Just in time for Memorial Day: DC’s Source blog has announced a series of one-issue revivals of their classic war comics, including Weird War Tales by Darwyn Cooke.
There’s nothing about this story that isn’t incredibly sad: “Implants land woman superhero role”
This July 8, do your part to protect a world that hates and fears you: Marvel is declaring July 8 a special holiday, X-Men Day. This follows previous promotion of declaring a special Avengers Day. Are they going to keep this up? Because I’d love an excuse to put a Defenders tree up in my house and sing Defenders carols.
“None of the characters—not that I ever saw—ever actually articulated the idea that having less mutants wasn’t necessarily a bad thing”: Speaking of the X-people, Tim O’Neil has a well-observed post about how M-Day broke the X-Men franchise—or at least warped it so much that “Cyclops 2010 talks just like Magneto 1980, or Apocalypse 1995.” It’s a good read, and it should be noted that O’Neil agreed that reducing the number of mutants to more manageable levels and, to use Joe Quesada’s term, putting that genie back in that bottle was a good idea. It was the fact that almost every X-Men story since that dealt with trying to reverse M-Day sort of ruined the X-Men. Does having the genie back in the bottle really matter if you just sit around looking at the genie through the bottle and talking about it all the time?
No link for this one, but I’m sticking it here anyway: Writer Daryl Gregory and artist Scott Godlewski are joining Kurt Busiek for a new Boom series about Dracula and…business? It’s called Dracula: The Company of Monsters and, says Boom, it “tells the story of a powerful, predatory corporation that acquires a valuable asset…Dracula! They think they own him, but no one can own the Son of the Dragon.” Throw in a cover by Dan Brereton and yeah, okay, that sounds pretty interesting.
Is Justice League: The Rise of Arsenal terrible on purpose?: I haven’t read it yet, on account of not being terribly interested in reading about a character I like dealing with losing his arm and having his five-year-old daughter killed. But by all accounts, the miniseries by writer J.T. Krul and far more artists tha should be necessary to tell a four-issue miniseries, is just awful, awful stuff. Worse than you’d expect a comic book about a super-archer who loses his arm and his five-year-old daughter would be.
Now I’m wondering though, if it’s that bad, is it perhaps that bad on purpose? Did Krul and/or his editors decide at some point that there’s just no way to make lemonade out of the lemons they were handed, and so decided to try and make the comic so incredibly bad that people would have to read it, if only to see if it was really as bad as they heard? I don’t know, but if I may offer some anecdotal evidence, when I heard Brian Hibbs describe it as the worst comic he has ever read (and I’m assuming Hibbs has read a lot of Bluewater biographies and Countdown and Ultimates 3 and pretty much anything I might have considered one of the worst comic I had ever read), I kind of wanted to see the series for myself. (I think it was Hibbs’ mention of Roy Harper using a dead cat as a weapon to beat some folks to death that pushed me over the fence).
In his comments section, a lot of folks express a similar desire to read it after hearing just how bad it is, and I see that The Comics Reporter, The Beat, and Journalista have all linked to Hibbs’ review, which will drive more eyeballs to it, which will perhaps convince more potential readers that the comic is so bad it has to be seen (and thus purchased and read) to be belived. Oh no, I just linked to it too! Is this all part of Krul and company’s plan? If so, that is genius.
Iconic or generic?: Esther Inglis-Arkell discusses that Green Arrow preview that was running in a bunch of DC books lately. You know, the one where he interrupts a rape by shooting a dude’s nose off with an arrow. She notes the fact that the sort of scene the preview typifies is a decades-old cliché, but that like all clichés, it’s a cliché for a reason—it works. She also says that the technical perfection of the sequence is obvious.The question of whether a comic book sequence like that is generic or iconic is actually a very interesting one, and I imagine the answer depends on which way one squits and what angle one looks at it. I wouldn’t say the sequence was technically perfect though; I had a really hard time reading it, in large part because of the zig-zagging left to right, now right to left, then left to right lay-out of a two-page spread, in which the right-to-left image is an extreme close-up. Also, there is a difference between this scene and, say, the 567 times Batman, Daredevil and other urban vigilante characters have performed it: It’s really, really brutal. Green Arrow shoots a dude’s nose off. Anyway, check out Inglis-Arkell’s piece; something for superhero fans to meditate on, I suppose.
A brief history of Wonder Woman’s panties: More variety than you might think!