than Superman does.
I wanted to mention something from All-Star Batman #7 that lept out at me, but I haven't seen picked up on. Batman mentions someone who can fly, and "the idiot doesn't even know he can". I thought that was a great line akin to DKR's "why do you think I wear a target on my chest"? It offers an explanation for the first Superman comics where he couldn't fly, and simultaneously paints Batman as such a badass that he knows more about Superman's powers than Superman does.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Comics Out July 25, 2007 (The Week Late Review)
[Last week was an awesome week to go to the comic book store, but I only got these yesterday, because I was in Oxford and found out that the only comic book store in town closed. Oxford University is amazing but Oxford the town is not great. Case in point: A University town that cannot keep a single comic book store in business. Ridiculous. Anyway I wanted to do bullet point reviews of last week comics.]
Grant Morrison and Andy Kubert's Batman #666. Last week in free form comments James wrote:
"Geoff is right. Once again, Morrison puts himself up against Miller's Batman, with a tale of an uncompromising, ultra-violent Batman of the future. We seem to be back in New X-Men territory here, with Morrison admitting defeat in the face of what can't be changed/escaped. Morrison's fun, "bare-chested love-god" Batman has literally fathered a violent, anti-heroic Batman of the future (see: The Dark Knight Returns), exactly what Morrison wanted to get away from. Furthermore, the only way Morrison's Batman can defeat the last of the dark, violent, impostor Batmen* and gain primacy/immortality is to sell his soul to the Devil (Miller). Try as he might, Morrison couldn't replace Miller, and it is Miller's Batman that has assimilated Morrison's, and not the other way around. The silver-lining here, is that (hopefully) Morrison can now concentrate on doing his own thing, and stop worrying about Miller. J. H. Williams III and The Batmen Of All Nations seems like a perfect opportunity to do just that.
*I quite liked that just as the last one was a version of Bane, this next one was a version of the Azrael-Batman, with his orange face-plate and flamethrower."
It is freaky how much James is on my wavelength here. He has said all I would have said, exactly. I would also add that the Yeats quote is lame, and reminds me of Morrison's bad use of Milton in Batman: Gothic. (It may serve only to call up that book as another alternate Batman).
Mike Mignola and Duncan Fegredo's Hellboy: Darkness Calls #4. There is a great moment in which a guy catches his own severed head a split second before it hits the ground and a perfect weird little girl character in this issue, one of the best I have seen. But her speech about her story exemplifies what bothers me about Hellboy -- chunks of Mignola's research just sit on the page, undigested, and Hellboy just sort of walks around it, doing very little. The art is great though, and keeps me hooked.
Joss Whedon and Paul Lee's Buffy the Vampire Slayer #5. The art is not perfect, and there are moments that do not quite work (the out of control truck), but I thought this issue was very moving, and also dialed down Whedon's silliness, which in three running comics now is getting to be a little much, even for me. Newsarama thought the issue failed to make us care about the main character enough, but I thought the intriguing jarring story structure kept us from quite following everything until the end, at which point it is too late to really know this girl. I thought that was genuinely sad, and well done.
Matt Fraction, Ed Brubaker's Immortal Iron Fist #7. I have heard complaints that the narration takes the reader out of the story, that the narration is too dissonant. I disagree. It turns out that the narrator of this issue is a character, but for much of it I just heard Fraction's own voice, the voice of his blog. It felt a bit like a Mystery Science Theater experience; I imagine this is what Fraction sounds like if you were to watch a serious kung-fu movie on his couch with him. "She beats people up. For money!" This is a different kind of harmony, and it is also different from Joss Whedon's ironies, which is nice.
Frank Miller and Jim Lee's All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder #6. I love this book: everyone is right about what is wrong with it but it all works on another level, as I have argued (hit the Frank Miller link below to see what I said). In this issue Miller continues to do ABSURD things with story structure, warping it sideways. I double dog dare you to read Jack Kirby's introduction of the Black Racer in New Gods and tell me that Frank Miller is doing something fundamentally different in his use of Black Canary or the introduction of Batgirl. In both the story is absurdly interrupted by some new character the writer felt like introducing. Goddam Batman became an Internet catch phrase for how absurd this book is, so what did Frank Miller do? -- he used it twice in one issue. Blake said it best: Exuberance is Beauty.
Mike Carey and Humberto Ramos's X-Men #201. Humberto Ramos does not suck, but he is not the artist for me. I had to order this without seeing it, and did not know Bachalo would not be drawing it.
Grant Morrison and Andy Kubert's Batman #666. Last week in free form comments James wrote:
"Geoff is right. Once again, Morrison puts himself up against Miller's Batman, with a tale of an uncompromising, ultra-violent Batman of the future. We seem to be back in New X-Men territory here, with Morrison admitting defeat in the face of what can't be changed/escaped. Morrison's fun, "bare-chested love-god" Batman has literally fathered a violent, anti-heroic Batman of the future (see: The Dark Knight Returns), exactly what Morrison wanted to get away from. Furthermore, the only way Morrison's Batman can defeat the last of the dark, violent, impostor Batmen* and gain primacy/immortality is to sell his soul to the Devil (Miller). Try as he might, Morrison couldn't replace Miller, and it is Miller's Batman that has assimilated Morrison's, and not the other way around. The silver-lining here, is that (hopefully) Morrison can now concentrate on doing his own thing, and stop worrying about Miller. J. H. Williams III and The Batmen Of All Nations seems like a perfect opportunity to do just that.
*I quite liked that just as the last one was a version of Bane, this next one was a version of the Azrael-Batman, with his orange face-plate and flamethrower."
It is freaky how much James is on my wavelength here. He has said all I would have said, exactly. I would also add that the Yeats quote is lame, and reminds me of Morrison's bad use of Milton in Batman: Gothic. (It may serve only to call up that book as another alternate Batman).
Mike Mignola and Duncan Fegredo's Hellboy: Darkness Calls #4. There is a great moment in which a guy catches his own severed head a split second before it hits the ground and a perfect weird little girl character in this issue, one of the best I have seen. But her speech about her story exemplifies what bothers me about Hellboy -- chunks of Mignola's research just sit on the page, undigested, and Hellboy just sort of walks around it, doing very little. The art is great though, and keeps me hooked.
Joss Whedon and Paul Lee's Buffy the Vampire Slayer #5. The art is not perfect, and there are moments that do not quite work (the out of control truck), but I thought this issue was very moving, and also dialed down Whedon's silliness, which in three running comics now is getting to be a little much, even for me. Newsarama thought the issue failed to make us care about the main character enough, but I thought the intriguing jarring story structure kept us from quite following everything until the end, at which point it is too late to really know this girl. I thought that was genuinely sad, and well done.
Matt Fraction, Ed Brubaker's Immortal Iron Fist #7. I have heard complaints that the narration takes the reader out of the story, that the narration is too dissonant. I disagree. It turns out that the narrator of this issue is a character, but for much of it I just heard Fraction's own voice, the voice of his blog. It felt a bit like a Mystery Science Theater experience; I imagine this is what Fraction sounds like if you were to watch a serious kung-fu movie on his couch with him. "She beats people up. For money!" This is a different kind of harmony, and it is also different from Joss Whedon's ironies, which is nice.
Frank Miller and Jim Lee's All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder #6. I love this book: everyone is right about what is wrong with it but it all works on another level, as I have argued (hit the Frank Miller link below to see what I said). In this issue Miller continues to do ABSURD things with story structure, warping it sideways. I double dog dare you to read Jack Kirby's introduction of the Black Racer in New Gods and tell me that Frank Miller is doing something fundamentally different in his use of Black Canary or the introduction of Batgirl. In both the story is absurdly interrupted by some new character the writer felt like introducing. Goddam Batman became an Internet catch phrase for how absurd this book is, so what did Frank Miller do? -- he used it twice in one issue. Blake said it best: Exuberance is Beauty.
Mike Carey and Humberto Ramos's X-Men #201. Humberto Ramos does not suck, but he is not the artist for me. I had to order this without seeing it, and did not know Bachalo would not be drawing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
