Bought/Thought Thread: September 9th

[Tron Bonne]

Hmm, yeah, I could actually see that, beside this is really from left field. I did like it and all, I really did, but it just doesn't seem to mesh with the previous arc and just seems to be a complete change of genre, too.

Even if it is her real origin, I'm sure there's a plan to it all, but damn if that really was unexpected

 

[Dread]

The Astounding Wolf-Man hasn't had a delay. It's been a bi-monthly book, as of this last issue.

I heard they were trying to go monthly. Still, that book's been rare, too.

Dread's Bought/Thought for 9/9/08: Skrull-Size Cup Edition!

There were a slew of SI books this week. I only got two, though.

SECRET INVASION #6: Deep down, I don't hate this story. I really don't. It's no masterpiece, but it's offering a basic, "heroes fight nasty aliens in big fights" story and I can appreciate that. At the very least, Bendis is having heroes mobilize and express some level of competence with the whole, "saving the world" thing. I mean, yeah, Hood's Gang and the Thunderbolts (Led by Norman Osborn) are helping, but they haven't exactly turned the tide yet; if anything, Nick Fury did (a moment both predicted by fans and admitted by Bendis a year ago). Still, there are flaws. You can easily see areas where things were padded out and stretched, and thus little reason why this story has to be 7 or, help me, 8 issues. Obviously no one in the editorial department wants to tell Bendis to "scale it back" when each issue is selling over 150k at $4 a pop. But story wise there is little reason why this has to be more than 6 issues. It isn't as meandering as HOUSE OF M, thank goodness, and is an improvement on HOM so far on every level. But it is overly long and could have been better.

I have to say, with the 2008 Presidential Election as the backdrop, the themes of the story have seemed more relevant and timely, and I can't imagine that Marvel expected things to be so when this story was pitched sometime in 2006-2007. One slogan is "Embrace Change", which even has it's own website. The theme of the Skrulls is they promise hope and change to the masses of Earth if only they lay back and submit to being invaded (and don't criticize the invasion), and having their superheroes who resist slaughtered in the streets. Of course, this is a lie. The Skrulls want revenge, and behind the promise of "change" is a hollow shell that offers nothing constructive for the common person. Accidentally, and without planning it, Marvel has come very close to having an allegory against the election in general and Barack "The One" Obama in particular. Considering how everyone in the media (besides FOX NEWS and to some degree CNN) assumes that to criticize Obama is to be a bigot or fascist (the SNL skit spoofing the media's love of Obama became popular for a reason; funny because it was true), I am amazed none have pounced on the House of Ideas here and demanded that Joe Q explain himself. Guess they are too distracted with All-Star Batgirl cussing at people. This happy accident in planning (Obama in 2006-2007 was on the map but Marvel had no idea his election themes and allure would match the Skrulls, that McCain would jump aboard as well, or that Obama would be nominated; last year, Hillary was the favorite) actually gives some bit of real world context to the alien story to me. Change is the theme of our election.

It will be the last time Marvel comes close to questioning any ideal that comes from a person who is a liberal or a Democrat with the same sort of fervor that they have for conservatives or Republicans (they once literally made "Jerald Ford" a supervillain, and issues of ULTIMATES 2 could have been used for Al-Queda recruitment booklets quite easily). The periods of Marvel government darkness and underhandedness magically coincide with every single Republican administration since the 60's-70's, while I barely recall many of those stories during 1992-early 2000 for some, strange, reason. But I will enjoy the balance while it lasts. Accident or not, it's been interesting to me. I wonder if this has helped retailer and reader interest as well. Marvel's tried to "tap the pulse of the nation" with their stories and in a way, SI manages to as well.

Skrull Captain Marvel dies in front of the Morrison Capt. Marvel and begs him to defend the planet, continuing Bendis' interest in this character from the ILLUMINATI mini, even if his persona as written by various people since Morrison has been all over the place, and none of it interesting. The Skrull attack is shown as taking place in other strategic areas of the world besides NYC; San Fran, Wakanda, the Savage Land, the Moon, and Isreal are shown, which naturally notes several other tie-in's like SI:X-MEN and the BLACK PANTHER stuff. Part of me wondered why the attack on the UK from CAPTAIN BRITAIN wasn't shown, but a minor quibble. Skrullowjacket and Queen Spider-Skrull plot the rest of their attack and it appears that Wasp is some sort of "weapon" for them somehow, which would complete allow Bendis to complete Marvel's plan to destroy every marriage that isn't T'Challa and Ororo if both she and Pym are actually dead. Still, Drew is certainly alive somewhere, so there is a faint hope for Pym, even if such a rescue comes from another series writer (I could imagine Slott & Gage in A:TI saving Pym if Bendis leaves that door open).

The Skrulls then perform the worst act imaginable; violently attacking some arrogant protester hippies who welcome being invaded by aliens who tell them good things (and in NY, there would be people doing that, so it was realistic), when they are saved by Nick Fury and his SECRET WARRIORS. The Hood's Gang join as well. The Avengers are flying back from the Savage Land having teamed up with both SHRA and unregistered squads and found Mr. Fantastic and Agent Brand. There are a lot of characters in these scenes but the ones that feel the most "lost" in the mix are Iron Fist (SHOCKING) and Ares (ALSO SHOCKING, sarcasm alert). But with a mighty thunderbolt, they are all transported to the scene of final battle by Thor, who meets New Cap for the first time.

I must admit, Bendis writes Thor and New Cap for a whole page and a half after teasing them two issues ago, and he doesn't screw it up. Knock me over with a feather, eh? Sadly, there is a complete lack of reaction about the return of the Thunder God besides from Nick Fury, who gets in the best line of the issue. But, to play Devil's Advocate, one could say that in the middle of an alien attack is not the best time to have a few pages of heroes going, "OMIGOD, THOR'S BACK, HOW WONDERFUL!" and if JMS had been more willing to share, this wouldn't have been an issue. Hell, just having "the big three" back in a way is worth something. And it only took Oklahoma being invaded to get Thor off his duff again.

Yu's art is at it's series high here, and it seems he does better work when he isn't rushing as much (he probably had more lead in time here than in a typical NEW AVENGERS issue). The last few pages had a very epic feel to them. The Skrulls are coming off as genuinely evil, and Bendis finds himself writing against type, but in a good way. In many ways the characters take a back seat to the epic story, but that is nothing new. And yes, the Skrulls were complete ******s for not killing Reed when they had the chance, but their flip-flopping power levels and strategy have been a problem for the entire event as a whole. One second they're brilliant strategist masters and the next they make mistakes not even Wizard would make. One second everyone screams about how impossible it is to tell them apart and then Reed creates a DUES EX MACHINA gun after a whopping two panels of build up in issue #1 to instantly solve the problem (a NEWGROUNDS cartoon mocked this ability from Reed by having him make an "Anti Dr. Doom Gun" once). A lot of this story seems very forced and obligatory. But, most events are like that and at least boiled down, this has been popcorn adventure fluff that hasn't destroyed nearly as many characters as I expected. I feared Bendis would use this to retcon a lot of things; losing Pym and MAYBE Jan compared to that is dodging a bullet.

Things are rolling again here, and this has been loads better than HOM. I still expect Bendis to somehow screw it up by issue #8, but at least so far he has proved something rare, if ever so slightly; he can learn from past mistakes. He still drags on with simple things and still has trouble making characters fit into his stories faithfully, but compared to 2005, this is better. I can admit that.

Anyone else think the "Illumin-naughty" as teased in images will save the day here? And I probably offended someone with the political rant, but I seriously think the timing of all this makes for an interesting read, adds something to it that may not have been intended, but works nonetheless.

SECRET INVASION: RUNAWAYS/YOUNG AVENGERS #3: This obligatory SI mini from Yost, Miyazawa and Strain marks a bit of an odd milestone for me; it will be the last RUNAWAYS product I bother with for the near future. I have no interest in the Moore/Ramos product and I haven't read any reviews that convinced me otherwise. The Whedon/Ryan run sapped a lot of love I had for that franchise from my soul with it's crushing lateness and convinced me that few will be able to capture the lightening in the bottle quite like Vaughan and Alphona. The RUNAWAYS used to be my "rock" title, the one title from Marvel I could expect to be timely, and excellent; this was so for two years since the second volume launched (I read the first volume via digests). I have other "rock" titles from Marvel now in 2008, as the line itself has improved dramatically since 2005-2006. Perhaps this is the best time to bid RUNAWAYS farewell.

Miyazawa, who drew a few fill-in issues for the Vaughan run, returns for what is a heavily RUNAWAYS centered story. In order to tie in properly, half the YA have to be written out by Yost, after all. But I didn't mind this, because I like continuity. His style is naturally manga-tastic and while it works for the RUNAWAYS for some degree, it can be iffy for the YA he does draw. The Skrulls look a lot like Nameks from DBZ. But I like Nameks so I don't mind too much. The art is energetic and kinetic for action, which is what is very important. Yost also manages to write young heroes in a Marvel comic and avoid killing any of them. Hey, after NEW X-MEN, that is a feat.

The showdown between Xavin and his teacher Chrell commences and if anything, this was Xavin's story. Xavin has the major story conflict and has the biggest things to overcome here. It is very personal for him. Considering he is a Skrull, this makes perfect sense. X'iv, who appears to have powers from Elektra, Cloak, and Nightcrawler, acts as Chrell's "number two". Chrell manages to capture the Runaways, especially Karolina (Xavin's bride) and forces a showdown between he and Hulkling (as well as Speed and Wiccan). The last issue is a bit of a slobbernocker, but it was well paced and I enjoyed the battle. Klara (or Joss Whedon's Mary Sue for some) manages to get a page or so to shine and helps turn the tide of battle. Hulkling uses his heritage to sucker X'iv for the win, but for me this really was Xavin's story, and Yost makes a decent show of telling it. Frankly I enjoyed this story at least as much as the last CW meeting between the two teams from Zeb Wells and Caselli. Maybe even a little more, as this seemed more personal for one of the characters.

Hulkling still doesn't want to accept his destiny to the Skrull people, and to some degree, that may be part of why this "extremist" sect rose to power. The Runaways commit to leaving NYC and things return to a status quo as the YA are needed elsewhere. I did wonder why Chase wasn't more in agony if Old Lace was TKO'd, though. They're psychically linked, right? Guess Fistigons improve stamina.

This won't win any Eisner's, but for what it seeks to do, it does well, and I appreciate that.

 

[Blader5489]

"Jerald Ford"? What the hell?

 

[Dread]

"Jerald Ford"? What the hell?

I know his real name is Gerald Ford. But back in the 70's, Marvel created a villain named the Black Lama who came from an alternate dimension where his name was "Jerald Ford" and he became king of the land after the real king left the throne after a nasty scandal. He went into 616 and manipulated a war between heroes and villains. Yeah. Marvel in the 70's literally took a sitting president and made him a villain, or at least the loose basis for a villain.

Hey, don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lama

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/blacklam.htm

 

[CaptainCanada]

I
The periods of Marvel government darkness and underhandedness magically coincide with every single Republican administration since the 60's-70's, while I barely recall many of those stories during 1992-early 2000 for some, strange, reason.

Perhaps because all the big serious abuses of executive power in modern American history occurred during Republican Administrations? Watergate, Iron-Contra, a bazillion different things during the Bush Administration...

 

[Dread]

Perhaps because all the big serious abuses of executive power in modern American history occurred during Republican Administrations? Watergate, Iron-Contra, a bazillion different things during the Bush Administration...

Clinton was involved in a few himself. Watergate, shady business deals, pardoning white collar criminals, and then the whole perjury thing. Yeah, he was immaculate.

My thing is, I'm about fairness. If you're going to call one side on their dirty laundry, then you can't cover the other side just because your network's executives and reporters kind of like that side.

For me, both sides are equally corrupt and all have their skeletons. Just one side gets called on it immediately, and the other...well, the other often gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore. It stinks. Either expose both or cover for both, but don't cover for one and then hide the other and pretend to be balanced.

Granted, maybe that's why network news is losing to the Internet...

 

[CaptainCanada]

Clinton was involved in a few himself. Watergate, shady business deals, pardoning white collar criminals, and then the whole perjury thing. Yeah, he was immaculate.

Not perfect, but nobody got killed as a result of Clinton's misdeeds; you can't say the same for Bush and Reagan's crimes. I don't see equivalency between lying about a ******* and starting an illegal war that causes thousands of deaths while claiming the right to abrogate major constitutional protections for anyone for as long as they want to.

 

[Dread]

Not perfect, but nobody got killed as a result of Clinton's misdeeds; you can't say the same for Bush and Reagan's crimes. I don't see equivalency between lying about a ******* and starting an illegal war that causes thousands of deaths.

The concept of "illegal war" is a matter of opinion as well. Plenty of people see it as justified in various parts of the country.

Considering all of the terrorist attacks and lack of response during the Clinton years, you could claim that people did, indeed, die on his watch. Clinton had a few botched military episodes as well (Black Hawk Down, anyone?). No side is perfect. Clinton was willing to wiretap people as well for "justified" reasons. A lot of presidents have.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The concept of "illegal war" is a matter of opinion as well. Plenty of people see it as justified in various parts of the country.

And they would be wrong. Every single argument the administration based the war on turned out to be a lie.

No side is perfect.

Indeed not. But some are worse.

Dying because of policy failure is rather different from dying because the President lied to promote his own agenda, as Bush and co. did when they knowingly misled everyone about Iraq. Result: hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and a few thousand dead Americans.

Nor did Clinton ever, to my knowledge, circumvent FISA, or claim the right to imprison anyone he wants for any length of time, and torture them.

 

[Dread]

I did ask for this, didn't I? Gotta learn to stop putting political discussion into comic posts.

And they would be wrong. Every single argument the administration based the war on turned out to be a lie.

Bush lied, people died, and all that.

Indeed not. But some are worse.

Dying because of policy failure is rather different from dying because the President lied to promote his own agenda, as Bush and co. did when they knowingly misled everyone about Iraq. Result: hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and a few thousand dead Americans.

Nor did Clinton ever, to my knowledge, circumvent FISA, or claim the right to imprison anyone he wants for any length of time, and torture them.

Just curious; bet you never heard of the Oil-For-Food scandal, huh?

 

[hippie_hunter]

And they would be wrong. Every single argument the administration based the war on turned out to be a lie.


Indeed not. But some are worse.

Dying because of policy failure is rather different from dying because the President lied to promote his own agenda, as Bush and co. did when they knowingly misled everyone about Iraq. Result: hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and a few thousand dead Americans.

Nor did Clinton ever, to my knowledge, circumvent FISA, or claim the right to imprison anyone he wants for any length of time, and torture them.

1. Clinton started the policy of regime change in Iraq. Bush just followed it through to the fullest extent.

2. Clinton thoroughly enforced Iraqi sanctions and prevented them from being lifted which are responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well. When asked if the deaths of a half a million Iraqi children was worth it, Madeline Albright said it was.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were complete idiots when it comes to handling Iraq and the entire Middle East. And whomever becomes the next President, whether it be John McCain or Barack Obama, looks like will end up inheriting that complete idiocy in not knowing how to handle it.

Oh well, I voted for Ron Paul.

And here's a little known fact, back in 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. He thinks that torture like Jack Bauer's is okay. And it is a well known fact that he too has lied to Congress and the American public. He is nowhere near an innocent person. Like Bush, he too is a guilty man.

 

[fifthfiend]

For someone claiming to be a Democrat you sure are note-perfect on Republican talking points, Dread.

Considering how everyone in the media (besides FOX NEWS and to some degree CNN) assumes that to criticize Obama is to be a bigot or fascist

1. Who in "the media", by what definition of that term, has said that?

2. If "everyone in the media" thinks any and all criticism of Obama is verboten, then how did Jeremiah Wright's name get mentioned in connection with Barack Obama's every single day for two straight months by every single media outlet in the United States of America?

3. If "everyone in the media" treats all Obama criticism as racist or bigoted, then how are there twelve thousand news stories criticizing Obama's use of one word?

Perhaps because all the big serious abuses of executive power in modern American history occurred during Republican Administrations? Watergate, Iron-Contra, a bazillion different things during the Bush Administration...

Clinton was involved in a few himself. Watergate, shady business deals, pardoning white collar criminals, and then the whole perjury thing. Yeah, he was immaculate.

1. Assuming Watergate = Whitewater (which I mean eh, everyone does that): What did Clinton do wrong during Whitewater?

2. What "shady business deals" are you alluding to aside from Whitewater, and what offenses did Clinton do wrong during those?

3. Which of the above, in your estimation, amounts to "serious abuses of executive power"? The pardons are the only one that even involve executive power.

My thing is, I'm about fairness. If you're going to call one side on their dirty laundry, then you can't cover the other side just because your network's executives and reporters kind of like that side.

For me, both sides are equally corrupt and all have their skeletons.

Your definition of "fairness" mostly seems to involve tarring one side with the other's multiple, demonstrable, substantiated offenses, on the assumption that both must just be equally corrupt, on the basis of a further assumed media favortism that - per the above about Obama - doesn't hold up to the slightest measure of scrutiny.

Just one side gets called on it immediately, and the other...well, the other often gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore.

You're right that one side gets called on its offenses while the other gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore, which is why Democratic presidents spend their entire terms of office being hounded for allegedly inappropriate $300,000 dollar bank loans, or their campaigns being criticized for saying the word "bitter", while Republicans get to torture hundreds of foreigners and illegally wiretap the conversations of uncounted numbers of Americans and have the media continually to this very day downplay and ignore their criminal malfeasance.

Bush lied, people died, and all that.

Just, wow. Seriously, Joe Lieberman gets political power and influence out of pretending to be a Democrat, I just don't see what's in it for you.

 

[Dread]

I'm morbidly curious how far this will go until a mod stops it.

For someone claiming to be a Democrat you sure are note-perfect on Republican talking points, Dread.

I'm liberal on most domestic policies and conservative on most foreign policies. I just dislike one-sidedness.

1. Who in "the media", by what definition of that term, has said that?

Well, a lot of bloggers and MoveOn.orgers. But, well, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all basically pulling for...someone.

2. If "everyone in the media" thinks any and all criticism of Obama is verboten, then how did Jeremiah Wright's name get mentioned in connection with Barack Obama's every single day for two straight months by every single media outlet in the United States of America?

Out of 19 months of pure fawning and devotion, 2 months of a bad story seems like a pittance.

That said, that Wright ordeal has thankfully been forgotten.

3. If "everyone in the media" treats all Obama criticism as racist or bigoted, then how are there twelve thousand news stories criticizing Obama's use of one word?

Because McCain hasn't been misquoted and had single words thrown back at him. Just search for "100 years in Iraq".

It's politics, it happens to both sides. Just one, erm, digs harder.

Think about this; John Edwards' affair was hidden, outright buried, by the media for weeks. How long did Palin's unwed preggers daughter get exposed? 17 hours? BLAM! That's some fast reportin'!

1. Assuming Watergate = Whitewater (which I mean eh, everyone does that): What did Clinton do wrong during Whitewater?

While governor of Arkansas, Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan of 300k. That person was convicted and jailed. Clinton has denied involvement.

2. What "shady business deals" are you alluding to aside from Whitewater, and what offenses did Clinton do wrong during those?

During Hillary's campaign, there were questions about donations. There was one guy who was basically involved in money laundering and was a fugitive from the law who had donated to them for years. Then, whoops, he splits and they do the "what me worry" routine.

3. Which of the above, in your estimation, amounts to "serious abuses of executive power"? The pardons are the only one that even involve executive power.

I can only imagine the (justified) media frenzy and fury if Bush were to use his executive powers to get convicted felons pardoned who had political connections to him. In fact, Bush has done that, and rightfully been called on it.

Your definition of "fairness" mostly seems to involve tarring one side with the other's multiple, demonstrable, substantiated offenses, on the assumption that both must just be equally corrupt, on the basis of a further assumed media favortism that - per the above about Obama - doesn't hold up to the slightest measure of scrutiny.

Both sides are corrupt. Corruption, arrogance, and incompetence are pretty much the Trifecta of Government Problems, and both parties are full of them. So I believe that both sides should be exposed with equal vigor and condemned with equal voices. Instead there is too much wagon circling.

You're right that one side gets called on its offenses while the other gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore, which is why Democratic presidents spend their entire terms of office being hounded for allegedly inappropriate $300,000 dollar bank loans, or their campaigns being criticized for saying the word "bitter", while Republicans get to torture hundreds of foreigners and illegally wiretap the conversations of uncounted numbers of Americans and have the media continually to this very day downplay and ignore their criminal malfeasance.

It may shock and surprise you, but Democrats are capable of waging war or circumventing civil liberties. The most common way Democrats silence someone is accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or homophobic (with Republicans, it is questioning someone's patriotism). Bill Clinton in 1998 laid out a speech in his STATE OF THE UNION where he believed that Saddam had WMD and that a conflict with him was inevitable. There were military actions in Serbia and Somalia that, well, didn't go well. There were also bomb attacks in Iraq, or after Bin Ladin.

It wasn't McCain who pledged to invade Pakistan recently; it was Obama. Was he branded a war-monger? No.

Just, wow. Seriously, Joe Lieberman gets political power and influence out of pretending to be a Democrat, I just don't see what's in it for you.

Aside for foreign policy, where he is hawkish, Lieberman votes lock step with the Democrats a majority of the time, despite being ousted from his own primary for his war vote and having to run as an Independent (he typically calls himself an "Independent Democrat". The same people who championed John Kerry's war record as heroic poo-poo McCain's. While the slightest hint of a racial comment is (rightly) condemned, snide remarks about McCain's age are not uncommon. I'm not into hypocrisy. On either side.

I'm seriously tired of the political bickering. I was only bemused that SECRET INVASION had found itself matching some slogans with both campaigns right now. Next time I'll just preach Democratic slogans and move on. Sheesh.

 

[iloveclones]

I plan to vote Skrull fo the first time in my adult life in the upcoming election. And don't tell me I'm throwing my vote away. I'm sending a message....

 

[BrianWilly]

Final Crisis: Revelations #2
Still loving it. Greg Rucka is the best writar evar and all that...on the other hand, I'm not as impressed by the introduction of the Radiant as I think I was supposed to be (although damn that's some pretty artwork). As far as I'm concerned, Jesus Christ is supposed to be God's spirit of mercy in the DCU continuity. By comparison this new character feels very MacGuffiin-ish and not at all steeped in the Spectre mythology. Yeah that's right, sister friend; you don't measure up to Jesus.

But seriously, the idea of the Spectre punishing Renee for crimes that he is fully aware she didn't commit and God as he says is fully aware she didn't commit...that doesn't feel at all like the Spectre, not even the recent portrayals of him. The Spectre's edicts are absolute and impartial and harsh, but they're never undeserved. Were we supposed to take this as an indication that Cris as the Spectre is getting uncontrollable and unbalanced [yet again]? If that were the case, it seems that there should be some sort of indication of that from the text, but all that it leads us to believe is that this is sort of par for the course for the Spectre's doings and that Cris is just unbalanced from his own issues. Again, it feels like some sort of plot MacGuffin in order to get the Radiant to show up for her arbitrary reasons.

On the other other hand, the idea of making Vandal Savage into Cain? Pure badass awesome I can't believe how awesome this was. I'm pretty sure this goes against a ****ton of continuity as well -- not only Savage's but, hell, also probably the real DCU Cain's -- but it's just so genius that I don't care. Now it's possible that I'm misinterpreting the scene and Cain has just been reborn in Savage instead of being him all this time, but that's probably not the case; Cain being a spirit of some sort doesn' really jive with the mythology, and Savage seems to know exactly what's going on instead of being all surprised that bald people are showing up at his house and stabbing him with a glowing spear.

(8.1 out of 10)


Trinity #15
Pretty much still enjoying this. Not much else to say. "We've been here for over an hour" was badass, getting a tiny bit overused as a trope nowadays, but badass nonetheless.

I love how everyone is so matter-of-fact in dealing with these big mindbending revelations. Someone will say "These three have been shaped by the fundamental aspects of this universe and are therefore key to unlocking its potential?" and someone else will say "Well that makes sense." Little quirks like that make me love the DCU, I can't deny it. These people didn't just put on costumes and masks yesterday. They've been through it all and anyone like Firestorm and Gangbuster who haven't been through it all are learning about "it all" as they go.

I'm still not very sold on the idea of the big three being this literal keystone to the universe and therefore that's why they're so important or something. It's very similar to the idea that Morrison threw out in Superman: Beyond about Superman being the proemial heroic being, which I loved, but it feels different somehow in this sort of practice. Less organic. As much as I like the meta concepts, organically developed stories and relationships will always trump them. The idea of the big three being justified as big three in the DCU simply because they've grown and developed that close bond with each other will always, always be a stronger concept than the idea of the big three being justified as the big three in the DCU simply because Destiny Says So. There is a big difference, no matter how subtle and imperceptible it may be in the shortterm. This story seems to be favoring the latter approach, which sits awkwardly with me in the longterm no matter how good the story is at the moment.

(8.3 out of 10)


Secret Invasion #6
"We're Marvel universe citizens! We're GODDAMN ****ING STUPID!!!"

I'm really not sure why I continue to complain about that, because for all intents and purposes it's no longer a valid story criticism. Marvel universe citizens are goddamn ****ing stupid, it is their canon characterization and has been for quite some time now; I might as well complain that Hulk is too goddamn ****ing angry or that Wolverine is too goddamn ****ing Canadian or that Batman is too goddamn.

Yeah I'm still beyond underwhelmed by this unimpressive story. It's great how all these heroes are absolutely freaking out about the mediocre job that the Skrulls have done so far -- because apparently these people did just put on masks and costumes yesterday and, yes, this is absolutely their first alien invasion ever -- and yet things like Thor and the new Captain America appearing before the Marvel universe for the first time are treated with all the gravitas and emotional weight of a quick scene change. Your instincts may be that it's more important to focus on the big themes instead of those character moments since this is a big event but, no, that is wrong. That is the wrong instinct. The opposite is true. Even Millar understood this.

And the action? My gods, if this is what people are willing to accept as good action in comics nowadays, I really don't know what to say. Big random splash pages cluttered with heroes and villains does not a good action scene make. It didn't in New Avengers and it doesn't now.

Oh and Captain Skrullvel is just dead now, for some reason that I'm fairly certain was never actually put on the page.

(4 out of 10)


Wonder Woman #24
Did Bernard Chang use up all his MP in the first three-fourths of this issue or something? Everything up to the fight was just gorgeous to the point where I'd prefer him over Lopresti as the regular series artist, and then we get into the action stuff in the second half it just took a nosedive.

Some people seem to take issue with Hippolyta's presentation here, particularlies the babies line, but I kinda love it; If Hippolyta has had one true consistent trait throughout all these years, even in the blond-dom of pre-Crisis, it's that no matter what her rank is or what mysterious world and customs she comes from, she's no different from any other mother out there. Of course she would press her daughter about having babies. That's what mothers do. And it was funny. The one thing that I'm not crazy about is the marginal hints in here about her being an archaic woman with an archaic mindset. That's valid to a lot of degrees but it's not really a character trait to be pushed, 'cause it's certainly not as if Polly's spent years fighting alongside the Justice Society and greedily lept snout-first into Wildcat...uh, I mean, into embracing modern America or anything. The last cogent characterization of Hippolyta before her being brought unceremoniously back from the dead was that she was in love with the modern world.

Nemesis is...well, he's Nemesis. If you didn't like him before you won't magically like him now, and his romance with Diana is no more organic than it was before. I have to agree that Simone is falling almost headfirst into a telling-not-showing syndrome with these stories. Meanwhile no mention is made at all of how he found gorillas in Diana's apartment last issue, or if he suspects her identity as he must at this point. Something's not right here, but to Simone's credit I actually suspect that it may be part of her longterm plan for Nemesis. So...wait and see, I guess.

Oh, and Queen of Fables shows up for the second half, which is cool 'cause she was a pretty great JLA villain. I'm not sure what she could bring to being a WW rogue other than being a female, mystical Dr. Psycho, but we'll see.

(7.8 out of 10)


Green Lantern Corps #28
Pretty standard issue, with some subplots moving along. I'm a little disappointed that the murder mystery turns out to just be "Yet another Sinestro Corps member doing Sinestro Corps things," 'cause floating eyeballs could have made for a much cooler villain, but oh well. The real point of the two-issue arc seems to have been Lantern Saarek who's a little dull at the moment, but will probably turn out to be important.

(7.6 out of 10)


Manhunter #34
I'm not sure about this. There's nothing wrong with the plot and there's nothing wrong with Kate...it's the guest stars here that feel off. Not a single member of the Suicide Squad acts like the way they should act -- Bronze Tiger apparently hits people as an involuntary instinct or something -- and the Birds of Prey fare only a little better. Obsidian shows up again and his characterization is...well, it's obviously pretty out of synch with his JSA characterization, and even though I understand that Manhunter is actually Todd's main book and that JSA is his team book, I almost prefer his team book characterization 'cause this here is a bit too WB network for him, in my opinion. I think this may just be how Andreyko writes couples in general, though, if his prior issues are any indication.

The art looks fantastic when people are standing still. It looks like wooden mannequins on parade when people are doing anything remotely action-related. I dunno, I don't know if this book has enough pros to its cons for me to continue with it, even though it is good enough in general, certainly better than loads of other things I could (and do) name.

(7.2 out of 10)

 

[CaptainCanada]

On the other other hand, the idea of making Vandal Savage into Cain? Pure badass awesome I can't believe how awesome this was. I'm pretty sure this goes against a ****ton of continuity as well -- not only Savage's but, hell, also probably the real DCU Cain's -- but it's just so genius that I don't care

There was that comics narrator/Sandman guy, but given that he lives in the Dreaming you could say he's just a concept, not the real deal.

On the subject of Manhunter, I just haven't enjoyed it as much since it came back; maybe it's the art, or the current storyline, I'm not sure.

 

[hippie_hunter]

For someone claiming to be a Democrat you sure are note-perfect on Republican talking points, Dread.

And what's wrong with that? Is he supposed to tie himself up in strings and dance along like a marionette puppet to the Democratic Party? No. It's called being your own person.

I'm a Republican but I constantly criticize the Republicans for eroding our civil liberties, betraying their beliefs in fiscal responsibility, for not having a reasonable foreign policy, and for being completely incompetent. I support gay marriage and think that abortion needs to stay legal. I'm also an atheist.

You won't believe the jaws I've dropped when I tell Republicans that I'm a fellow Republican

You know seriously, people like Dread and I need a party of our own. Republicans and Democrats who aren't accepted by their own party.

 

[Kitsune]

The concept of "illegal war" is a matter of opinion as well. Plenty of people see it as justified in various parts of the country.

Considering all of the terrorist attacks and lack of response during the Clinton years, you could claim that people did, indeed, die on his watch. Clinton had a few botched military episodes as well (Black Hawk Down, anyone?). No side is perfect. Clinton was willing to wiretap people as well for "justified" reasons. A lot of presidents have.

No response? Didn't Clinton bomb an aspirin plant in Sudan... that should have taken care of everything.

 

[fifthfiend]

Comics **** first:

I'm still not very sold on the idea of the big three being this literal keystone to the universe and therefore that's why they're so important or something. It's very similar to the idea that Morrison threw out in Superman: Beyond about Superman being the proemial heroic being, which I loved, but it feels different somehow in this sort of practice. Less organic. As much as I like the meta concepts, organically developed stories and relationships will always trump them. The idea of the big three being justified as big three in the DCU simply because they've grown and developed that close bond with each other will always, always be a stronger concept than the idea of the big three being justified as the big three in the DCU simply because Destiny Says So. There is a big difference, no matter how subtle and imperceptible it may be in the shortterm. This story seems to be favoring the latter approach, which sits awkwardly with me in the longterm no matter how good the story is at the moment.

I think once you take the semi-interesting subtextual notion of Supes, Bats, and Wondie as representing three different facets of a core heroic ideal, and then use this by putting all three characters in a book called "TRINITY", that sort of storytelling is pretty much a given.

I mean it's kind of like if they started a new Superman series called "SUPERMAN: HE'S REALLY PRETTY MUCH JESUS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT"

In fairness I can get where someone would enjoy the book in spite of that but for me that sort of thing is just a dealbreaker.

And the action? My gods, if this is what people are willing to accept as good action in comics nowadays, I really don't know what to say. Big random splash pages cluttered with heroes and villains does not a good action scene make. It didn't in New Avengers and it doesn't now.

I think I'd even be more down with the splash-panel school of action writing if it they at least used the splash panel to do anything remotely interesting in terms of the characters. Stuff as simple as like, Venom using his symbiote-tendrils, or Jan shrinking down and throwing some stingers, or Thor calling down some lightning, would go a long way towards making the characters at least feel like characters and not just cardboard cutouts.

As drawn here they're not even action scenes, they're just promises that, in next month's issue, there may potentially be some actual action scenes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Politics **** second:

I'm morbidly curious how far this will go until a mod stops it.

I'm liberal on most domestic policies and conservative on most foreign policies. I just dislike one-sidedness.

And yet all your commentary on this forum is one-sidedly conservative.

Well, a lot of bloggers and MoveOn.orgers. But, well, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all basically pulling for...someone.

Oh okay, so when you say "the media", what you actually mean is, "not the media." But the actual media is still bad, for some reason unrelated to the fact that they haven't done what you accused them of doing.

Right, that makes sense.

While governor of Arkansas, Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan of 300k. That person was convicted and jailed. Clinton has denied involvement.

Which is to say that a person who was under investigation and subequently jailed for offenses totally unrelated to President Clinton, made allegations about an attempt by Clinton to pressure him into a loan, which partisan Republicans spent sixty million dollars investigating and were unable to substantiate.

Out of 19 months of pure fawning and devotion, 2 months of a bad story seems like a pittance.

So basically your view that Obama receives no criticism from the press remains unchanged in the face of any and all evidence of Obama receiving criticism from the press.

I mean I guess I could point out any of the multitude of other instances of Obama being criticized by the press, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just go on and dismiss those too in favor of your unyielding belief in the press's unexcepted adulation of Obama.

Because McCain hasn't been misquoted and had single words thrown back at him. Just search for "100 years in Iraq".

So how does both candidates being subject to the same kind of criticism from the press, demonstrate that Obama is uniquely adored and exempt from criticism by the press?

 

[Dread]

Secret Invasion #6
"We're Marvel universe citizens! We're GODDAMN ****ING STUPID!!!"

I'm really not sure why I continue to complain about that, because for all intents and purposes it's no longer a valid story criticism. Marvel universe citizens are goddamn ****ing stupid, it is their canon characterization and has been for quite some time now; I might as well complain that Hulk is too goddamn ****ing angry or that Wolverine is too goddamn ****ing Canadian or that Batman is too goddamn.

Yeah, Marvel universe citizens are rather stupid. I'd also add ungrateful.

Yeah I'm still beyond underwhelmed by this unimpressive story. It's great how all these heroes are absolutely freaking out about the mediocre job that the Skrulls have done so far -- because apparently these people did just put on masks and costumes yesterday and, yes, this is absolutely their first alien invasion ever -- and yet things like Thor and the new Captain America appearing before the Marvel universe for the first time are treated with all the gravitas and emotional weight of a quick scene change. Your instincts may be that it's more important to focus on the big themes instead of those character moments since this is a big event but, no, that is wrong. That is the wrong instinct. The opposite is true. Even Millar understood this.

The same Mark Millar who inserted a seemingly alive Captain Marvel into the final battle in CIVIL WAR #7 and not a single character even had a wide eye? The same Mark Millar who wrote Captain America and Iron Man as if they had NEVER been friends? That Mark Millar?

I mean, don't get me wrong; I agree that Bendis is hardly terrific at logical character moments. But Mark Millar is rarely better, at least in recent 616 stories (barring FANTASTIC FOUR, natch).

And the action? My gods, if this is what people are willing to accept as good action in comics nowadays, I really don't know what to say. Big random splash pages cluttered with heroes and villains does not a good action scene make. It didn't in New Avengers and it doesn't now.

I know that. But after pages and pages and pages of talking and dragging, a royal rumble is better than...more talking.

And at least Yu's art looks like it is actually inked here.

Oh and Captain Skrullvel is just dead now, for some reason that I'm fairly certain was never actually put on the page.

Yeah, it seemed like a waste. It was an interesting idea and it's been wasted with his death.

(4 out of 10)

I don't do letter grades, but I'd give SI so far a 5.3 out of 10. Does that make me a Bendis supporter now?

 

[Dread]

Politics **** second:






And yet all your commentary on this forum is one-sidedly conservative.



Oh okay, so when you say "the media", what you actually mean is, "not the media." But the actual media is still bad, for some reason unrelated to the fact that they haven't done what you accused them of doing.

Right, that makes sense.



Which is to say that a person who was under investigation and subequently jailed for offenses totally unrelated to President Clinton, made allegations about an attempt by Clinton to pressure him into a loan, which partisan Republicans spent sixty million dollars investigating and were unable to substantiate.



So basically your view that Obama receives no criticism from the press remains unchanged in the face of any and all evidence of Obama receiving criticism from the press.

I mean I guess I could point out any of the multitude of other instances of Obama being criticized by the press, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just go on and dismiss those too in favor of your unyielding belief in the press's unexcepted adulation of Obama.



So how does both candidates being subject to the same kind of criticism from the press, demonstrate that Obama is uniquely adored and exempt from criticism by the press?

Being that BrianWilly has thankfully re-inserted comics into this discussion (and I thank him for that), I am going to employ his trademarked BRIANWILLY AUTO-RESPONSE (TM):

Yeah, I give a ****, honest.

There, discussion closed.

 

[fifthfiend]

Yeah, I give a ****, honest.

What Dread that ain't true,

Yeah, Mark Millar would only be considered a "conservative" in Bizarro World. He's very obviously an extremist Liberal.

Accidentally, and without planning it, Marvel has come very close to having an allegory against the election in general and Barack "The One" Obama in particular. Considering how everyone in the media (besides FOX NEWS and to some degree CNN) assumes that to criticize Obama is to be a bigot or fascist (the SNL skit spoofing the media's love of Obama became popular for a reason; funny because it was true), I am amazed none have pounced on the House of Ideas here and demanded that Joe Q explain himself. Guess they are too distracted with All-Star Batgirl cussing at people. This happy accident in planning (Obama in 2006-2007 was on the map but Marvel had no idea his election themes and allure would match the Skrulls, that McCain would jump aboard as well, or that Obama would be nominated; last year, Hillary was the favorite) actually gives some bit of real world context to the alien story to me. Change is the theme of our election.

It will be the last time Marvel comes close to questioning any ideal that comes from a person who is a liberal or a Democrat with the same sort of fervor that they have for conservatives or Republicans (they once literally made "Jerald Ford" a supervillain, and issues of ULTIMATES 2 could have been used for Al-Queda recruitment booklets quite easily). The periods of Marvel government darkness and underhandedness magically coincide with every single Republican administration since the 60's-70's, while I barely recall many of those stories during 1992-early 2000 for some, strange, reason.

I know his real name is Gerald Ford. But back in the 70's, Marvel created a villain named the Black Lama who came from an alternate dimension where his name was "Jerald Ford" and he became king of the land after the real king left the throne after a nasty scandal. He went into 616 and manipulated a war between heroes and villains. Yeah. Marvel in the 70's literally took a sitting president and made him a villain, or at least the loose basis for a villain.

Hey, don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lama

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/blacklam.htm

Clinton was involved in a few himself. Watergate, shady business deals, pardoning white collar criminals, and then the whole perjury thing. Yeah, he was immaculate.

My thing is, I'm about fairness. If you're going to call one side on their dirty laundry, then you can't cover the other side just because your network's executives and reporters kind of like that side.

For me, both sides are equally corrupt and all have their skeletons. Just one side gets called on it immediately, and the other...well, the other often gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore. It stinks. Either expose both or cover for both, but don't cover for one and then hide the other and pretend to be balanced.

Granted, maybe that's why network news is losing to the Internet...

The concept of "illegal war" is a matter of opinion as well. Plenty of people see it as justified in various parts of the country.

Considering all of the terrorist attacks and lack of response during the Clinton years, you could claim that people did, indeed, die on his watch. Clinton had a few botched military episodes as well (Black Hawk Down, anyone?). No side is perfect. Clinton was willing to wiretap people as well for "justified" reasons. A lot of presidents have.

Bush lied, people died, and all that.

Just curious; bet you never heard of the Oil-For-Food scandal, huh?

I'm liberal on most domestic policies and conservative on most foreign policies. I just dislike one-sidedness.



Well, a lot of bloggers and MoveOn.orgers. But, well, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all basically pulling for...someone.



Out of 19 months of pure fawning and devotion, 2 months of a bad story seems like a pittance.

That said, that Wright ordeal has thankfully been forgotten.



Because McCain hasn't been misquoted and had single words thrown back at him. Just search for "100 years in Iraq".

It's politics, it happens to both sides. Just one, erm, digs harder.

Think about this; John Edwards' affair was hidden, outright buried, by the media for weeks. How long did Palin's unwed preggers daughter get exposed? 17 hours? BLAM! That's some fast reportin'!



While governor of Arkansas, Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan of 300k. That person was convicted and jailed. Clinton has denied involvement.



During Hillary's campaign, there were questions about donations. There was one guy who was basically involved in money laundering and was a fugitive from the law who had donated to them for years. Then, whoops, he splits and they do the "what me worry" routine.



I can only imagine the (justified) media frenzy and fury if Bush were to use his executive powers to get convicted felons pardoned who had political connections to him. In fact, Bush has done that, and rightfully been called on it.



Both sides are corrupt. Corruption, arrogance, and incompetence are pretty much the Trifecta of Government Problems, and both parties are full of them. So I believe that both sides should be exposed with equal vigor and condemned with equal voices. Instead there is too much wagon circling.



It may shock and surprise you, but Democrats are capable of waging war or circumventing civil liberties. The most common way Democrats silence someone is accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or homophobic (with Republicans, it is questioning someone's patriotism). Bill Clinton in 1998 laid out a speech in his STATE OF THE UNION where he believed that Saddam had WMD and that a conflict with him was inevitable. There were military actions in Serbia and Somalia that, well, didn't go well. There were also bomb attacks in Iraq, or after Bin Ladin.

It wasn't McCain who pledged to invade Pakistan recently; it was Obama. Was he branded a war-monger? No.



Aside for foreign policy, where he is hawkish, Lieberman votes lock step with the Democrats a majority of the time, despite being ousted from his own primary for his war vote and having to run as an Independent (he typically calls himself an "Independent Democrat". The same people who championed John Kerry's war record as heroic poo-poo McCain's. While the slightest hint of a racial comment is (rightly) condemned, snide remarks about McCain's age are not uncommon. I'm not into hypocrisy. On either side.

I'm seriously tired of the political bickering. I was only bemused that SECRET INVASION had found itself matching some slogans with both campaigns right now. Next time I'll just preach Democratic slogans and move on. Sheesh.

you're so clearly someone who totally doesn't give a **** in any way at all.

 

[Dread]

What Dread that ain't true,

you're so clearly someone who totally doesn't give a **** in any way at all.

Whatever makes you happy. Exposed another "damn dirty conservative", hey, I hope it made your day.

Me? I look forward to the upcoming debates so I can learn more about both candidates and at least no matter who wins, it will be an improvement on Bush.

I consider myself a moderate, but you likely don't agree, hey....

BRIANWILLY AUTO-RESPONSE (TM): I totally give a ****, honest.

Man, that's handy. Thanks, Brian.

 

[fifthfiend]

BRIANWILLY AUTO-RESPONSE (TM): I totally give a ****, honest.

Yeah, Mark Millar would only be considered a "conservative" in Bizarro World. He's very obviously an extremist Liberal.

Accidentally, and without planning it, Marvel has come very close to having an allegory against the election in general and Barack "The One" Obama in particular. Considering how everyone in the media (besides FOX NEWS and to some degree CNN) assumes that to criticize Obama is to be a bigot or fascist (the SNL skit spoofing the media's love of Obama became popular for a reason; funny because it was true), I am amazed none have pounced on the House of Ideas here and demanded that Joe Q explain himself. Guess they are too distracted with All-Star Batgirl cussing at people. This happy accident in planning (Obama in 2006-2007 was on the map but Marvel had no idea his election themes and allure would match the Skrulls, that McCain would jump aboard as well, or that Obama would be nominated; last year, Hillary was the favorite) actually gives some bit of real world context to the alien story to me. Change is the theme of our election.

It will be the last time Marvel comes close to questioning any ideal that comes from a person who is a liberal or a Democrat with the same sort of fervor that they have for conservatives or Republicans (they once literally made "Jerald Ford" a supervillain, and issues of ULTIMATES 2 could have been used for Al-Queda recruitment booklets quite easily). The periods of Marvel government darkness and underhandedness magically coincide with every single Republican administration since the 60's-70's, while I barely recall many of those stories during 1992-early 2000 for some, strange, reason.

I know his real name is Gerald Ford. But back in the 70's, Marvel created a villain named the Black Lama who came from an alternate dimension where his name was "Jerald Ford" and he became king of the land after the real king left the throne after a nasty scandal. He went into 616 and manipulated a war between heroes and villains. Yeah. Marvel in the 70's literally took a sitting president and made him a villain, or at least the loose basis for a villain.

Hey, don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lama

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/blacklam.htm

Clinton was involved in a few himself. Watergate, shady business deals, pardoning white collar criminals, and then the whole perjury thing. Yeah, he was immaculate.

My thing is, I'm about fairness. If you're going to call one side on their dirty laundry, then you can't cover the other side just because your network's executives and reporters kind of like that side.

For me, both sides are equally corrupt and all have their skeletons. Just one side gets called on it immediately, and the other...well, the other often gets a pass until it becomes impossible to ignore. It stinks. Either expose both or cover for both, but don't cover for one and then hide the other and pretend to be balanced.

Granted, maybe that's why network news is losing to the Internet...

The concept of "illegal war" is a matter of opinion as well. Plenty of people see it as justified in various parts of the country.

Considering all of the terrorist attacks and lack of response during the Clinton years, you could claim that people did, indeed, die on his watch. Clinton had a few botched military episodes as well (Black Hawk Down, anyone?). No side is perfect. Clinton was willing to wiretap people as well for "justified" reasons. A lot of presidents have.

Bush lied, people died, and all that.

Just curious; bet you never heard of the Oil-For-Food scandal, huh?

I'm liberal on most domestic policies and conservative on most foreign policies. I just dislike one-sidedness.



Well, a lot of bloggers and MoveOn.orgers. But, well, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all basically pulling for...someone.



Out of 19 months of pure fawning and devotion, 2 months of a bad story seems like a pittance.

That said, that Wright ordeal has thankfully been forgotten.



Because McCain hasn't been misquoted and had single words thrown back at him. Just search for "100 years in Iraq".

It's politics, it happens to both sides. Just one, erm, digs harder.

Think about this; John Edwards' affair was hidden, outright buried, by the media for weeks. How long did Palin's unwed preggers daughter get exposed? 17 hours? BLAM! That's some fast reportin'!



While governor of Arkansas, Clinton pressured someone into making an illegal loan of 300k. That person was convicted and jailed. Clinton has denied involvement.



During Hillary's campaign, there were questions about donations. There was one guy who was basically involved in money laundering and was a fugitive from the law who had donated to them for years. Then, whoops, he splits and they do the "what me worry" routine.



I can only imagine the (justified) media frenzy and fury if Bush were to use his executive powers to get convicted felons pardoned who had political connections to him. In fact, Bush has done that, and rightfully been called on it.



Both sides are corrupt. Corruption, arrogance, and incompetence are pretty much the Trifecta of Government Problems, and both parties are full of them. So I believe that both sides should be exposed with equal vigor and condemned with equal voices. Instead there is too much wagon circling.



It may shock and surprise you, but Democrats are capable of waging war or circumventing civil liberties. The most common way Democrats silence someone is accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or homophobic (with Republicans, it is questioning someone's patriotism). Bill Clinton in 1998 laid out a speech in his STATE OF THE UNION where he believed that Saddam had WMD and that a conflict with him was inevitable. There were military actions in Serbia and Somalia that, well, didn't go well. There were also bomb attacks in Iraq, or after Bin Ladin.

It wasn't McCain who pledged to invade Pakistan recently; it was Obama. Was he branded a war-monger? No.

Aside for foreign policy, where he is hawkish, Lieberman votes lock step with the Democrats a majority of the time, despite being ousted from his own primary for his war vote and having to run as an Independent (he typically calls himself an "Independent Democrat". The same people who championed John Kerry's war record as heroic poo-poo McCain's. While the slightest hint of a racial comment is (rightly) condemned, snide remarks about McCain's age are not uncommon. I'm not into hypocrisy. On either side.

I'm seriously tired of the political bickering. I was only bemused that SECRET INVASION had found itself matching some slogans with both campaigns right now. Next time I'll just preach Democratic slogans and move on. Sheesh.

Yet you sound so totally unconcerned!

 

[BrianWilly]

Wow that's what I get for not refreshing before posting. Now I have to quote and all that.

Man, that's handy. Thanks, Brian.

You're welcome!

I think I'd even be more down with the splash-panel school of action writing if it they at least used the splash panel to do anything remotely interesting in terms of the characters. Stuff as simple as like, Venom using his symbiote-tendrils, or Jan shrinking down and throwing some stingers, or Thor calling down some lightning, would go a long way towards making the characters at least feel like characters and not just cardboard cutouts.

As drawn here they're not even action scenes, they're just promises that, in next month's issue, there may potentially be some actual action scenes.

I'm willing to blame that one on Yu, to an extent; he's a great artist in most respects but a lot of his stuff straddles the line of "cluttered mess" even when that's not what the writer is specifically asking for. But he's given ****all to work with here, and I get that. Hell, half of the characters that he's supposed to make look heroic here are just random zergs who we've never even met before this event. The specifics of the scene doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the context, which is "let's make big splash pages of people fighting, no text whatsoever, and call it telling a story."

But then, I'm contradicting myself, aren't I? In truth I'd really rather just look at some pretty pictures on the page instead of having to read Bendis' stuttering Nonvengers sound like Bendis trying to sound like them.