I have a list...
Mark Waid’s Hulk, it has problems, when it focuses on dialogue it bogs down way too much and when it loses focus it's even slower. The balance between Banner and Hulk are much appreciated, it gives the book a unique balance and can help with the pacing. There are those moments that shine through, moments that are bursting with energy and interesting premises, moments that are dumbfounded and over the top. This is where Waid's Hulk shines as here he has found the perfect definition of the limitless rage monster.
Felipe Smith's Ghost Rider, I understand how it's ridiculous and what dialogue there is feels weak but that's what I love about it. Smith relies more on his artist to aid him tell a story and that's what I love about his work. The uniqueness of relying on the artwork to give a narrative is rare especially in the demographic Ghost Rider is in, the simplistic dialogue helps give a sense of flow and it keeps hooking me in regardless of the artist.
Dan Slott's Spider-Man. What can I say that hasn't been said? "No, it's going to be bigger? No, not just yet. It never does." are one of the many descriptions I've heard to describe his writing and I can't deny that. I also can't deny that I wish he wrote Peter his age. It kept getting good reception at Major Spoilers (another comic book website I go to) and I finally snapped when and decided to pick up a copy after my friend recommend it to me. I enjoy it, a lot. What is there has some of the most natural dialogue and best pacing I've read in a while. It's also easy to tell that Slott has passion for his work, not just interviews with his ego but due the fact that every characters' motivations feel very genuine. Now if only he listened to some of that criticism...
I can't dislike Carnage, he might be a scrappy and his power is solely shown just to show that he's a threat and then easily beaten, he might be dumb but I love how over the top he is. Maybe it's because I grew up on the 90's Spider-Man series. I honestly find the more over the top and gory Carnage is written the better. Personally I think that is why he was created and is why I like comics like Carnage USA and Deadpool vs. Carnage.
I really like Samuel Alexander, it's enjoyable to see a new kid grow up and learn the ropes. It also helps that he has responsibility in multiple roles. To top it off, he's young and learning these things and acting childish feels satisfying and natural. The plots might be okay but Alexander's always bursting with energy, I find he's an enjoyable lead.
Fear Itself, I can see how people turn this event away and that it was okay. Okay sure but it was well written and it had a sense of knowing how to increase direness when necessary. That's what draws be back to the event.
I felt more satisfied with Avengers vs. X-men than Civil War. I still find Civil War was better written and is better in general but Avengers vs. X-men had more reason to it. I like how there was a large threat of the Phoenix and what it brings serves a different purpose to the two sides as opposed to judging the need for a secret identity, more people are torn in the decision of the earlier than the later. I also found more characters' actions more natural and that the consequences had a larger impact not just on the plot but the characters themselves. Regardless Avengers vs. X-men was still sloppily written, I cannot deny that.
Also, WOO, first post on page 2!
Log in to comment