Bought/Thought January 28th *spoilers*

[BrianWilly]

Justice Society of America #23
How can Geoff Johns make me love him and hate him so fiercely in the same moment? It must be a gift.

Let's get to the bad first. First of all, where the heck is Power Girl during is Incredibly Important Meeting? Is she the chairwoman or isn't she? I think Johns is seriously nerfing a lot of these characters, which is quite a feat when you consider that he's the one that raised a lot of these characters up to their current situations in the first place. Case in point, look at how Al Rothstein has been depicted here; a bellicose bruiser with a chip on his shoulder who's argumentative and hyperdefensive and can't understand why others would have a problem with that. Which would seem like valid characterization, since this was his characterization when Johns did such good work with him several years ago. Except that that was several years ago. Why is he still this way? Didn't we get past this the last time this story happened? Al seems to have hit some sort of characterization brick wall under Johns, wherein went through a lot but doesn't seem to have learned anything from it. It feels like we've been tricked into thinking that the character has progressed, and yet here he is being static. It feels like Johns made the character, I dunno, deserve more than being static, but hasn't delivered the final step. Which is worse than if he had remained a character with no potential from the outset. And a part of it has to do with the general story of this arc; Black Adam is evil again! JSA has to stop him! Beh.

And Hawkman? Johns was the guy who "rebirthed" Hawkman in a fantastic JSA story tying up all his complicated continuity -- hmm, sound familiar? -- but, by the dark gods, Hawkman has gotten horrible under this title. Maybe this whiny barbaric madman is how Hawkman really is and I've just had the wrong impression of him all this time, except that I read Carter's depiction under Busiek for Trinity and under Robinson for Hawkman's own series, and...man. "Feels like a different character" doesn't even begin to cover it.

But I don't think any other character has been quite as nerfed by Johns in this series as Tom Bronson, aka Wildcat III. Again, Johns was the guy who introduced him in the first place, and it was a great introduction that made the character stand out. He was a badass! He didn't give a **** about ****. He wasn't some starstruck boy looking up to daddy to mentor him in whatever. And possibly bisexual! *shrug* But none of that might as well have been a part of the character at all because now Ted is like, "I'll take the blame for what Tommy did" or something and "I'm makin' him stay."

What? Excuse me? what was that again?

I mean, it's pretty subtle so I don't expect anyone but me to have noticed but...seriously, excuse me? Why in the world would Tom's mistakes -- Tom, not Tommy -- have ****all to do with Ted? Like he needed Absentee Daddy's permission to have an opinion? If Ted had actually raised him or something then, yeah, I can see him as a parent holding himself responsible. But Tom is his own person, with his own ideas about things that have nothing to do with Ted. I mean how old is Tom anyway? He was living on his own so...what, eighteen, nineteen? Seventeen at the least? "I'm makin' him stay?" Since when did Ted become the boss of his ADULT SON's life, that Tom was living just fine with no complaints before Ted ever appeared? Except that, somewhere along the way, Johns seems to have made him just that. And it might have been a really good character arc for the both of them if we ever actually saw that happen and if we saw, for instance, Tom being resistant to the idea at first like, y'know, a normal human person would, and then eventually warming up to the notion of having a father figure. But we never saw any of that. One day it was "I'm a smokin', badass, but well-adjusted adult" and the next it's "Daddy is makin' me stay."

And y'know, part of the problem is with the arc before this. Part of the problem was with how very one-dimensionally Johns depicted the "conflict" between the JSAers as "People who sided with Gog are just ****ing wrong no question about it wrong they're wrong okay just wrong, the end." Which, okay, when you got someone threatening to turn people who don't agree with him into trees then yeah, it's pretty obvious that's not right. But bringing up a charged ethics debate just to tip the scales overwhelmingly for one side over the other is just...it's trite. It's cartoonish propaganda over a decidedly uncartoonish situation. And Johns has done it over and over again over the topic of "superheroes killing."

So that's the bad. What's the good?

The good is OH MY ****ING GOD ACTUAL ****ING CONTINUITY. The Bromfields! Okay, so their names were misspelled, but seriously the ****ing Bromfields! I hope it was Johns who remembered them, but it's more likely that Jerry Ordway did (considering that he wrote that ****ing series), but seriously, someone at ****ing DC ****ing finally remembered that the ****ing Marvels actually had a family-slash-supporting-cast and did not exist as ****ing vaccuums onto themselves. After the last few years of ****ing Judd Winick ****ing with continuity however he likes and ****ing Countdown acting like Mary is just a homeless person or something, you don't know how happy it makes me to see actual. ****ing. CONTINUITY. For the Marvels.

And make no mistake, Johns writes the Marvels very well. Well, okay, I'm not crazy about making Isis into Mrs. Crazy McCrazyWoman #8913, but I see Billy here actually acting like Billy and it's like my heart is punching Judd Winick in the face. Look, I liked some things that happened in Trials of Shazam. I even liked some things that happened with Billy in Trials of Shazam. But that character was not Billy, and that story was not a Captain Marvel story, and if that was DC's best attempt* at enriching the legacy aspects of the Marvel family then, damn, I really need to reexamine my support of the Marvels as a legacy. I am very, very looking forward to what Johns is going to set up for the Marvels at the end of this story. Please do not let me down again, Johns. This comic needs you to go out with a bang instead of the whimper that it has been.

*Speaking rhetorically; of course I believe that DC could have done better. They just didn't.

(6.9 out of 10)

 

[Manic]

I used to like Isis so much, but her death during 52 already made me hate her. Here was a woman with so much mercy and so much forgiveness, but the moment she died in a fight, her last words were akin to "You know what? ****it! Avenge me! Kill them all! I don't care anymore!" So I'm probably one of the few people that was not looking forward to her return in JSA.

 

[Aristotle]

First of all, where the heck is Power Girl during is Incredibly Important Meeting? Is she the chairwoman or isn't she? I think Johns is seriously nerfing a lot of these characters, which is quite a feat when you consider that he's the one that raised a lot of these characters up to their current situations in the first place.

I'm of two minds about that. My first mind says this: I kind of like it when the people that everyone knows are the real show-runners have their own private little ****-everyone-else meetings. I loved that the Trinity made themselves a private little conference room in JLA, and I loved seeing the people that I think really matter to the JSA making the real decisions. My second mind is this: Yeah, Power Girl's getting hosed, but I think the reason that it's OK is implicit in what you're saying: he did essentially create the present versions of these characters. These characters are his babies. And you sort of have to figure that this is a basic narrative arc he's intended for quite a long time. JSA was all about weaving these massive arcs for each individual character together, and Justice Society of America seems to be getting back to that now that the first 22 issues of the book have basically been wasted on quasi-event storytelling. So I'm thinking this is always what he wanted to do with these JSA storylines.

Case in point, look at how Al Rothstein has been depicted here; a bellicose bruiser with a chip on his shoulder who's argumentative and hyperdefensive and can't understand why others would have a problem with that. Which would seem like valid characterization, since this was his characterization when Johns did such good work with him several years ago. Except that that was several years ago. Why is he still this way? Didn't we get past this the last time this story happened?

I don't think we did get it completely out of the way. Al was still in prison at the time of Infinite Crisis, wasn't he? Or something like that, somehow persona non grata with the JSA.

And here's the other thing: what has Al done that was wrong? I know everyone in the JSA is jumping on him, but what exactly did he do that was so terrible? Damage attacked him, in his own home. I don't see how Al's reaction was any different from what Hawkman or Jay Garrick or Alan Scott would have done.

And Hawkman? Johns was the guy who "rebirthed" Hawkman in a fantastic JSA story tying up all his complicated continuity -- hmm, sound familiar? -- but, by the dark gods, Hawkman has gotten horrible under this title. Maybe this whiny barbaric madman is how Hawkman really is and I've just had the wrong impression of him all this time, except that I read Carter's depiction under Busiek for Trinity and under Robinson for Hawkman's own series, and...man. "Feels like a different character" doesn't even begin to cover it.

This is how I remember Hawkman being presented in almost every title for a long time. Hot-headed, hot-tempered, warlike, aggressive, conservative. Remember when he just seized control of the JSA? Remember when he would brook no opposition to his idea that Black Adam had to be taken down? We're seeing a different Hawkman in Trinity because he's in different situations, and likewise in his solo book under Robinson (and Johns, for that matter.) But they've always seemed to me like shades of the same basic core personality.

But I don't think any other character has been quite as nerfed by Johns in this series as Tom Bronson, aka Wildcat III. Again, Johns was the guy who introduced him in the first place, and it was a great introduction that made the character stand out. He was a badass! He didn't give a **** about ****. He wasn't some starstruck boy looking up to daddy to mentor him in whatever. And possibly bisexual! *shrug* But none of that might as well have been a part of the character at all because now Ted is like, "I'll take the blame for what Tommy did" or something and "I'm makin' him stay."

I thought he came pre-nerfed. I didn't like him at all. At least, I don't think I did. I certainly don't remember liking him, and as I reflect upon all of his appearances, I don't like him in any of them.

Who's taking over on JSA after Johns is done?

 

[CaptainCanada]

Who's taking over on JSA after Johns is done?

Willingham and Sturges.

I've never been much-impressed by Willingham's non-Fables stuff (and his recent little manifesto didn't do anything to change that), but Sturges' mainstream superhero work has been quite good.

 

[Mr. Green]

Damn. I just read NA #49 and I thought it was pretty kick-ass. Luke Cage is one bad dude and the issue was basically a setup for a huge NA vs DA fight in NA #50 which will be double-sized. Hopefully that translates into double the ass-kicking.

 

[Aristotle]

Damn. I just read NA #49 and I thought it was pretty kick-ass. Luke Cage is one bad dude and the issue was basically a setup for a huge NA vs DA fight in NA #50 which will be double-sized. Hopefully that translates into double the ass-kicking.

I'm trusting you and Corp that these titles are worth my time...don't make me hunt you down if you're wrong.

 

[Manic]

Countdown to disappointment in New Avengers:
T minus 10...

 

[RockSP]

Bought

Captain America #46
Daredevil #115
Proof #16
Astounding Wolf-Man #12
Avengers: The Initiative #21
JSA #23
Nova #21
Top 10 #3
Faces of Evil: Kobra
Final Crisis #7
Fantastic Four #563
Incredible Hercules #125
X-Force #11
Umbrella Academy: Dallas #3
Wonder Woman #28
Blue Beetle #35

Thought

Pretty good week. FF, Final Crisis and Wonder Woman were the only "eh" reads.

Proof - I can't remember if they said the Dover Demon is always correct with his predictions. If so, it sucks to be Elvis.

Avengers: The Initiative - Gauntlet's "promotion" while funny seems kind of out of place. Wouldn't the CSA have some say on who takes the over Camp Hammond?

 

[fifthfiend]

Willingham and Sturges.

I've never been much-impressed by Willingham's non-Fables stuff (and his recent little manifesto didn't do anything to change that), but Sturges' mainstream superhero work has been quite good.

He has sort of the same laboriously overwritten tone that Kirkman does (I'd say that in Willingham's case it crosses over into just sort of outright didactic). Which isn't such a flaw in Fables (except for when he lapses into tortured analogies for Israeli politics or anything related to a romantic relationship) because it's a universe he's making up as he goes along so hey, sometimes you need **** explained. But in a mainstream universe it's like dude, it's Robin. We pretty much have an idea of what this dude is about and you can assume we're pretty down with whatever that is so just take all that and, like, go, don't drag him down making him haul your 1,000-ton weight of wordbubbles.

 

[Aristotle]

I'm sad that Johns is leaving JSA with so much of his character work left undone. That guy needs to finish projects before he leaves them. JSA, Action Comics, Flash, Teen Titans...all of them have felt like he had more to say, and like he hadn't fully ended the stories he'd set up. I guess Flash came close to feeling like a real ending with Rogue War, but we know for a fact that he had more he wanted to do, thanks to his exit interviews.

 

[Themanofbat]

In case you might have missed this...

I think that soap opera style is still around, and I don't mind that, but what I do mind is what it led to: decompression. That's a direct descendant of the soap-operatic nature of modern superhero comics.

I fail to see the connection, because I hate the decompression made for trade-paperbacks type of storytelling, and I really don't see how one led to the other.

It was executed in just the way that Frank and I were talking about would make a "good" event: it had tightly controlled tie-ins that were relevant to the story and coherent unto their home books, but were anything but necessary. They had a nice little Daily Planet insert in all the books to keep you abreast of the few tie-ins that were recommended reading (but not essential reading) by virtue of being more closely linked spinoffs than some others. And while Invasion! did seem to foist itself on titles that maybe it shouldn't have, those titles dealt with it pretty well: the Animal Man tie-in is actually one of the best issues of the series. The mainline Invasion! book was also pretty solid, a nice straightforward war story. I guess I'm not sure why you felt it was poorly handled.

You know... as I typed my original post at work, I had time to think about "why" I didn't like Invasion inasmuch as the other previous DC "big event" books (which were Legends and Crisis), and truth be told, the art was terrible (at least in the 3 issues of the main book) in my opinion, which is somewhat shocking when you think of Bart Sears, Todd McFarlane & Keith Giffen, and when compared to Legends & Crisis, the story was really lacking... I was only 21 at the time, but I thought that DC really struck out with this one, and with the following year's Armageddon 2001 flop, the DC "big event" abyss was on its way.

Marvel owns the market. They own their movie properties outright (or some of them, at any rate.) They've got the money to do things like Swamp Thing or Pride of Baghdad or Y The Last Man or Promethea or Planetary.

Marvel may own the market, but it still doesn't make nearly as much money from comic book sales when compared to WB's very deep pockets.

Now, with the successes of the Spider-Man & X-Men movies, we've seen Marvel put that money into Marvel Studios and then we get a more cohesive Marvel Movie-Verse with Iron Man & the Hulk... and if their movies continue to make good money, let's hope we can see these profits return in the form of continual publishing of lesser selling on-going titles...

Definitely true. But why doesn't that theory hold just as true for Marvel? I expect a publisher like Boom! or Dynamite to be less able to do some of the more high-concept stuff, but why is Marvel dragging its feet?

I think Marvel is a victim of its own success, and when they need to do something like continuing the publishing of lower selling titles, it needs to be ok'ed by majority stockholders and whatnots whereas the lesser know publishers fly by the seat of their pants by the whims of their owners who are not bottlenecked by shareholders.

Nonetheless, lower selling titles like Ghost Rider & Moon Knight, cult favorites in their own right, are continuing to be published in spite of what would have been "cancellation numbers" in the past... so maybe it's already happening.

 

[Aristotle]

I fail to see the connection, because I hate the decompression made for trade-paperbacks type of storytelling, and I really don't see how one led to the other.

Soap opera storytelling lends itself very well to decompression. You increase the soap opera drama, which fans want, and decrease the actual action and events in the story. You slow things down from actually happening, allowing you to take a story that should be one-and-done, and stretch it out into six issues by inflating it with more drama than makes sense.

You know... as I typed my original post at work, I had time to think about "why" I didn't like Invasion inasmuch as the other previous DC "big event" books (which were Legends and Crisis), and truth be told, the art was terrible (at least in the 3 issues of the main book) in my opinion, which is somewhat shocking when you think of Bart Sears, Todd McFarlane & Keith Giffen, and when compared to Legends & Crisis, the story was really lacking...

I guess the art is just different strokes for different folks. I thought the story was fun. Just a nice straight-up war.

Marvel may own the market, but it still doesn't make nearly as much money from comic book sales when compared to WB's very deep pockets.

I don't think they're so strapped for cash that they couldn't support literature.

 

[BrianWilly]

I don't think we did get it completely out of the way. Al was still in prison at the time of Infinite Crisis, wasn't he? Or something like that, somehow persona non grata with the JSA.

To me, the idea that Albert saw what a stupid mistake he made in Kahndaq and then did what he could to rectify that was a big deal. I mean, he went to jail of his own accord, after all. It meant that he could see that he made a mistake. It means that he could change, has changed. It shows that he understood, "Okay, I need to stop leading with my fists. I need to think things through, be less judgmental. Take a bigger look at things," which he may not have understood before. And that's important; there are character who could never see their own mistakes, much less grow from them, and that's what separates progressive characters from static ones. I got two words for you: Spider. Man.

Except...what exactly about Al has changed, now? He still has the same exact attitude about everything that he had when he sided with Adam, the only difference is that it's directed at different targets. He's still critical, still hasn't learned restraint, still thinks it's the other guy's fault when a fight breaks out. He hasn't changed his tune, all he's changed is the instrument. He still feels like the same guy who's liable to make the same exact mistakes he did before, just with different recipients this time.

And here's the other thing: what has Al done that was wrong? I know everyone in the JSA is jumping on him, but what exactly did he do that was so terrible? Damage attacked him, in his own home. I don't see how Al's reaction was any different from what Hawkman or Jay Garrick or Alan Scott would have done.

Damage definitely took the cake in the "self-righteous dumbass" tourney, but if you look at the scenes with the two of them, neither were exactly being paragons of reason and self-control. There were times that Grant was telling Al that he didn't want any trouble while Al went ahead and punched him anyway, and then there were scenes where Al was begging Grant to calm down to no avail. Both threw "first" punches. Both were posturing and physically trying to outman the other. Grant was definitely just a dumbass, but I think Al should have known better.

But I actually wasn't thinking about how he acted against Damage particularly, I was thinking more about how he responds to it here, in this issue. "It's his fault! He's the one who did yada yada! I was only trying to blah de blah. He totally sux and I don't!" Again, this sort of self-justifying argumentative persona that won't own up to anything bad he may have done so long as he did what he felt he had to do...it feels exactly like the sort of guy he was when he fell under Adam's sway way back then. Just exchange "Kahndaq" for "Grant Emerson" and we're good to go.

I think part of what I'm feeling also comes from how repetitive this story feels. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to the Marvel portions of the story and I think it needs to be told, but "JSA has to take care of Black Adam's mess" is so damned old hat at this point. All the points have been hit. It practically writes itself. I wonder, will the "You were my friend, Albert, yet you choose to side against me?" speech come in the second issue or the third?

This is how I remember Hawkman being presented in almost every title for a long time. Hot-headed, hot-tempered, warlike, aggressive, conservative. Remember when he just seized control of the JSA? Remember when he would brook no opposition to his idea that Black Adam had to be taken down? We're seeing a different Hawkman in Trinity because he's in different situations, and likewise in his solo book under Robinson (and Johns, for that matter.) But they've always seemed to me like shades of the same basic core personality.

Someone on another forum puts it better than I would:

Carter starts out his whole argument with, "I co-founded this team! I was the leader for a long time! I even built that ****ing table that I broke in a fit of anger!" As in, "You can't do this to me, because my seniority should give me special consideration."

And he basically concludes with a classic "Well, you can't fire me... because I QUIT!" Again, pissy little tantrum.

When I think of Hawkman, I tend to think of a moment like this. And I realize that moments like that are very few and very far between, but...

...I'll put it this way. I ramble a lot occasionally about how mishandled Wonder Woman was during the mid-to-late 90s. Every writer except for a very rare few looked at her and saw WARRIOR and it's all they ever saw of her and so all she did all day long was fight and spar and then spar some more 'cause apparently it's not like she had anything else to do in her free time. And it's not like it was an inaccurate characterization because, well, everyone was characterizing her the same way. It's not like one title had her one way and another title had her another, no, it was consistent. But just because it was consistent doesn't mean it was good for the character. That doesn't mean that the character could be so much better, that its potential isn't flashing bright red neon at any writers within range and begging to be used.

I thought he came pre-nerfed. I didn't like him at all. At least, I don't think I did. I certainly don't remember liking him, and as I reflect upon all of his appearances, I don't like him in any of them.

I didn't like him like him, certainly not like I like actual characters that I like. But I'm saying that Johns set up a very tactile, solid background for the character, and yet he himself hasn't been following through that in a logical, relatable way. Tom Bronson was introduced as a self-reliant and savvy young man. He didn't know his father growing up, but -- and this is a key "but" -- he didn't feel bad about it or end up the worser for it or anything. That was the setup that Johns gave us: this is a grown-ass man, not Oliver Twist. And grown-ass men do not react submissively to fathers that they never even met before being all patronizing and controlling. That's just not a realistic characterization for the premise that Johns created him under. If Tom were actually in the room when Ted was saying the things he said in this issue, how would he have responded? "Aw, shucks pop, you don't gotta be that way"? Or "Hey screw you, what gives you the right? I don't have to take this."? Johns has set up the latter but has been giving us the former.

I'm not saying that there's no room for character beats here. Hell, Ted Grant is pretty much the exact sort of character who would try to overcompensate by being overly possessive and patronizing to his adult son and not realize it because, well, what the heck does he know about being a father? He's trying to make up for lost time and overdoing it. I get that. And Tom, for all of his self-reliance, probably really did want a father growing up and wouldn't have a big attitude about it. I get that too. The problem is that we never see the line that would connect point A to point B for these characters. No one -- least of all Ted and Tom, much less the narrative "voice" itself -- ever remarks on how loaded their relationship is, everyone just treats it like it's the most ordinary thing in the world. We never saw the changes, the developments, the resistances (ex: "I'm not a child, 'pop,' so please don't treat me like one." etc), the hurdles, the observations of other characters (ex: "Hey Ted, don't you think you're being a little condescending to the kid?" etc), or anything like that; we were just presented with a blueprint of these characters, and then that blueprint was subsequently followed up by a structure that doesn't adhere to the blueprint at all.

Look at it this way: the closest other relationship we have to this in mainstream characters would be Ollie and Connor, and you can see how very differently they treat each other than how Johns has Ted and Tom treat other. Ollie absolutely treats Connor like a son, like his boy, but he never treats him like a kid. And why would he? That just wouldn't make sense and would be condescending to Connor. Ollie occasionally struggles with the right thing to say and gets uncomfortable around this son that he's never known, especially at the beginning, and Connor understands and doesn't push, doesn't ask for what Ollie can't give. That feels like a realistic relationship between what real people in their position would be like. Compare that to Ted and Tom, who've just sort of...bypassed all that, or something, and arrived at a very unequal and unrealistic relationship given their backgrounds.

 

[Darthphere]

Why isn't it art? The formal and technical innovation, the experimentation, the lack of closure and open interpretative position, these are what make it art while a Civil War or a Captain America or a Superman Birthright are not..

What innovation? What the **** are you talking about? And where I'm from, lack of closure and "open interpretative position" is another way to say bad writing.

Oh, so he's saying it's art? Someone let Darthphere know, so Darth can make sure and call the guy a pretentious *****e or whatever.

He's not calling it art, far from it. Actually read the review. And the guy probably is a pretentious *****e.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I paged through NA 49 yesterday and I think I'm the only one that didn't love it. Luke turning the tables at the end was predictable but here's my problem, cage is becoming too powerful in NA. He went from a guy that could lift a few tons and had skin as strong as steel to moderate heavy hitter level with unbreakable skin. Fine, I'll take that, but does it seem to anyone else that he's too badass recently? I mean he taunts Iron Man saying tony can't hurt him and now he can seemingly take out anyone with ease? I guess that's the price for bendis liking you though. I have a definate feeling 50 and 51 are going to be big letdowns especially since 51 is billed a spider-man centric issue and bendis hasn't written a good peter parker in the 616 ever.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm trusting you and Corp that these titles are worth my time...don't make me hunt you down if you're wrong.

Whoa, hey, no, I never said NA or DA were worth your time. I said Mighty Avengers is getting back to the classic Avengers spirit and seems to be setting up a nice parallel redemption story for Hank Pym and the Scarlet Witch (although there's only been one issue so it's hard to tell for sure). New Avengers and Dark Avengers aren't worth the paper they're printed on, as far as I'm concerned. The Dark Avengers as a malevolent, publicly backed boogeyman is kind of a cool element in the Marvel universe, but I wouldn't touch their comic with a ten-foot pole.

Mighty Avengers: Worth a try for at least an arc.
New and Dark Avengers: Drop 'em like they're nuclear.

 

[Darthphere]

If they're nuclear, you probably already got radiation poisoning. Slow and painful death is in your future.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Just like if you were to continue reading NA and DA.

 

[Mr. Green]

I paged through NA 49 yesterday and I think I'm the only one that didn't love it. Luke turning the tables at the end was predictable but here's my problem, cage is becoming too powerful in NA. He went from a guy that could lift a few tons and had skin as strong as steel to moderate heavy hitter level with unbreakable skin. Fine, I'll take that, but does it seem to anyone else that he's too badass recently? I mean he taunts Iron Man saying tony can't hurt him and now he can seemingly take out anyone with ease? I guess that's the price for bendis liking you though. I have a definate feeling 50 and 51 are going to be big letdowns especially since 51 is billed a spider-man centric issue and bendis hasn't written a good peter parker in the 616 ever.

I think you're jumping to conclusions. It's not like Luke Cage has beaten up Iron Man or anything. Also, I don't get how you could've gotten that Cage can "seemingly take out anyone with ease" from NA #49 -- or any NA issues.

And for the record: there is no such thing as too badass.

 

[Mr. Green]

Whoa, hey, no, I never said NA or DA were worth your time. I said Mighty Avengers is getting back to the classic Avengers spirit and seems to be setting up a nice parallel redemption story for Hank Pym and the Scarlet Witch (although there's only been one issue so it's hard to tell for sure). New Avengers and Dark Avengers aren't worth the paper they're printed on, as far as I'm concerned. The Dark Avengers as a malevolent, publicly backed boogeyman is kind of a cool element in the Marvel universe, but I wouldn't touch their comic with a ten-foot pole.

Mighty Avengers: Worth a try for at least an arc.
New and Dark Avengers: Drop 'em like they're nuclear.

The post-SI issues of DA and NA have been better than MA, IMO.

 

[Aristotle]

Damage definitely took the cake in the "self-righteous dumbass" tourney, but if you look at the scenes with the two of them, neither were exactly being paragons of reason and self-control. There were times that Grant was telling Al that he didn't want any trouble while Al went ahead and punched him anyway, and then there were scenes where Al was begging Grant to calm down to no avail. Both threw "first" punches. Both were posturing and physically trying to outman the other. Grant was definitely just a dumbass, but I think Al should have known better.

Al stopped Grant from continuing to attack Courtney. Then, yes, he did smash the mirror (which belonged to him in the first place) because Grant was staring in it constantly, but then Grant blew up the coffee table. Then he destroyed the complete oral history of the original Atom. And then he blew up a piece of Al's house. Now, wouldn't you get into a fight over that?

But I actually wasn't thinking about how he acted against Damage particularly, I was thinking more about how he responds to it here, in this issue. "It's his fault! He's the one who did yada yada! I was only trying to blah de blah. He totally sux and I don't!" Again, this sort of self-justifying argumentative persona that won't own up to anything bad he may have done so long as he did what he felt he had to do...it feels exactly like the sort of guy he was when he fell under Adam's sway way back then. Just exchange "Kahndaq" for "Grant Emerson" and we're good to go.

Again, I just think he's right. He didn't do ****. That was entirely Grant's fault.

 

[Aristotle]

What innovation?

The invention of a new way of scripting a comic book.

And where I'm from, lack of closure and "open interpretative position" is another way to say bad writing.

Where you're from, the last 100 years of artistic and literary development haven't happened yet, I assume?

 

[Blader5489]

The invention of a new way of scripting a comic book.

That's not much of an invention, Morrison said he stole the concept from The Wire.

 

[Aristotle]

That's not much of an invention, Morrison said he stole the concept from The Wire.

I don't see the similarity...what exactly did he say he took from The Wire?

And even if he did, it's still an advancement for either form. There's more than one cubist, there can be more than one narrative pointillist.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

The post-SI issues of DA and NA have been better than MA, IMO.

Yeah, but you like War Machine.