Random Comic Book Crap
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
I've noticed this for a while in comics, but discounting love-interests it seems like the only friends modern superheroes have are either related to them, or they met through work. You never see a hero going to like a fantasy football club, talking to people who AREN'T involved in fighting crime. I mean how hard would it be to have Simon Baz join an auto-enthusiast club, or Raven going to a poetry slam and having RECURRING side-characters that talk to her about crap. Hell, even in Superman-
Work, life-saving, work, life-saving, there have GOT to be other aspects to these people in their lives!
-turns out the ENTIRE town of Hamilton was spying on the Kents this whole time, dampening Jon's powers with evil space-milk.
Wasn't aware they put out a single volume omnibus
.Once is enough. Plus I don't like the re-colorings for the recent editions. I'll stick with my early '00s trades.
I kinda wish they'd so some deluxe softcover editions of Sandman. Vertigo's been re-publishing their old series like that and they've all been top notch. Preacher, Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Northlanders, DMZ, Ex Machina (technically, that was originally Wildstorm, but now it's under the Vertigo banner), Sandman Mystery Theatre. All quality re-collections.
I have the four-volume Absolute editions. They look gorgeous on the shelf, but cripes, they're unwieldy to re-read or flip through. I thought about going back to the 10 trades, but volume 3 pisses me off (it only collects 3 or 4 issues).
I have the four-volume Absolute editions. They look gorgeous on the shelf, but cripes, they're unwieldy to re-read or flip through. I thought about going back to the 10 trades, but volume 3 pisses me off (it only collects 3 or 4 issues).
Wife and I were looking at those last week and came to the same consensus as you. The deluxe hardcovers are great to show off, while you continue to read the same paperbacks until they're falling out of their bindings.
I think the biggest hardcover I own right now is Infinity. Maybe I'd have problems with it, but compared to the 52 omnibus, it's a breeze.
This is a really great video. Though I'd add in "Don't bother with DC or Marvel. Read Image comics."
Why did you never say that before ever? Now I've wasted all this time!
Heh, I made a much longer comment in the video's comment section, but it's all the same stuff I've said on here multiple times: inaccessible, so-called #1 issues aren't good jumping on points anymore, company-wide crossovers ruining creative team runs, etc.Why did you never say that before ever? Now I've wasted all this time!
There are, of course, recent rare exceptions. Three that come to mind are Squirrel Girl, Vision, and Omega Men (going back to another comment I made on here about Tom King's 12-issue story designs).
So, I have a question. I tried googling the subject, but came up with nothing. I'm also copy/pasting this from Reddit's /comics. Even if no one here knows the answer, this could be an interesting discussion topic.
Even before the Man of Steel film released and there were long discussions over Superman killing Zod, people have discussed whether classic superheroes like Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman should kill criminals.
I should make this clear: I'm not saying they HAVEN'T. Superman killed in John Byrne's final issue of his respectively long run in Superman #22. Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord just before Infinite Crisis. Batman shot Darkseid in Final Crisis.
I've always wondered whether they SHOULD. From my point of view, I don't think they should. Especially Superman. I feel that Superman should always find a better solution. That's what makes him Superman: he always does the right thing. Oddly enough, I'm okay with some Marvel characters taking a life. Captain America fought in WW2, so I don't see why he shouldn't. It would pain him to do it at any time and he'd avoid it as much as humanly possible, though.
Anyway, what I'm most curious about is people's reactions to John Byrne's issue back in the day. I wasn't reading comics at the time (I started with The Death of Superman). Does anyone know how fans reacted at the time? I'm especially curious if anyone knows how other comic book creators - writers and artists - reacted to the story. In retrospect, it feels like Byrne did that as his final issue so he wouldn't have to deal with the ramifications. Like he was saying, "Welp, here you go, future writers. Superman canonically killed. Not my problem!" Given Byrne's ego, it wouldn't surprise me.
Even before the Man of Steel film released and there were long discussions over Superman killing Zod, people have discussed whether classic superheroes like Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman should kill criminals.
I should make this clear: I'm not saying they HAVEN'T. Superman killed in John Byrne's final issue of his respectively long run in Superman #22. Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord just before Infinite Crisis. Batman shot Darkseid in Final Crisis.
I've always wondered whether they SHOULD. From my point of view, I don't think they should. Especially Superman. I feel that Superman should always find a better solution. That's what makes him Superman: he always does the right thing. Oddly enough, I'm okay with some Marvel characters taking a life. Captain America fought in WW2, so I don't see why he shouldn't. It would pain him to do it at any time and he'd avoid it as much as humanly possible, though.
Anyway, what I'm most curious about is people's reactions to John Byrne's issue back in the day. I wasn't reading comics at the time (I started with The Death of Superman). Does anyone know how fans reacted at the time? I'm especially curious if anyone knows how other comic book creators - writers and artists - reacted to the story. In retrospect, it feels like Byrne did that as his final issue so he wouldn't have to deal with the ramifications. Like he was saying, "Welp, here you go, future writers. Superman canonically killed. Not my problem!" Given Byrne's ego, it wouldn't surprise me.
I am firmly in the camp of shouldn't kill when it comes to the main DC characters, because of the kinds of characters they are. I'm alright with marvel characters killing, but Batman, Wonder Woman, and especially Superman are supposed to be modern day gods in fiction. Superman exemplifies this best, it's right there in the name. He is the super man, the best of us that we all aspire to. He can make mistakes, he can doubt himself, but in the end he always does what is right, no matter what. That's what makes him who he is.
Batman, similarly, is someone that aspires to be better than he is. He knows his own flaws, his anger, his fear, and how if he allowed himself to slip, he would become exactly what he hates. Killing isn't an option for him because it's the only thing keeping him from the edge.
I know I've mentioned this in a previous post, but I'm of the mind that it largely depends on the hero. I'm less upset about Wonder Woman killing on the rare occasion because it fits more with her character. Amazon wisdom tends to lean practical more than emotional, so I could see her finding reason in it once in a while.
But certain characters have the "no kill" built into their mythos, like Superman, Batman, and I think Spider-Man, so when they break that code, it feels less like a moral complication and more like lazy writing. You take away that part, and suddenly there's nothing that really makes them stand out from characters with similar powers/abilities that aren't opposed to killing.
Actually, the bending of Batman's "no gun/no kill" rule is particularly tone-deaf because Batman is usually characterized as one of the most self-confident, bull-headed and unyielding characters in comics. He almost never thinks his way is wrong. It's hard to believe he would, even for a second, break his own rules.
I do think it is possible to tell a compelling story where these characters break those rules. It's just that DC movies haven't managed to do that, but they've come close.
I actually liked man of steel as a film, just not as a superman movie. I think there is a compelling story to be told where superman is forced to kill Zod, and this becomes the exception that proves the rule. Having to kill one of the last of his own kind, and the emotional turmoil that comes from that, could have been powerful character building for this movieverse version of Supes, but lolnope it's never mentioned again.
Similarly, the Batman shown in Batman v Superman could have been compelling as a Batman forced over the edge. Imply in the story that he killed Joker after Joker killed Robin, and it's been a downward spiral from there. Make him the villain that Superman has to redeem. But nope, it's fist fight Martha battle
I'm also fine with Wonder Woman killing on occasion. Her whole tiers of conflict thing from Gail Simone's run made a lot of sense for her character and showed how much thought she's put into this. I didn't think her killing Maxwell Lord was out of character.
Superman more than any other character comes off as lazy writing for him to start killing people. I get Ravenpoe and others' point about him and Zod, and probably in the hands of a better filmmaker with a better script, that could've been a good story. But it wasn't, so it wasn't.
Batman, though, is so strict to his own code that I really take issue with him killing. Even "whores and grimdark" Frank Miller managed to keep that element of Batman, and if he can do it despite all his psycho shit, there's no excuse for any other writer to fail in that regard. There's an episode of the animated series where a robotic replica is made of Bruce Wayne/Batman, so perfect that at first it believes itself to be Bruce and thinks someone has put him in a robot body. At the end of the episode, the real Batman tricks Robo-Batman into thinking it's killed him. This robot is mentally a perfect copy of Bruce, right? Well, it has a fucking emotional breakdown upon thinking it's taken a life and ends up accidentally destroying itself in its anguish. When Bruce reveals he's alive, he doesn't note this as being strange. Obviously he doesn't know how he'd react upon killing someone, but it seemed he got a glimpse of how it would affect him.
That's the thing people like Zach Snyder don't understand about Batman. He's not the stoic emotionless loner he pretends at being. Really, he's friggin stuffed with feelings and puts out that demeanor to try and keep them in check. That's why I love him so much. Not because he's the badass, but because that tough guy thing is a thicker mask than his cowl, and it would be just like him to be emotionally ravaged if he killed someone, from the same source of emotions that leads him to take in all the orphans he wants to help.
A recent issue touched on readers' concerns of why Batman was helping a new character in the comics, i.e. what was in it for him. And the issue went over what he could gain from this, and I was getting annoyed. But then it hit the end of the issue, and Bruce put all that shit to rest with what I knew was the reason all along. (Paraphrasing) "I helped her because she needed help. That's all it is. That's what it's always been."
[DOUBLEPOST=1494779766,1494779718][/DOUBLEPOST]
This is how I am with Grant Morrison's Action Comics. I like it as a comic, but it doesn't feel like Superman for me.
That's the thing about the Superman comics that I grew up on: even though I hadn't read the infamous Byrne issue, they referenced it constantly. It tore at him. He had a complete mental breakdown because of it, unknowingly creating a different persona that was more Batman-like (Gangbuster). When he realized his mental health could affect everyone on Earth, he left the planet. Killing those criminals haunted him.
I think I've said this before, but if it had been written and handled with more care, I would've been okay with him killing Zod. But it comes out of nowhere with no build up, so it just rang hollow.
Even killing Doomsday, he did it because he HAD to. There was literally no other way to stop that monster. He scarified his own life in order to put Doomsday down.
Actually, I tweeted former Superman artist/writer Jon Bogdanove (who was part of the creative team I grew up on). He responded with a long series of tweets on the matter. I'll write it out rather than posting all the tweets:
I think I've said this before, but if it had been written and handled with more care, I would've been okay with him killing Zod. But it comes out of nowhere with no build up, so it just rang hollow.
Even killing Doomsday, he did it because he HAD to. There was literally no other way to stop that monster. He scarified his own life in order to put Doomsday down.
Actually, I tweeted former Superman artist/writer Jon Bogdanove (who was part of the creative team I grew up on). He responded with a long series of tweets on the matter. I'll write it out rather than posting all the tweets:
To all that, I say...wow. He gave me a much more comprehensive answer than I ever expected. And I...think I might agree with it. It'll take me some time to really think about it, though.
The part I always remember of the doomsday arc is how much time and effort superman put into trying to keep Doomsday away from populated areas. Even with a creature strong enough to seriously hurt him, he put his all into being the thing doomsday attacks rather than the innocents around him.
So, you know, not fighting Zod in the middle of the city as a first resort
So many things about that movie bothered me that shouldn't have been Superman OR Clark. The defense people kept using against my argument was "This is his first time being Superman! He's going to make mistakes."
Except it's not his first time being CLARK. And the Clark Kent I'm familiar with still cares about all life and especially innocent lives around him. I don't care how angry he is, CLARK would never fly through a gas station full of people (God, that scene bothered me almost as much as killing Zod). He wouldn't blatantly wreck a small town - his HOMEtown. He also wouldn't be so petty as to destroy a trucker's truck out of spite. Spite should NEVER be part of Clark or Superman.
Even without killing Zod, there are so many other things about that movie that bothered me. To be fair, they got SOME things right. It's not a 100% horrible movie. It's just the things they got wrong, they got horrendously wrong.[DOUBLEPOST=1494781293,1494780989][/DOUBLEPOST]
I love that so much. I've quoted it before, but my favourite quote is from the Justice League episode "Comfort and Joy."I don't read many comics anymore, but some things stick with me. And on today of all days, this is one of them...
Headcanon. Always.
Martian Manhunter: 'Nice and cozy.' How odd of you to say that. I've never seen this side of you, Clark.
Clark: That's why I like coming home for the holidays. I can just relax and be myself.
I've also said this a million times before: Chris Evans' Captain America? THAT'S how Superman should be written. He's such a genuinely good guy that it's almost inconceivable someone like him exists.
(Also, I'm sorry. I realize I repeat a lot of the same things about Superman. You guys are probably getting sick of it by now.)
And inspires those around him to be better, as we see Cap do in The Winter Solider. That's such a good fucking movie. I need to watch it again soon.
Nah, it's fine. I'd rather hear your positivity, critique, and analysis of something you love than more "thou shalt not DC, thou shalt not Marvel"
."Nah, it's fine. I'd rather hear your positivity, critique, and analysis of something you love than more "thou shalt not DC, thou shalt not Marvel"
I've said it here before. Superman done right would have him show up at a cookout of someone he'd helped with burgers and hotdogs, and flowers for the lady of the house.
And the MCU would be more likely to include just that scene for Cap.
Pretty sure this was canon for way longer then any other explanation.I don't read many comics anymore, but some things stick with me. And on today of all days, this is one of them...
Headcanon. Always.
figmentPez
Staff member
I think this is less than a case of "should the character ever kill" and more of a "should the writers be telling a story where the character kills". It's established, and agreed on by most fans, that there are circumstances that would cause Superman to kill, and sometimes those stories work, but for the most part it's much better to tell the story where Superman finds a way to not kill. It's better to tell a story where Batman doesn't have to resort to a gun.
I think comic book movies fall into a trap where they feel like they have to push their characters to the breaking point. Big stuff needs to happen on the big screen, and I think it's lazy writing to go straight to pushing a character to the limits of their morality, especially if that morality isn't well established onscreen.
I've used this analogy before, but here goes: Nancy Drew stories are about her solving mysteries. Is there a mystery that Nancy Drew can't solve? Well, obviously, she's only human, there are limits to her abilities. Writers could come up with a mystery that she couldn't solve. They could come up with a mystery where she gets it wrong and people suffer because of that. It could even be an interesting story. But it would be absolute shit as an origin story movie on the big screen. Even if the writing were excellent, even if they somehow managed to portray her as competent in a "show, don't tell" manner, it would still be a crappy Nancy Drew story (at least as far as a stand-alone movie, or the first of a series of movies). A good first Nancy Drew movie would have her solving the case, because that's what the character is about. It could be more nuanced than just getting it right and that's it, but the character is about solving mysteries, and if the mystery goes unsolved then what the hell is the point of making it a Nancy Drew movie?
You don't make an Aquaman movie where there are no underwater scenes.
You don't make a (first) Star Trek movie where they stay on Earth.
And you shouldn't make a Superman movie where he kills.
Yes, you could tell a really good Aquaman story set in the desert, but don't make that your movie. Yes, Star Trek 4 was basically set on Earth, but it would not have been a good choice for a first movie. So, while you can tell a good story where Superman kills, it shouldn't be your choice for the first movie in a series, and it shouldn't be done too often or too lightly.
Yeah, my main beef with those big ass hardcovers. There often isn't enough of a margin on the inside of the page and you end up not being able to even read like 1/4 of it.
As I see it, a Superman story should not have him killing anyone because killing would be too easy for him. Superman is a being who could simply end all life on planet Earth if he wanted to, that is why his story is about resolving his difficulties without killing anyone. Superman (especially Silver Age Superman) could easily have tossed every villain into the Sun and dusted himself off with a "Who's next?" But Superman wouldn't do that because he's not a cruel person, he's just a kid from Kansas with Kansas values who happens to possess powers far beyond those of mortal men.
Batman, however, I see Batman's reason for not killing as something else. Batman is always on that edge. Batman doesn't kill for the same reason a recovering alcoholic doesn't drink. Batman is well-connected, is a genius with access to a vast arsenal of weaponry and surveillance gear, and is a master tactician who is an expert in various forms of combat and war. If he resorts to resolving a dilemma via assassination even once, his chance of succumbing to the temptation to fall off that wagon again go waaaaaaay up, so the way he keeps his own potential tendencies in check is by making sure that he kills nobody. Ever. Bruce Wayne has pent-up emotion and passion for years, and if that dam bursts, it'd make Kenny Rogers' Coward of the County look like a raindrop against a windshield.
As for Wonder Woman? Amazons are warriors. I'm totally ok with her killing someone who needs killing, the same way I would be ok with Wolverine, Sgt Rock, Jonah Hex, or Nick Fury killing someone. They're all in professions where people end up dead, preferably other people. It would not be unexpected for one of their foes to disappear, or even only partially disappear.
--Patrick
Batman, however, I see Batman's reason for not killing as something else. Batman is always on that edge. Batman doesn't kill for the same reason a recovering alcoholic doesn't drink. Batman is well-connected, is a genius with access to a vast arsenal of weaponry and surveillance gear, and is a master tactician who is an expert in various forms of combat and war. If he resorts to resolving a dilemma via assassination even once, his chance of succumbing to the temptation to fall off that wagon again go waaaaaaay up, so the way he keeps his own potential tendencies in check is by making sure that he kills nobody. Ever. Bruce Wayne has pent-up emotion and passion for years, and if that dam bursts, it'd make Kenny Rogers' Coward of the County look like a raindrop against a windshield.
I remember that episode. I felt sorry for that robot in all of its mecha-angst.
As for Wonder Woman? Amazons are warriors. I'm totally ok with her killing someone who needs killing, the same way I would be ok with Wolverine, Sgt Rock, Jonah Hex, or Nick Fury killing someone. They're all in professions where people end up dead, preferably other people. It would not be unexpected for one of their foes to disappear, or even only partially disappear.
--Patrick
Shower thought: Any time I see @ThatNickGuy or anyone else recommend Superman comics, it's always something standalone or out of continuity. I never see someone recommend a particular run or set of issues, unless the recommendations are pertaining to the New 52 exclusively.
Unrelated: Last year, the omnibus for Grant Morrison's Animal Man run was super cheap on Amazon, like $35. Then it went out of print and now the best it can be found is around $100. I've been wanting to get my hands on the run in physical form somehow, but even though volumes 1 and 3 are plentiful and reasonably-priced, volume 2 seems stuck at around $35. That's a lot for a nine-issue trade; I'm guess part of the reason is because it has the first appearance of the character from some anthology comic; Astonishing Tales or something like that.
Went to other sites and did some math. I could buy the old issues from '89-'90 for a total of $10 used. Drawbacks are, I have no idea what condition 25+ year old comics are in and it'd kind of be annoying to read vs all in one cover. Probably not going to jump for that option just yet, but it's at least an option.
Unrelated: Last year, the omnibus for Grant Morrison's Animal Man run was super cheap on Amazon, like $35. Then it went out of print and now the best it can be found is around $100. I've been wanting to get my hands on the run in physical form somehow, but even though volumes 1 and 3 are plentiful and reasonably-priced, volume 2 seems stuck at around $35. That's a lot for a nine-issue trade; I'm guess part of the reason is because it has the first appearance of the character from some anthology comic; Astonishing Tales or something like that.
Went to other sites and did some math. I could buy the old issues from '89-'90 for a total of $10 used. Drawbacks are, I have no idea what condition 25+ year old comics are in and it'd kind of be annoying to read vs all in one cover. Probably not going to jump for that option just yet, but it's at least an option.
They're the ones that stand head and shoulders above the rest. They're also easier to recommend since they're standalone. But there's some in-continuity ones I like a lot. So, hmm, some off the top of my head:
I just read Denny O'Neil & Curt Sean's Kryptonite Nevermore and it's great, if a little dated, and with wonky physics (Silver Age!).
Then there's what got me into comics: The Death & Return of Superman epic. Having 're-read it recently (new editions!), I think it holds up for the most part.
Geoff Johns' run is good up until the New Krypton stuff, which starts strong but gets progressively messier.
I loved Kurt Busiek's run, which was overshadowed by Johns at the time.
Emperor Joker is fun as hell.
I kinda dug Exile, where Superman left Earth for fear of his mental instability after killing the three Kryptonian criminals.
I actually liked the first story arc for Morrison's New 52.
Although I don't agree with all of Byrne's decisions, I can't deny his Man of Steel mini-series is worth getting.
I really liked the One Year Later story by Johns & Busiek. I liked the exploration of how Clark handled being de-powered for a year.
There's a great 2-parted shortly after he returned to life. They turned Toyman into a child killer who kills Cat Grant's son. Superman deals with the anguish that he can't save everyone and it's probably the best Cat Grant story.
Not sure where to post this, but since I'll be abusing the shit out of it, I thought I'd share:
Barnes and Noble having a Buy 2, get 1 Free sale for DC and Vertigo trades/graphic novels
Really glad I didn't impulse-buy Friday the 13th this weekend.
Barnes and Noble having a Buy 2, get 1 Free sale for DC and Vertigo trades/graphic novels
Really glad I didn't impulse-buy Friday the 13th this weekend.
Had a random thought this morning. Not really sure what the point is of showing the parallel, but I thought it was interesting that a recent controversy somewhat parallels another:
Kathy Griffin posted a picture of a beheaded Donald Trump. It's been rightfully criticized and I'll admit that's taking things too far.
Similarly, though, was the infamous cover for Crime Suspense Stories by EC Comics. It's the cover that created the strongest argument against comics. Its legacy was being one of the prime reasons for the creation of the Comics Code.
I just thought the parallels between the two controversies was interesting.
Kathy Griffin posted a picture of a beheaded Donald Trump. It's been rightfully criticized and I'll admit that's taking things too far.
At the risk of bouncing this into the politics forum, the right is in a total lather over the Kathy Griffin pic. Some are trying to flat out deny they didn't burn Obama in effigy on a daily basis for EIGHT FUCKING YEARS.
