So this week has been all about
Robert Kirkman’s Invincible. I’ve toyed with reading the series before, but this is the first time I’ve sat down and actually tried reading it straight through (or, at least as “straight through” as 3 issues a night will allow me). I don’t know why Invincible has never appealed to me before. Some of Kirkman’s early work (like
Tech Jacket, for instance) was so spare and unadulterated it hardly seemed worth reading. Concepts were generally sound, but many of his scripts felt very bare bones. But if
The Walking Dead has done nothing else for me, it has proven that I shouldn’t underestimate Robert Kirkman, so it seemed only fair to give Invincible another shot.
Like Walking Dead, it takes a few issues of
Invincible for the series to really get moving in an interesting direction. One of my biggest mistakes was originally judging the series based on my impression of the first two or three issues. These issues are important to the story, no doubt, but the status quo they establish is quickly (and, for the sake of the series’ longevity, fortunately) decimated. What’s left is an interesting hybrid – part Erik Larsen’s
Savage Dragon, part Garth Ennis’
The Boys – that both embraces and subverts common comic book cliches. My only question at this point (13 issues into the lengthy run) is whether or not the series is meant to be read as a broad satire. I’ve already witnessed the introduction (and decapitation) of the JLA-like Guardians of the Globe, and the chief investigator into their murder, the uncannily Rorschach-like Demon Detective. So, is Invincible a homage to Kirkman’s comic book favorites or an opportunity to lampoon them? Is there room to do both simultaneously without weakening the whole?
More on this as I read further into the series….
Posted via email from skinnerbox’s posterous
Skinnerbox: Here’s a really clever way to promote a book. Like the writer below, however, I wish the filmmakers had spent some of their budget on better makeup for the villain – or maybe actually hire an actor with a mustache? Regardless, I’m jazzed about the book. How about you?
I’m not generally a fan of promotional trailers for comics and books — most rely on dull montages and even worse music — but this new spot for Seth Grahame-Smith’s upcoming novel Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is incredibly well done. Well, if you can ignore the really obvious wig and fake mustache on whom I presume is vampire-John Wilkes-Booth.
The novel, Grahame-Smith’s follow-up to the bestselling Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, depicts Lincoln as the savior of the Union and lifelong enemy of the undead. The author has a couple of comic-book connections: He was among the genre novelists who contributed to the latest Marvel Zombies miniseries. In May, Del Rey/Villard will release a graphic-novel adaptation of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is due March 2 from Grand Central Publishing.
Posted via email from skinnerbox’s posterous
There was a moment in Superman III when the briefest window of potential in an otherwise dismal film irised open. When Superman was divided into two halves – one purely good, the other purely evil – viewers glimpsed the possibility of a once pristine superhero devolving into a malevolent ultra-human. Blink during the film (or sleep, which wasn’t hard to do in Supes III) and you’d miss Christopher Reeve in a dirt-encrusted Superman leotard getting drunk and generally causing mid-grade havoc.
Fortunately, the potential lost on film has been recaptured by writer Mark Waid and artist Peter Krause in Irredeemable, a new graphic novel compilation released by fledgling Boom Studios. Waid is incredibly well-known in the comics field, graduating from the ranks of DC Comics’ editors to become one of its most prominent writers. His forte, or at least so says the conventional wisdom, is writing modernized, action-oriented superhero stories that somehow manage to stay true to the traditions of the classic characters he’s assigned. Over the years, Waid has revitalized The Flash, Superman, the Fantastic Four and others. None of this work, however, can prepare you for what he has done with Irredeemable. Inscrutably, this writer of classic, traditional comics has taken the Superman tradition and twisted it straight to hell.
Imagine if Superman became totally corrupted – not by some rainbow variety of kryptonite or by some stock villain of the week, but by something far more common and insidious – the common man. Imagine having super hearing, only to always hear every snarky, sarcastic, hateful comment uttered by an otherwise “adoring” public. And imagine trying to live a normal life when the paparazzi can just never, ever get enough of you. Think Brad and Angelina have it bad? How much worse would it be if they had super powers?
None of the traditional Superman iconography is present in the book, but it doesn’t have to be. By decontextualizing the Superman character (referred to in Irredeemable as The Plutonian) readers get a clearer “take” on the man-god than could ever be accomplished within one of the Man of Steel’s actual books. In many ways, Superman’s costume and image engender so many pop culture-driven connotations there is really no way to critically examine such a character. So Waid has done the next best thing by giving readers a Superman they can deconstruct.
Most comics fans will recognize that many of the themes, techniques and characterizations in Irredeemable have been seen before, most notably in Alan Moore’s Miracleman (Moore’s take on the Captain Marvel story) and Watchmen (where Dr. Manhattan represents the loss of humanity that comes from gaining super powers). That is not to say, though, that Irredeemable is a cheap copy or stylistic cheat of some kind. Far from it. Consider it instead a kind of amalgamation: one part gee-whiz-bang-pow locomotive of an action story, another part cultural commentary, and a third part subversion of the archetypal superhero motif. Read it…trust me…and don’t even THINK about watching Superman III on cable this weekend.
Cross-posted on GuysLitWire.
Confusion. That was my first reaction after reading David Mazzucchelli’s Asterios Polyp. Normally, an experience like that would be endlessly frustrating. I mean, who wants to finish reading a book only to be left dazed and confused by the process? This time, however, I found the perplexity exhilarating, like a well-designed puzzle that must be savored and relished before it is solved.
Intrigued yet? You should be.
Like many comic book fans, I first encountered David Mazzucchelli through his
work on Marvel’s Daredevil, first with writer Denny O’Neil and then with Frank Miller. To be honest, the work with O’Neil was interesting, but ultimately forgettable – pretty standard comic book fare for the time. It was Mazzucchelli’s collaboration with Miller on Daredevil: Born Again that really made me aware of what untapped talent he had. Many were initially upset that Miller himself was not pencilling his triumphant return to the character that made him famous. After reading the first issue with Mazzucchelli, all fears and doubts were put away. Mazzucchelli’s work on Daredevil was quickly followed by another collaboration with Miller – the oft-mentioned (and inspiration for the film Batman Begins) Batman: Year One.
None of this work, as great and spectacular as it is, can possibly prepare you for the monumental evolution of Mazzucchelli’s work that is represented by Asterios Polyp. Gone are the pulp heroes, the realistic character depictions and the melodramatic storytelling techniques. These are replaced by philosophical musings wrapped in the tale of one man’s undoing and redemption, conveyed by a loose-lined, cartoonish art style. If it sounds heavy and depressing, it is surprisingly not. In fact, it is both ebullient and contemplative, a delicate balance that is deftly handled throughout the work.
The title character of Asterios Polyp is a college professor and architect of some renown, though he is a “paper architect” – his designs are theoretical and thus are never actually built. The story begins at what we think is the end of a rather pathetic and paltry existence (and through a series of flashbacks we learn just how much goodness Polyp has thrown away or wasted in his life), but turns out to be the beginning of self-revelation for this intensely inward-looking man. Along the way, the graphic novel covers territory as diverse as: love, duality, rivalry, design, aesthetics, religion, auto mechanics and (perhaps most importantly) the illusion of male power.
If it sounds as though I completely understand this work, well, remember that confusion I mentioned at the start of this review? Yeah. I’m in the dark still about much of what Mazzucchelli is trying to say. But I’m ok with that. Even if I grapple with one-tenth of the subject matter of Asterios Polyp I think I’m doing pretty well. If this graphic novel teaches nothing else, it’s that the the experience of life is more important than the knowledge gained, catalogued and hoarded. Confusion is just another part of the ride.
Cross-Posted at Guyslitwire.
DC Comics has a love affair with experimental formats and with bridging the past with the present. Some of their experiments have worked wondrously (most notably the Morrison/Rucka/Waid/Johns/Giffen weekly comics joint 52), some have failed miserably (the 52 follow-up Countdown to Final Crisis), and some have died of attrition and neglect (the seldom-remembered Action Comics Weekly, published WAY back in the 80s).
Fortunately, the powers that be at DC still hope to reignite the passion and wonder that kids and former kids used to have when seeing their favorite comics characters in print. It is that spirit of yesteryear that fuels the publication of Wednesday Comics, and the series looks to be a phenomenal success.
A throwback to simpler times in every way, DC’s Wednesday Comics is published on full-sized, 14”x20” newsprint and features weekly installments of 15 famous (and not so famous) DC characters. Each character has his/her own creative team in charge of producing one full page of story per week for the full 12 week run of the series. While this limits the amount of story that can be told each week, it broadens the horizons for the artists, who are free to create large, flashy splash pages using a variety of layout techniques. The art, in spite of the low quality paper, is spectacular and will immediately remind older readers of mornings spent poring over the exploits of such characters as Prince Valiant and Dick Tracy in the Sunday funnies.
Since this is only the first issue, it remains to be seen which of the 15 serialized stories will rise above the others, but early favorites include Neil Gaiman and Mike Allred’s Metamorpho: The Element Man strip, Paul Pope’s Strange Adventures featuring pulp hero Adam Strange, and artist extraordinaire Kyle Baker’s Hawkman.
As is fitting for any DC publication, Superman and Batman each have a dedicated page (the latter nearly stealing the show with its noir-inspired artwork courtesy of Eduardo Risso), and well-known characters such as Wonder Woman, Supergirl, the Flash, the Teen Titans and Green Lantern also have their own features.
For readers who already love comics, this series is a must-read. For those who have limited exposure to comic books, Wednesday Comics’ short-burst storytelling style is the perfect way to introduce the DC pantheon of characters. DC’s Wednesday Comics pushes comics forwards by looking backwards.
Cross-posted on GuysLitWire
I hate to be a part of an ever-growing, and ever-annoying trend, but yes – I blog, therefore I tweet. All is not lost, however, since many, many comics writers and artists have found their way onto the Twitter highway. Have I missed any? Drop me a line to let me know. Click any of the links below to follow any of these writers/artists:
Agent M (Ryan Penagos, Marvel.com editor/writer)
Andy Diggle
Bryan Lee O’Malley
Brian Michael Bendis
Brian Reed
Chris Eliopoulos
Ed Brubaker
Geoff Johns
Jimmy Palmiotti
Joe Hill
Joe Quesada
Kevin Smith
Mark Evanier
Mark Waid
Matt Fraction
Neil Gaiman
Rob Liefeld
Robert Kirkman
Todd Nauck
Tom Brevoort
Tom Peyer
Warren Ellis
I’m a Mark Bagley snob. I admit it. I just don’t care for the man’s art unless it’s on one specific book – Ultimate Spider-Man. This is strange, considering I didn’t think much of his work when he pencilled Amazing Spider-Man in the early 90s. There is something that happened to his pencils when he teamed up with Brian Michael Bendis that helped them transcend their overwhelming mediocrity and sameness. I think it has much to do with the quality of Bendis’ scripts and the fact that the cast of characters is primarily made up of teenagers. Bagley is able to capture youth extremely well, so his teen versions of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, etc, were exceptional. He has since moved on from Ultimate Spidey, and that’s a crying shame. As a result of his move, DC Comics has editorially decided that Bagley is the “it” penciller of the moment. I assume this is as a result of his recent work on Trinity, a series I gave up within the first ten issues. Trinity’s scripts were more problematic than the art (what has happened to Kurt Buseik???), but Bagley’s takes on DC’s big three left me distinctly underwhelmed.
Now, Mark Bagley has been handed one of DC’s flagship titles – the JLA. There’s a good side and a bad side to this move. The good side is that Bagley has been teamed with one of my favorite writers, James Robinson, so there’s the possibility that a new version of that old Bendis/Bagley chemistry can be ignited. The bad side is that I didn’t care for Bagley’s versions of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in Trinity, and I have no reason to believe they will significantly change for the JLA. I’ll give it a shot, at least to see what Robinson can do with the JLA. Maybe DC’s editors won’t handcuff his ideas like they did with Dwayne McDuffie.
There are two types of collectibles that I just don’t get (and probably never will). They are the bobblehead and the bust. Both are “B” words and both are completely unnecessary.
Let’s look at the bobblehead first. According to the aptly named Bobbleheads.com, this trinket of idiocy was first mentioned in print in 1842 and has seen its popularity ebb and flow over the years. Most frequently remembered as dogs or baseball players standing in the rear windows of 1960’s-era Chevy’s and Buicks, these yes-men of doom have now spread out into virtually every facet of our pop culture driven society. When I saw the Ozzy Osbourne bobblehead I finally knew for sure that the human race was winding down.
So what exactly do I hate about these big headed nodders? Just that. We already have the far superior Super-Deformed aesthetic thanks to those awesomely crazy Japanese so why must we also have bobbleheads? Why do they need to nod? Is anyone actually buying up all these SKUs of crap merchandise? Who exactly looks at a bobblehead in the package and mutters, “I must have that” under their beer-soaked breath? Why aren’t the cool SD figures good enough for Americans? WHY MUST WE BOBBLE?! I see absolutely no point to it. The central load bearing structure of the bobbleheads’ bodies mean that design aesthetics must be sacrificed for the bobble function. I say, NO MORE!
The other item that bugs the hell out of me is the bust and it’s angry cousin the mini bust. Want to know why these exist? Licensing agreements, my friends. When Lucasfilm sells Hasbro the rights to make action figures, they do so in an explicit contract. Then some yahoo over at Gentle Giant thinks he could make a better Ponda Baba (AKA Butt Face) sculpt so he decides that GG must make action figures too. Oh no, says LFL. You may not. Hasbro owns that right. So the minions at GG think and think and think and then probably drink a lot and eventually come up with the idea that they could get a different license if their figures had no legs! BRILLIANT, says LFL. Fork over the dough. Thus opens another portal to hell as figures end up buried to the waist in Geonosian rock and Star Wars fans by the thousands pay their hard-earned cash for the upper halves of characters they cherish.
Is there a case when a bust would be cool? Only if it’s in marble and on display in a rotunda of some sort. So far I’ve yet to see a film character worthy of that sort of adulation but I haven’t given up hope for Ah-nold just yet. We may eventually see the Austrian Republican immortalized in stone.
Look, just please stop buying these. It’s the only way we can discourage their manufacture. Sure, a few old Chinese women will have to move over to the Triumph dog toy production line, but it’s a small price to pay for the sanity of our great nation.
From www.afhub.com:
Looks like someone might actually make up for the horrendous, repugnant idiocy that was the movie series of Dick Tracy figures. I’m not too keen on the overly-visible super-articulated joints on these, but the likenesses are Chester Gould retro-cool, and the black and white doesn’t hurt either.
I’m stuck in the middle as far as this one is concerned. Once again, DC Comics is reaching out to their band of outcasts/misfits/freaks (just don’t call them MUTANTS!), The Doom Patrol. This time, writer Keith Giffen and artist Matthew Clark are taking a stab at the team that has proven difficult for many creative powers over the years. I’m inclined to give Giffen the benefit of the doubt, but so many have tried to twist this team around their collective fingers to no avail, it is certainly not an easy road he’s chosen to travel. On top of the many failures, anyone attempting a DP book has to contend with the ominous shadow of Grant Morrison looming over them, as Morrison’s take on the book can only be described as a masterwork.
So, here’s to the return of the Doom Patrol. May John Byrne never get near this book again.
