All righty, lots of thoughts about IC #1. Up to this point, I'm not sure what to do with the story. Mostly, it's just a matter that there are lots of things in there, and it's really going to depend on how they play them through in the following issues. I don't think it was a brilliant start, (not nearly as strong as Identity Crisis #1 IMNVHO), but it leaves room for alot of interesting stuff.
However, what intrests me about the story is that it's playing around in some territory that comic books have long "winked" at, though the last few years, as comics have gotten "grittier", we've seen more of it.
The very nature of comic books creates one of the largest "problems" or weaknesses. Of course, the problem is created out of one of comic's greatest strengths (isn't that the way that it always goes?) The problem really comes out of the nature of the conflicts in the books. Superhero comics, are, by definition, about heros and villains. As such, good villains are vital for a book, and can make or break a given issue. That pretty much calls for having villains return again and again. You could have an unending series of baddies who die at the end of their arcs (excuse me, did I just hear Frank Castle's nurse call for another drool rag?), but you really lose a lot by doing that.
However, recurring villains create their own problems. While the great villains, like Dr Doom, Magneto, Lex Luthor or the Joker have stood the test of time, it raises the inevitable question of how they keep coming back. There are several different ways to handle it.
1) Even when beaten, the baddie always manages to escape... (Dr. Doom has a degree in this one)
2) The threat is not an individual, but a group. Take the Skrull. Sure, you can beat a Skrull squad, but that doesn't mean that another squad can't show up in 15 issues.
3) The threat is too big to be stopped, but only pushed aside for the time being. Galactus is an example of this... though his first story really should have kept him away for good.
There are others as well. However, the "breakdown" in the DCU of late is in many ways based upon one of the other possibilities. For all intents and purposes, the legal system in the DCU is absolutely worthless. The Prisons can't keep villains in, and they don't rehabilitate them either. So, after 15-20 issues, the baddie is back at his old tricks. Likewise with Arkham. Has anyone ever been cured there? So, when the heros do the "heroic" thing, and turn baddies over to the authorities for justice, everyone knows it is absolutely worthless. Soon enough, they'll be back on the street.
That's the tension they are using in the DCU to set up IC. Wonder Woman knows that there's no place to put Max Lord where he won't b able to take control of Superman again, so she decides to kill him. Dick Grayson has been a headcase ever since Blockbuster died. People always wonder when Batman (or someone else) will jsut flat out kill the Joker and end his rampages.
There's a huge amount of storytelling meat in there. On the other hand, it is a bit risky, since it's nibbling at one of the primary areas of Willful Suspension of Disbelief that's required to read those kinds of stories. Time will tell how they pull that out.
Of course, it is also opening up the larger ethical questions. "Would it be right for Batman to execute the Joker?" Now, Bats won't, just because of his nature, but the argument is out there now. If Diana is justified killing Max, then surely Bruce can kill the Joker. Those are some heavy questions, and things that are going to be sitting in the foreground of IC.
Combine that with Black Adam's coup, and it's easy to see how the Supers in the DCU are putting themselves into a very "Days of Future Past" situation. I didn't get OMAC (I'll get the Trade), but from what I saw of the crossovers, it's drawing from the same well as the Sentinals, and Max isn't all that different from Senator Kelly.
Oh, my vote for the Baddie in IC?
Earth 2 Superman. I just have a gut feeling that he's going to try to restore order the hard way, and go over the top. Though, it's possible that Alex Luthor will be pulling the strings on him.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Comic Day
At last my books came, and I can say some somewhat intellegent things.
The biggie of course is IC #1... but I'll leave that for a post unto itself.
THE GOOD: Probably the highlight of my order was Batgirl, with Green Lantern Corps:Recharge a close second. This isn't to say that it was my best month... it really wasn't that great. A fair number of average books, and a few rather weak ones. I really liked seeing Nora come out of the Lazarus Pit... I'm not a big fan of Victor, but this has the chance to make him somewhat interesting.
The Bad: Well, aside from the art in BoP 86 (the Black Canary substory especially), probably the worst was Robin. The "shadow government orginization" thing is overused, and frankly, Tim's a rather poor fit with this batch of guys. Then, they go to all the trouble of setting up Johnny Warlock as a serious villain for Robin, and suddenly... *poof*. I imagine he'll get out of the shadow dimension, but really, that was a pretty weak victory. Darla may end up being interesting... Might be worth writing a story with her and Raven.
The Ugly: The Return of Donna Troy. The entire series was just pretty chaotic, and didn't grab my interest at all. I have to admit, that the "resolution" to her backstory was fairly clever. However, everything else in that story was just plain... eh.
Other thoughts. Villains United had been my favorite book of the "prequal series," but the ending left me a bit flat. Double-Lex just doesn't grab me for Mockingbird. Vandal Savage would have been more interesting. For that matter, any of the "core" members of the Society, using the Six as a counterbalance to Lex would have been good. Of course, all of this is building towards IC, so there will probably be some point to it. On the other hand, Day of Vengance ended pretty well for me. I'd be willing to buy a continuing series with this group. I'm a bit unclear how Capt. Marvel can still exist with Shazam killed and the Rock gone... but maybe they'll explain that in time.
The biggie of course is IC #1... but I'll leave that for a post unto itself.
THE GOOD: Probably the highlight of my order was Batgirl, with Green Lantern Corps:Recharge a close second. This isn't to say that it was my best month... it really wasn't that great. A fair number of average books, and a few rather weak ones. I really liked seeing Nora come out of the Lazarus Pit... I'm not a big fan of Victor, but this has the chance to make him somewhat interesting.
The Bad: Well, aside from the art in BoP 86 (the Black Canary substory especially), probably the worst was Robin. The "shadow government orginization" thing is overused, and frankly, Tim's a rather poor fit with this batch of guys. Then, they go to all the trouble of setting up Johnny Warlock as a serious villain for Robin, and suddenly... *poof*. I imagine he'll get out of the shadow dimension, but really, that was a pretty weak victory. Darla may end up being interesting... Might be worth writing a story with her and Raven.
The Ugly: The Return of Donna Troy. The entire series was just pretty chaotic, and didn't grab my interest at all. I have to admit, that the "resolution" to her backstory was fairly clever. However, everything else in that story was just plain... eh.
Other thoughts. Villains United had been my favorite book of the "prequal series," but the ending left me a bit flat. Double-Lex just doesn't grab me for Mockingbird. Vandal Savage would have been more interesting. For that matter, any of the "core" members of the Society, using the Six as a counterbalance to Lex would have been good. Of course, all of this is building towards IC, so there will probably be some point to it. On the other hand, Day of Vengance ended pretty well for me. I'd be willing to buy a continuing series with this group. I'm a bit unclear how Capt. Marvel can still exist with Shazam killed and the Rock gone... but maybe they'll explain that in time.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Making changes
"Change in comics" is (as usual actually) a hot topic of the moment. We have the drastic changes in the DCU that are all tied up in the current Infinite Crisis, then on the other hand, I had the opportunity to read Avengers Disassembled. That's the only Avengers I've read since my last major collecting period. In fact, near as I can recall, the last major Avenger's storyline I read was Sersi's insanity. That dates it a bit.
Of course, AD was a pretty deep "earthquake" of Avengers continuity. Also, it is needless to say, that it's been an extremely controversial book. All of this raises the question, just how much should creators be "allowed" to make changes in books? Whether you are talking about Barbara Gordon (hopefully, I'll have my copy of BoP #87 on Monday), the changes to Wonder Woman, or the changes to the Avengers, the changes have been more than a bit controversial.
In a very real way, change is absolutely necessary. Fiction and storytelling (at least interesting storytelling) are all about the changes in characters. Frodo Baggins is not the same in "The Scouring of the Shire" as he was ithe day of the Party. Likewise, Garion the kitchen boy is far from being the same person as Belgarion, Overlord of the West.
Comic Books should be the same way. The development of the books should also develop the characters. The constant grind should wear on Batman a bit, especially when the Joker is on another of his murderous rampages.
However, those changes should be reasonably organic. Generally, the seeds of what a person will become are found in what they were already like. The essential courage of Frodo can be seen all the way back to Weathertop (or earlier). So, while you can make changes to characters and books, they really need to grow out of who that character has been protrayed as. Superman suddenly growing grim and "batmanish" would be a violence against what the character has been.
The real problem that comics have is that their characters ultimately go through far more than the characters in most novels. Even if you look at characters in continuing novel series (say Honor Harrington) their overall personal arc tends to be shorter. That is what makes comics difficult. If you change characters too quickly, they become unrecognizable too quickly.
So, what of the current changes? I can't say much about Avengers. I've not read enough of the book recently to see if the changes are organic or not. However, I would hope that Wanda's breakdown was foreshadowed. If not, that would be bad storytelling.
Wonder Woman makes good sense to me. I'm not familiar with 1938 style Wonder Woman, but the way she's drawn now, her choice to execute Maxwell Lord is organic to the character.
Barbara on the other hand is a different case. Here, we are not talking about a change in who she is, but a change in her circumstances. It is that change that will shape her future change, so this bears watching.
I don't mind changes, but they do need to be done with respect to what has gone before.
Of course, AD was a pretty deep "earthquake" of Avengers continuity. Also, it is needless to say, that it's been an extremely controversial book. All of this raises the question, just how much should creators be "allowed" to make changes in books? Whether you are talking about Barbara Gordon (hopefully, I'll have my copy of BoP #87 on Monday), the changes to Wonder Woman, or the changes to the Avengers, the changes have been more than a bit controversial.
In a very real way, change is absolutely necessary. Fiction and storytelling (at least interesting storytelling) are all about the changes in characters. Frodo Baggins is not the same in "The Scouring of the Shire" as he was ithe day of the Party. Likewise, Garion the kitchen boy is far from being the same person as Belgarion, Overlord of the West.
Comic Books should be the same way. The development of the books should also develop the characters. The constant grind should wear on Batman a bit, especially when the Joker is on another of his murderous rampages.
However, those changes should be reasonably organic. Generally, the seeds of what a person will become are found in what they were already like. The essential courage of Frodo can be seen all the way back to Weathertop (or earlier). So, while you can make changes to characters and books, they really need to grow out of who that character has been protrayed as. Superman suddenly growing grim and "batmanish" would be a violence against what the character has been.
The real problem that comics have is that their characters ultimately go through far more than the characters in most novels. Even if you look at characters in continuing novel series (say Honor Harrington) their overall personal arc tends to be shorter. That is what makes comics difficult. If you change characters too quickly, they become unrecognizable too quickly.
So, what of the current changes? I can't say much about Avengers. I've not read enough of the book recently to see if the changes are organic or not. However, I would hope that Wanda's breakdown was foreshadowed. If not, that would be bad storytelling.
Wonder Woman makes good sense to me. I'm not familiar with 1938 style Wonder Woman, but the way she's drawn now, her choice to execute Maxwell Lord is organic to the character.
Barbara on the other hand is a different case. Here, we are not talking about a change in who she is, but a change in her circumstances. It is that change that will shape her future change, so this bears watching.
I don't mind changes, but they do need to be done with respect to what has gone before.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
More Downsides
Yeah, I'm still alive, just have been out of town again. Not like anyone noticed.
Since I don't have any brilliant ideas, and won't have my next shipment of books for a few days, I can't say anything new or interesting, so back to beating my dead horse again.
The Downsides of living in the DC Universe
1. That annoying question in your Atmospheric Science class where you are to calculate the amount of kryptonite that "evaporated" into the air upon reentry, and what the total background K-rad is at any given time.
2. The great taste of Booster Gold's Special High Fiber Cereal
3. Trying to figure out why anyone would want to deface Wonder Woman's book by taking Occam's Razor to it.
4. Finding out that your financial advisor sold all your Waynetech stock and put it into Kord Industries.
5. Endless debates on alt.fan.reporterbabes: Lois or Linda?
Since I don't have any brilliant ideas, and won't have my next shipment of books for a few days, I can't say anything new or interesting, so back to beating my dead horse again.
The Downsides of living in the DC Universe
1. That annoying question in your Atmospheric Science class where you are to calculate the amount of kryptonite that "evaporated" into the air upon reentry, and what the total background K-rad is at any given time.
2. The great taste of Booster Gold's Special High Fiber Cereal
3. Trying to figure out why anyone would want to deface Wonder Woman's book by taking Occam's Razor to it.
4. Finding out that your financial advisor sold all your Waynetech stock and put it into Kord Industries.
5. Endless debates on alt.fan.reporterbabes: Lois or Linda?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Whither Heros
A discussion on a friends LJ has gotten me to thinking about something, a bit different than his discussion, so I'll move it over here.
What do heros believe in? What is their vision? Why are they in the hero biz?
Naturally, considering the great number of books that are out there, there's lots of room for individual variations. However, what got me thinking in this direction was the question of "the passion of superheros". How many "modern" heros are really passionate in what they do, and in what they believe in? Yes, many of them are, but it's still interesting to look at the way it plays out.
You have heros like Captain Marvel or Superman who are almost considered "relics", that the things they stand for and are passionate about are "bygones of a lost age." Then, you have Batman, who may be the most passionate person all of comics in what he does. On the other hand, he's also growing darker by the issue, and growing more and more out of control in many ways.
That still leaves many heros, especially the more recent ones that you have to ask "what are they there for?"
Now that I think about it, that strikes me as one of the flaws in Outsiders. What are they really in it for? You have Nightwing who is in the middle of a crisis of faith. I'm not a big Arsenal fan, but I honestly can't figure what he's in it for other than "babe access." Annissa has sort of said she wants to help people in her arguments with her dad. On the other hand, Grace and Shift? No real clue with either. There's no passion in what they are doing, and that's why the book fails in my eyes. The only character to this point who really seemed passionate about what they were doing were Psimon and Dr. Sivania.
Part of being a hero is a belief in something. A belief in a better world, or a belief in helping people now. That needs to be expressed more strongly. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of adrenlin junkies or ill tempered revenge seekers.
What do heros believe in? What is their vision? Why are they in the hero biz?
Naturally, considering the great number of books that are out there, there's lots of room for individual variations. However, what got me thinking in this direction was the question of "the passion of superheros". How many "modern" heros are really passionate in what they do, and in what they believe in? Yes, many of them are, but it's still interesting to look at the way it plays out.
You have heros like Captain Marvel or Superman who are almost considered "relics", that the things they stand for and are passionate about are "bygones of a lost age." Then, you have Batman, who may be the most passionate person all of comics in what he does. On the other hand, he's also growing darker by the issue, and growing more and more out of control in many ways.
That still leaves many heros, especially the more recent ones that you have to ask "what are they there for?"
Now that I think about it, that strikes me as one of the flaws in Outsiders. What are they really in it for? You have Nightwing who is in the middle of a crisis of faith. I'm not a big Arsenal fan, but I honestly can't figure what he's in it for other than "babe access." Annissa has sort of said she wants to help people in her arguments with her dad. On the other hand, Grace and Shift? No real clue with either. There's no passion in what they are doing, and that's why the book fails in my eyes. The only character to this point who really seemed passionate about what they were doing were Psimon and Dr. Sivania.
Part of being a hero is a belief in something. A belief in a better world, or a belief in helping people now. That needs to be expressed more strongly. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of adrenlin junkies or ill tempered revenge seekers.
Gimme the small stuff
One problem that I think the common style of telling stories in comic books has is "cosmic overload." In other words, it's the simple overload of stories that have absolutely immense stakes. If the hero loses, the earth will be either destroyed, or at least conquered by the resident baddie. (Think another visit by Galactus)
Yet, story after story like that, and yet the world remains, it's still free, and even the USA is free (or as free as it ever is, but lets not get political). It pretty much has to be that way. No matter what else may happen, we know that the good guys are going to win. After all, could you imagine that the chaos if the latest "conquer the world" plot in Outsiders were actually to play through? (Think when they had to stop a demon horde from entering the world). You know they are going to win out in the end. Those sorts of stories just end up being... ho hum.
On the other hand, if the villians have smaller goals, the writers can afford to let them "win," now and then. For instance, take the good ol bank robbery. Can you have a story where the baddies hit a bank, and then manage to ditch Spiderman, and keep their loot? Sure. You figure you'll end up seeing them again, and Spidy will haul em in, but because there is a real chance of their scheme working, there's actual tension in the story.
Of course, the flip side of that is that with the real over-powered heros (Superman, Wonder Woman, Iron Man or the like), they really need big time threats to go up against. Can you write a decent story with non-metahuman bank robbers in Batman? No problem. They can even be total ciphers. Utterly "normal" villians, not a wierd color or the like in sight.
Now try doing the same thing with the Flash? Hm, gets a whole lot harder fast, doesn't it? There are super-powered characters I like (Capt. Marvel for instance), but as a rule, I prefer the unpowered, or the "medium" powered heros, just because there's more room to give them stories with real tension.
Yet, story after story like that, and yet the world remains, it's still free, and even the USA is free (or as free as it ever is, but lets not get political). It pretty much has to be that way. No matter what else may happen, we know that the good guys are going to win. After all, could you imagine that the chaos if the latest "conquer the world" plot in Outsiders were actually to play through? (Think when they had to stop a demon horde from entering the world). You know they are going to win out in the end. Those sorts of stories just end up being... ho hum.
On the other hand, if the villians have smaller goals, the writers can afford to let them "win," now and then. For instance, take the good ol bank robbery. Can you have a story where the baddies hit a bank, and then manage to ditch Spiderman, and keep their loot? Sure. You figure you'll end up seeing them again, and Spidy will haul em in, but because there is a real chance of their scheme working, there's actual tension in the story.
Of course, the flip side of that is that with the real over-powered heros (Superman, Wonder Woman, Iron Man or the like), they really need big time threats to go up against. Can you write a decent story with non-metahuman bank robbers in Batman? No problem. They can even be total ciphers. Utterly "normal" villians, not a wierd color or the like in sight.
Now try doing the same thing with the Flash? Hm, gets a whole lot harder fast, doesn't it? There are super-powered characters I like (Capt. Marvel for instance), but as a rule, I prefer the unpowered, or the "medium" powered heros, just because there's more room to give them stories with real tension.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
What role villains?
As you probably noticed, I have some fairly strong feelings about villains. I started this whole thing off with my listing of ten painful villains, and it's been a recurring theme since then.
That said, I'm not really "about" villains. Not at all, I'm all about the heros. You'll never find a poster of Darth Vader, or Magneto, or the Joker around my house. They just don't interest me in that way. A good villain provides a chance for the hero's to show their mettle. Not only in terms of their combat skills, but also in showing what makes them a hero. A good villain is there to create interesting conflict.
That's probably one of the reasons I prefer to see my villains as being recognizably evil. I'm not saying that every one of them has to be some Joker clone, where his madness is obvious to all. Not in the least. I am saying though that it should be clear that a villain really is "the bad guy (or girl)." I don't want the books to sit there and try to make them sympathetic, or that we say "it's not really their fault." Nope, they're evil. Even if they are trying to do "good", they're evil (see Ozymandias).
This is one of the reasons that Toon Terra bugs me, as I mentioned. In the Judas Contract, Terra was your proverbial "bad seed." No explanation what made her such a head case, or why she hated the Titans so badly. Sure she said a few things, but they didn't really answer the question. That worked. Sure, you'll find some more complex, even conflicted villains, but every now and then, it's nice to have a straightforward "bad seed,"
Now, we get to Toon Terra, and they went entirely the other direction. She was entirely conflicted. She was manipulated, yet she knew what she was doing, and did it willingly (for the most part.) Yet, in the end, she "redeemed" herself. An entirely different sort of villain, and one that is, to me at least, less satisfying. I know, the "real" villain in that story is Slade, but it just never quite connected to me as well.
Now, there are two types of villains I truly like to see in a bit "more depth," and those are the villains on the "way up," and those on the "way down." Comics are full of heros who got their start as villains. I'm not going to say Hawkeye was the first, but he's an obvious example.
I'm sure that there are some examples of the opposite as well, heros who have gone bad, bad, bad. Other than Ozymandias, I can't think of any offhand. That's something I'd like to see more of. Especially heros who are fairly "long term." I mean, a hero who shows up, and then five issues later starts to "fall"," is one thing. I'd like to see a hero (even if not a huge name), who has a fairly long history go "down the tubes," some time. Now that'll create conflict for our heros.
That said, I'm not really "about" villains. Not at all, I'm all about the heros. You'll never find a poster of Darth Vader, or Magneto, or the Joker around my house. They just don't interest me in that way. A good villain provides a chance for the hero's to show their mettle. Not only in terms of their combat skills, but also in showing what makes them a hero. A good villain is there to create interesting conflict.
That's probably one of the reasons I prefer to see my villains as being recognizably evil. I'm not saying that every one of them has to be some Joker clone, where his madness is obvious to all. Not in the least. I am saying though that it should be clear that a villain really is "the bad guy (or girl)." I don't want the books to sit there and try to make them sympathetic, or that we say "it's not really their fault." Nope, they're evil. Even if they are trying to do "good", they're evil (see Ozymandias).
This is one of the reasons that Toon Terra bugs me, as I mentioned. In the Judas Contract, Terra was your proverbial "bad seed." No explanation what made her such a head case, or why she hated the Titans so badly. Sure she said a few things, but they didn't really answer the question. That worked. Sure, you'll find some more complex, even conflicted villains, but every now and then, it's nice to have a straightforward "bad seed,"
Now, we get to Toon Terra, and they went entirely the other direction. She was entirely conflicted. She was manipulated, yet she knew what she was doing, and did it willingly (for the most part.) Yet, in the end, she "redeemed" herself. An entirely different sort of villain, and one that is, to me at least, less satisfying. I know, the "real" villain in that story is Slade, but it just never quite connected to me as well.
Now, there are two types of villains I truly like to see in a bit "more depth," and those are the villains on the "way up," and those on the "way down." Comics are full of heros who got their start as villains. I'm not going to say Hawkeye was the first, but he's an obvious example.
I'm sure that there are some examples of the opposite as well, heros who have gone bad, bad, bad. Other than Ozymandias, I can't think of any offhand. That's something I'd like to see more of. Especially heros who are fairly "long term." I mean, a hero who shows up, and then five issues later starts to "fall"," is one thing. I'd like to see a hero (even if not a huge name), who has a fairly long history go "down the tubes," some time. Now that'll create conflict for our heros.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
My kinda villain
Yesterday, while I was eating lunch, I happened to turn my TV over to a Sci-Fi network rerun of the original Battlestar Galactica. In the episode I was watching, John Colicos (Baltar) was being his usual smug, evil self, and that got me reflecting on something.
I've not been watching the "new" BSG. I watched the miniseries when it came out, and found myself sadly disappointed. Part of it was my "purist" point of view. However, honestly, I can deal with Lady-Starbuck, humanoid Cylons, and even Cylon-Boomer-Asian-female.
Wierd, but all right, I can buy it.
What couldn't I get past? Baltar.
Perhaps he's been changed in the ongoing series, but I found him enormously disappointing.
"So, Baltar, why exactly did you betray humanity?"
"Well, actually, I didn't think I was betraying humanity. Anyway, she was a REALLY good lay."
Yay.
I know that there will always be fools and patsies about. Villainy requires that there be those sorts around. However, in the original, Baltar was both at the same time. Yes, he was a fool and a patsy, but he was also a villain in his own right. He knew exactly what he was doing, and was trying to reach his own goals. Sure, he was outmanuvered by the Cylons, but that's his bad luck (or idiocy showing through.) That's what a villain should be, one who has his own goals and is trying to follow through on them. He may not think of himself in the terms of being a villain, but he is, pure and simple.
In alot of ways, the "old" Baltar was much like the Enron folks. Willing to destroy countless lives for their own gain and purposes. Yeah, Baltar was willing to go the extra mile to genocide, but the overall mindset was the same. A supremely self-centered desire to gratify ones self, willing to run over anyone or anything in your path.
Isn't that better than a goofball who gets caught thinking with his hormones? To me it sure is.
I have much the same problem with Toon Terra from the Titans as opposed to the one from the Judas Contract. If I'd never read the Judas Contract, I would like Toon Terra alot more. As it stands, it's always a touch grating.
Perhaps some day I'll get the new BSG DVDs. I probably will. Still, unless they've improved greatly over the miniseries, I'll always be a touch disappointed over Baltar the hormonal weeine.
I've not been watching the "new" BSG. I watched the miniseries when it came out, and found myself sadly disappointed. Part of it was my "purist" point of view. However, honestly, I can deal with Lady-Starbuck, humanoid Cylons, and even Cylon-Boomer-Asian-female.
Wierd, but all right, I can buy it.
What couldn't I get past? Baltar.
Perhaps he's been changed in the ongoing series, but I found him enormously disappointing.
"So, Baltar, why exactly did you betray humanity?"
"Well, actually, I didn't think I was betraying humanity. Anyway, she was a REALLY good lay."
Yay.
I know that there will always be fools and patsies about. Villainy requires that there be those sorts around. However, in the original, Baltar was both at the same time. Yes, he was a fool and a patsy, but he was also a villain in his own right. He knew exactly what he was doing, and was trying to reach his own goals. Sure, he was outmanuvered by the Cylons, but that's his bad luck (or idiocy showing through.) That's what a villain should be, one who has his own goals and is trying to follow through on them. He may not think of himself in the terms of being a villain, but he is, pure and simple.
In alot of ways, the "old" Baltar was much like the Enron folks. Willing to destroy countless lives for their own gain and purposes. Yeah, Baltar was willing to go the extra mile to genocide, but the overall mindset was the same. A supremely self-centered desire to gratify ones self, willing to run over anyone or anything in your path.
Isn't that better than a goofball who gets caught thinking with his hormones? To me it sure is.
I have much the same problem with Toon Terra from the Titans as opposed to the one from the Judas Contract. If I'd never read the Judas Contract, I would like Toon Terra alot more. As it stands, it's always a touch grating.
Perhaps some day I'll get the new BSG DVDs. I probably will. Still, unless they've improved greatly over the miniseries, I'll always be a touch disappointed over Baltar the hormonal weeine.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The Confessional
As a preacher, I'm encouraging people to confess, so I may as well admit it
I'm looking forward to Infinite Crisis
There, I said it.
I'm not sure why, I've been burnted again and again on these crossovers. The only crossover I can recall that I really liked was the Mutant Massacre storyline across the X-books (and a few others). I round Crisis on Infinite Earths interesting a few weeks ago in terms of understanding how the DCU got to that position, but I'm not really *that* enthused by it. I found Inferno, Onslaught, Age of Apoclypse, Zero Hour and the like to be painfully bad.
Yet, there is something in all the setup that's going on that has my attention. I'm not sure if it's the appearance of the Psycho Pirate, or the return of something resembling the pre-Crisis Supergirl, or what. I just have a feeling that something actually interesting is going to come out of this.
I may end up being disappointed in the long run, but I can hardly wait for book #1.
I'm looking forward to Infinite Crisis
There, I said it.
I'm not sure why, I've been burnted again and again on these crossovers. The only crossover I can recall that I really liked was the Mutant Massacre storyline across the X-books (and a few others). I round Crisis on Infinite Earths interesting a few weeks ago in terms of understanding how the DCU got to that position, but I'm not really *that* enthused by it. I found Inferno, Onslaught, Age of Apoclypse, Zero Hour and the like to be painfully bad.
Yet, there is something in all the setup that's going on that has my attention. I'm not sure if it's the appearance of the Psycho Pirate, or the return of something resembling the pre-Crisis Supergirl, or what. I just have a feeling that something actually interesting is going to come out of this.
I may end up being disappointed in the long run, but I can hardly wait for book #1.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
In Defense of the Boy Scouts
A few months ago, Justice League Unlimited had an episode that featured Captain Marvel, and at the time I found the episode both enjoyable, yet a bit frustrating.
On the one hand, Billy's nobility came out well, especially in his ending speech, where he left the League because he couldn't agree with their tactics. On the other hand, he was played as something of a naive fool in the course of the episode. Of course, there was a much worse example of that in Kingdom Come where he's entirely buffaloed by Lex Luthor, until that one last "redeeming" moment. Aside from the small question of "um, what about Solomon's wisdom..." in both of those circumstances, it bothred me because there seems to be less and less respect for "the boy scouts."
Now, while things are not as bad as they were a few years ago, where we were buried under Wolverine, Lobo, the Punisher and Venom, but it still bugs me. I'll admit, I also like some "harder edged" books, but even then, it's not so much a matter of wanting to see "grittier" heros, as seeing heros stuck in some pretty nasty circumstances.
The essential optimism and decency of the "boy scout" characters is something that really appeals to me. It points us to the hope for a better world. I recognize that not everyone likes them, but I do grow tired of having those characters pushed further and further to the edge, and becoming the butt of jokes. I'll admit, I'm not a gigantic Superman fan, but that's not because of the his being "the big blue boy scout," but because he's just too powerful. It makes it hard to consistantly write good stories for him. I've liked some, been less fond of others.
Anyway, give me Billy Batson over Frank Castle every day of the week.
On the one hand, Billy's nobility came out well, especially in his ending speech, where he left the League because he couldn't agree with their tactics. On the other hand, he was played as something of a naive fool in the course of the episode. Of course, there was a much worse example of that in Kingdom Come where he's entirely buffaloed by Lex Luthor, until that one last "redeeming" moment. Aside from the small question of "um, what about Solomon's wisdom..." in both of those circumstances, it bothred me because there seems to be less and less respect for "the boy scouts."
Now, while things are not as bad as they were a few years ago, where we were buried under Wolverine, Lobo, the Punisher and Venom, but it still bugs me. I'll admit, I also like some "harder edged" books, but even then, it's not so much a matter of wanting to see "grittier" heros, as seeing heros stuck in some pretty nasty circumstances.
The essential optimism and decency of the "boy scout" characters is something that really appeals to me. It points us to the hope for a better world. I recognize that not everyone likes them, but I do grow tired of having those characters pushed further and further to the edge, and becoming the butt of jokes. I'll admit, I'm not a gigantic Superman fan, but that's not because of the his being "the big blue boy scout," but because he's just too powerful. It makes it hard to consistantly write good stories for him. I've liked some, been less fond of others.
Anyway, give me Billy Batson over Frank Castle every day of the week.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Book Recomendation
Among other things, I'm also a fan of Fantasy Novels, and if you haven't read it, I'd highly suggest the Crown of Stars series by Kate Eliot.
What's fascinating is the world she's set up. In alot of ways, it's an inversion of the actual Middle Ages. She has renamed the nations/religions and the like (and reimagined them. The "vikings" are now seafaring lizardmen). The "Daisanite" church is fairly close to the Roman Catholic Church in many ways. While the church is still very powerful and prevelant, it's also
1) Matriarchical
2) closer to gnostic than anything.
On the other hand, one of the ongoing subplots is the rise of a heresy which is more or less akin to orthodox Christianity.
It's a bit dense, difficult reading, but very, very rewarding. It takes three books to even begin to get a sense of what's "really" going on.
On comic notes... it's coming... you've all feared it. I'm not sure when, but the pieces are falling in place. I shall prove to you all why I love Power Pack!
What's fascinating is the world she's set up. In alot of ways, it's an inversion of the actual Middle Ages. She has renamed the nations/religions and the like (and reimagined them. The "vikings" are now seafaring lizardmen). The "Daisanite" church is fairly close to the Roman Catholic Church in many ways. While the church is still very powerful and prevelant, it's also
1) Matriarchical
2) closer to gnostic than anything.
On the other hand, one of the ongoing subplots is the rise of a heresy which is more or less akin to orthodox Christianity.
It's a bit dense, difficult reading, but very, very rewarding. It takes three books to even begin to get a sense of what's "really" going on.
On comic notes... it's coming... you've all feared it. I'm not sure when, but the pieces are falling in place. I shall prove to you all why I love Power Pack!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)