To be honest, this review has no real reason to be about this game in particular. Instead I came to this game as an afterthought to a much more intriguing game. A few weeks ago I picked up a copy of Pandemic, and it is a pretty fun game, especially as it is with a science related topic (though not at all requiring science to play.) I am somewhat addicted to this game and I make my husband play with me whenever we can, and so much so that I found a board game cafe nearby that had the expansion packs, because I thought I would check them out before buying. While I was there though, I noticed that they had a copy of this deck building game, so I decided to give it a chance as well (the Pandemic expansions were pretty fun though.)
This game is based around a concept of DC heroes, but the heroes themselves don't really work themselves into the mechanics except as it relates to the card aspect of the game. I found the rules to be a little quirky to figure out right away, but after I did the game progressed pretty well and was pretty fun. For some reason I let my husband play as Wonder Woman so I was left to choose from the others, from whom Green Lantern seemed to have the best options (the Wonder Woman option is pretty good too.) The points system kinds of highlights how much the characters are just there for the pictures. Sometimes there makes some sense as to why certain cards get certain effects (like Solomon Grundy can resurrect into your hand whenever you buy him) but there are other more questionable associations - like Wonder Woman is seemingly very awesome at capturing villains as opposed to the other characters. I ended up losing but mostly because I drew some bad cards to begin the game, and because I underestimated the value of the Suicide Squad (basically the Suicide Squad squares the value of the card, as each card in the end is equal to how many of the same cards that you have, so if you have five then you have five cards worth five each.) A DC fan would probably like this game though, as well as a board game fan liking the mechanics (I am both, so double credit for me.) This is no Pandemic, but it is still a pretty fun game, and I would recommend it to others (I will probably buy it, and the expansion pack when it comes out later in the month).
After so much hype about the series, I figured about two months ago that it was time to finally watch Breaking Bad. I knew going in that it was not really my kind of show, and that was confirmed by watching it, but I can equally respect it for the quality of the production. After starting two months ago, I watched the final episode last night. I know some other people are still working through the show, and so I won't get into spoilers, only I will say that I was somewhat disappointed with the show in the end (though the final episode redeemed that somewhat.) The final episode though did bring up one specific thought to me. Unbeknownst to most of the people that know me here, who think that I am a fan of indie comics and Wonder Woman, one of my favourite series of all time is the original Suicide Squad series from the 1980s. The writing in this series was pretty amazing, while still holding the comic based setting. The thought which occurred to me of watching the final episode of Breaking Bad, was that the series both ended with a similar moment (though at the exact end of SS and only near the end of BB.)
Breaking Bad has been given the credit by many for resurrecting television into a new golden age. That being the case, television still goes on as usual in the creation of other television series, and specifically in this case Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The series is not really very gritty, but it does prove that there is ground and interest in a tv show for a team of superheroes. The missing link I think is to combine the two concepts. The original Suicide Squad would work well as a television show. The series was never at odds to raise moral issues, to put heroic characters into the villain roles, and vice versa. This aspect is one which made Breaking Bad so compelling to so many. Maybe it is time for DC (or Marvel) to look into such a television series, as there is probably no better time.
This is unfortunately for me a blog on the wrong side of the new Captain America trailer. One scene which has people talking is that where he jumps out of the airplane without a parachute:
I actually meant to point this out after the Avengers movie, but I had been on vacation at the time and was not actively blogging. The thing to consider about the Captain jumping out of a plane with no parachute is not sign of toughness, but really is just the fastest way to reach the ground, granted of course that he has the shield with him. Since its introduction the shield has never really been well explained, or at least not consistently, but that just puts it on par with most comic book items.
As the shield being made out of a composition of metals, it would have to have equal properties throughout, in that if it is struck from one direction that it would have equal ability to absorb energy. The presentation of the shield is that it somehow absorbs all energy shot at it whether this be electromagnetic energy in the form of lasers of kinetic energy in the form of punches (or hits from Mjolnir) though this does not fit with the law of conservation of energy either (unless the shield gets extremely hot after being hit.) There is an inherent problem with this presentation though, mainly that if the shield is thrown as a weapon that it absorbs all the energy as well, meaning that people wouldn't be able to feel if they had been hit by it. Equally though, if he jumped out of an airplane and landed on the shield, he should be completely fine (seeing as the energy from momentum of a human in free fall is likely far less for instance than being hit by Thor's hammer.)
Hello all, welcome back to another edition of the Comic Vine Community Roundtable. This time we got together to discuss an earlier era of comics - the golden age. Joining me for the discussion were three of the site's experts of the era, as well as big fans! They bear no introduction but I will let them do it anyway.
: Hello, I'm Eric Tragedy, Mr.E or etragedy for short. I'm a long time reader of comics. And have been fortunate enough to work in the fringes of the industry. I never know what to say in these introductions, so I hope that's good enough.
: My name is Julius Caesar. On this site, my name is kfhrfdu_89_76k. Use kfh, though. It will save time.
: I am turoksonofstone feared Nosferatu MC and Comic Book aficionado and researcher
What have you been reading lately? (Can be modern as well)
: A while ago I set out to read DC and Marvel comics as if they were an actual universe - in chronological order. Right now I am still in the mythic age of Marvel, reading my way through the Kull and Conan stories. For DC I am up to the Old West, so I am reading Jonah Hex comics right now.
: I`ve read a Simba-adventure, great comics that are made by students in the art school I study and live at, Vaders little princess (coupla weeks ago), Nichijou (a WEIRD manga that you keep on reading, without really knowing why) and I`m still following Satans soldier because it`s sweet. Oh, Viivi and Wagner, too.
: Golden Age Comics! Timely comics in particular at the moment.
What are your favourite comics of the Golden Age?
:Comics of Fletcher Hanks: A radscallion alcoholic (which is an attenuating circumstance, `cause it`s a disease) who made the best Golden age-comics there are. Well, that`s what I think, currently, because I honestly haven`t found any other comics from the era that would be better.
Pure flow of imagination, crudely drawn to some extent (which differentiates it, because even the most simple looking comics had some form of professionalism about them) and purely fun. The colorful use of language. The humor. The over-the-top nature and occasional realism. The fast forward way of the stories moving along (Like in other 40`s comics. Hanks comics were faster paced than others, though.). Nothing boring. The fact that everyone in it are basically copies of general archetypes. I also really like how none of them are 10 pages long. Some were as short as 5 pages.
Also, they have those facepalm-moments that the reader secretly loves. And openly hates.
Others I like are:
Captain Marvel, who I should read more of.
The early Superman, which fascinates me more than entertains me, because of what he and his world use to be.
Certain Batman-stories of the 40`s. 50`s Batman-stories might be my faf Bat-decade, but I`m not sure.
: I have a list with my recomended Golden Age Comics. (Though it's just comic books, and doesn't include my favorite Golden Age comic strips that includes Hogarth's Tarzan and Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon).
:My favorite Golden Age publisher superhero-wise was Centaur for its distinct array of weird super characters. As far as stories with good writers some E.C. horror and Dell all ages books stand out. I really enjoy the Robin-less early Batman stories and the Monster Society of Evil Captain Marvel story by Fawcett. I don't think I could even choose a favorite from this era too much cool stuff forgotten and abandoned by the industry, audience, and time. The more obscure the better IMO. The work of Fletcher Hanks is a standout must see for sure. A ton of creative giants who had careers spanning the eras also were very active like Eisner Lee Kirby Simon Everett Etc. Etc. The Platinum Age Pulp Magazines are slept on IMO and had a big influence on the early comics.
As a group of people that are interested in the golden age, can you explain how you get access to these comics (in case others are interested in reading them and want to source them)?
: I have a whole lot of sources. One of the best sources out there is www.comicbookplus.com, which actually used to be known as 'GoldenAgeComics.co.uk' it, and its sister site digitalcomicmuseum.com are massive archives of mostly Golden Age comics, currently ComicBookPlus has over 20,000 in their database, and it is a free site.
Another big source for me is libraries. It took a while but libraries have finally started collecting Graphic Novels. I have a membership to 5 public libraries, and a college library. I sometimes get things through inter-library loan too. This is super useful as almost everything Mavel or DC has put out is owned by some library somewhere.
: What etragedy said. FYI, the time before Golden age is called Platinum age.
: Yeah, the Platinum Age is useful in talking about the history of the art form, but there really weren't widespread commercially available comic books before the 1930s, so I generally start with the Golden Age. Love to do a Scott McCloud-like discussion of the origins of the art sometime. A lot of people like to mark the Golden Age as beginning with Superman (1938), but really the first comic books Major Nicholson began producing were only a few years earlier, so rather than just calling 1935-1937 Platinum Age comics I include them in the 30s/40s Golden Age as there's little difference except the lack of superheroes.
: True that.
: The Majority of non-Marvel/DC Golden Age books are Public Domain and can be found in digital format with a Google search or two. The Marvel and DC books can be found in reprint form.
And regarding Platinum Age books they also had much less original content and largely consisted of reprints whereas in the Golden Age almost all comics featured original material..
:I didn`t mean only comic books, but also newspaper strips like Little Nemo.
:Man! Those Little Nemo strips have some truly amazing art. Winsor Mckay was ahead of his time.
:I dunno. Possibly. But given that it was an age of classiness, it`s obvious that the panels would need to be so beautiful, if McCay wanted the strip to succeed. Besides, he had gotten some very professional schooling in drawing.
:An age of Classiness? lol for some I guess but that could be said of any era really.
Little Nemo precedes even the Pulp Magazines in age and compared to its contemporaries in the Funnies Section very little rivals it in Art quality IMO. Though in truth it displays the overwhelming Racism of that time as well.
:Though every decade is as classy as all the others, in various differing ways, 30`s is genrally regarded to be more classier than, say, the 80`s.
IMO, racism is too often confused with colorful stereotypes. Sure, they are irritating to many, especially if their number is great. And their number is great. But still, I haven`t seen any malicious bull crap in it. Meaning, for example, negros/black persons who would eat children. Actually, at one point the heroes of the story visited some natives of some island, who acted very politely. In some other comic of the era, they woulda tried to eat the exemplars (which means heroes, protagonists, if someone reading this doesn`t know).
Okay, by bringing this up, we`ve brought all that heated up racism discussion idiocy to the comments section. Yay for us. Mainly me.
Oh I was talking about around 1905 when Little Nemo first saw print. Not sure I agree with the classiness assessment there on what are you basing this exactly? 80's were definitely tackier that is for sure.
I have mostly seen Blacks and Asians and others treated very poorly in the Golden Age/Platinum Age comics. What surprises me is when I come across a respectful portrayal of non-whites on occasion. Mckay was more respectful than most.
I am not race baiting It was an everyday aspect of life at the time and is always interesting to hear different perspectives IMO.
:I thought it began publishing during the thirties.
Oh, you meant in general. Yeah, I thought you meant just Little Nemo.
Not what I meant. What I mean is, that when someone has just written the word racism to some text in the Internet, people start furiously debating.
4. What defines the golden age for you?
: I take a pretty broad definition of the Golden Age. I do not put a start date on the Golden Age, for me anything before 1950 is the Golden Age. Most of the things that started the Silver Age happen around '49-'51, so I use 1950 as the imaginary dividing line. As with all the Ages if a comic falls right around the dividing line, I might go by content to decide which side of the line I use when discussing it.
: It was that time when comics were really cheap, there was a pretty even great comics/bad comics-ratio (like in every age), and pretty much anyone could make comics. It`s the time of nostalgia, weirdness, shouting lack of poilitical correctness (much like today, though it`s changed its form), same old plots rehashed over and over again (much like today...) and all in all, a very interesting time for comics. Plus, I like the name golden age.
: It is the birth of the Superhero genre in the comic book medium.
I have read a few golden age issues myself, and one thing which strikes me as very different is the format. Whereas today we get one story stretching over 2-6 issues (or more), in those days it was 2-3 stories per issue. Any other major differences that you can think of?
: Probably the single biggest difference is color. Each 'Age' marks an advancement in color printing. In the Golden Age the four color process was very new. Most comics were in black and white or used only one color. Color was a big selling point. In Action Comics, the Superman stories were in color, while many of the other stories weren't. Color was such a big deal that many of the original comics actually had 'color' in their title. Eastern Color Comics was one of the first, if not the first comic book publisher. Dell was still calling one of their comics 'Four Color Comics' right up to the end of the Silver Age. Since superheroes basically arose during this time they are still sometimes referred to as 'four color heroes'.
:Villains were much easier to defeat, and usually they were normal human beings. Mobsters, nazis etc. They might be very sadistic (American Crusaders first story`s got some exquisite racketeers), but they weren`t Jokers or Darkseids. Normal human beings. Except when they weren`t normal (there were god-knows-how-many super intelligent villains whose name was the Brain, and who only appeared once). Or human beings. This is the same for Superman, Wonder woman, Spectre, Hawkman and all those who are still alive and kicking, of course. Except that they had more archenemies in the 40`s. That weren`t nazis.
Comic books were much more longer, and had far less adds. They were also cheaper. But those stories...they followed the same patterns, usually. Hero is having a good time. A bad man causes trouble. People die, or are in a life threatening situation. Hero comes to rescue. Bad guy gets beat up (if it was bad gal, the hero would kiss her). All`s well that ends well.
But, there was also alot of weird stuff. That`s what I think is liberating an in a way, unique about Golden age-stuff. For example.
Killing wasn`t looked with as much scorn. The hero would throw a crook offa cliff. The hero would think: "Well, I guess it`s better of this way." Everyone would cheer. It`s not a completely realistic scenario, and would these days be scoffed at. But it`s funny and interesting.
Batman could spank a thieving woman.
Comics that were directed to kids of age 10 had murders and all kinds abusing. Honestly, kids can take it, and in this age, it`s prohibited from them.
(Well, from comics. They`ve still got their Saturday morning cartoons.)
Comic books were much more longer, and had far less adds. They were also cheaper.
This is true. Comics were much more 'the common man's entertainment' in the Golden Age. In 1938, for 10¢ you could buy Action Comics #1 and get approximately 60 pages of comics. Compare that with the New 52 Action Comics #1 which came out in 2011. It cost $3.99 and had less than 30 pages of comic. Even after you adjust for inflation, That is a 250% increase in cost for half the amount of comics. It's over a 500% increase for the same amount! Today comics are a niche market. In the Golden Age they were for everyone.*
:I figured that it`s the case. Okay, not that precisely.
:Golden age books generally had 4+ stories in my observation with page counts dwindling significantly toward the Silver Age almost every title being an anthology page counts could be as high as 120 pages on some books also there were Text Stories and western themes you don't see as frequently later. What really sticks out as being different to me was the fact Comic Books were a new medium and the creators of the time were creating characters tropes and concepts from whole cloth and laying the groundwork for all that would follow. There was the freelance Studio system of Comic Book Production as well not at all as common today IMO. Heroes almost always killed the Villains in these stories. Comics today are higher priced because of the Paper Quality/Printing Method switch in the 80's and 90's all cost increases deferred to and paid for by the loyal customers. $4.99 is too much for a 64 page book let alone a 32 page one.
Little Nemo was a syndicated Newspaper strip that began in 1905 during the golden age many syndicated strips were licensed for use in the early comics and were often included even after the introduction of original material. Little Nemo eventually had some original comic stories though they were not done by creator Winsor Mckay.
:Another difference: DC and Marvel mostly published titles that DIDN`T star superheroes.
@turoksonofstone Heroes killed less villains than it is usually thought, actually. In the 40`s, that is. In the 50`s of course, no killing whatsoever.
: I don't know - still more killing than just about any other age. Just a lot of it happens off-panel. When Superman destroys a dirigible in mid air, we can pretty much assume that everyone on board died.
:@kfhrfdu_89_76kKfhrdfu: Not sure which books you are referring to but the Villains are killed left and right in the Golden Age books I have read which company/character/series has little killing exactly? I have seen most Villains killed on-panelin my experience.
: I was thinking mostly about the 40s being the war years. Namor, destroys a FLEET of enemy planes, AND an enemy submarineNot 'villains' being killed per se, so much as enemy combatants (which are kind of like villains). These normals get killed by the score during the war.o
In specific, I remember Action Comics #23 where Superman lobs mortar shells at the opposing army (we can assume that resulted in deaths), fires a machine gun at Luthor's pilots (we can assume they all died), and crashes a dirigible full of people (we can assume they all died). He also threatens others with violent death, "Either answer my question, or have your brains dashed out against that wall!"
There was a lot of killing of German and Japanese soldiers by Golden Age superheroes, but of course, it makes sense, why wouldn't there be if they were if the likes of Superman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, The Human Torch, Sub Mariner, etc were fighting on the front lines?
:Honestly, most stories didn`t involve killing. Or maybe I`ve just got so use to it that I don`t notice. All, in all, not every story. Maybe half of them.
: Well, even half is way more than today (or any of the other 'Ages'). In the superhero titles, that is. Obviously not in Mickey Mouse comics so much - and as you mentioned there were a lot more genres than just superheroes.
:Not more or less as today. It`s just that certain publishers focus on certain genres.
:I have seen Super Villains and Civilian Criminal types killed as frequently as Soldiers in War in the Golden Age stories. One must remember there were no codes rules or restrictions on comics until the Seduction of the Innocent era. I am talking about Golden Age Comics in general here not just Marvel and DC. The overall Body count would be highest during the Golden Age era if not for the Cosmic Genocide stories of later times. Marvel and even more so DC were among the earliest to have crossover success and gradually gentrified the Comics content themselves to make them more palatable IMO. The Golden Age definitely was full of Heroes who would not hesitate to kill a Villain if necessary and they often did.
Yes well there was more killing (I remember reading a story where Wonder Woman destroys a German submarine while underwater, which would presumably kill everyone aboard.) Equally though the medium at that time was essentially aimed at a younger reader. Do you think this affects the readability of the titles?
: I don't think they are less readable by adults. Because kids of the Depression and War years were more used to things like death and killing as a fact of life, they're kind of more adult than a lot of comics since (especially the Silver Age). They also work better once you have at least a junior high level of knowledge of history. By contrast, I do think they may be less readable bykidstoday, because they are less polished, dynamic, fast-paced and action oriented - they take a greater attention span than a lot of modern stuff. Face it, there are even some CV users who are adamant that anything before the 90s is 'too slow' and therefore 'sucks'.
:Hah! Too slow? Yeah, right. I can`t find any useless double splash pages in 40`s comics, that are just used for characters posing. Though splash pages did exist back then. Thanks to, can you believe it, Hymie Simon and Jacob Kurtzberg. It`s amazing how much they contibuted to the medium.
There were so many handy comic artists at the time, who knew what to do. So, no, readability wasn`t affected at all. On most comics. And even those who were less competent than most, got the story flowing very well.
: Yeah, I don't think they're slow or unreadable at all. There are those even on these forums that complain stuff even from the 80s (even by the likes of Frank Miller and Alan Moore no less!) as being 'too slow' or 'too talky'. No accounting for taste I guess.
:World is fulla bizarre thoughts. Only explanation that makes sense. That I can think of.
:think despite the fact it is a common belief Simon and Kirby actually may not have done the first Splash page though I don't recall the details at the moment.
I have to agree with the answer/analysis given by etragedy. The Golden Age for the most part has been obscured from comics history with very little other than some Marvel/DC available in reprint form until the late 90's. Batman's origin springs to mind as one of the few things a modern reader of Golden Age books would quickly recognize. The art was irregular during the Golden Age and so were the types of stories told. I would only recommend Golden Age era comic books to someone interested in the Evolution/History of Comics. It occurs to me that E.C. comics should be mentioned these were some of if not the finest books of the Golden Age and still hold up when compared to books of the later Ages. Golden Age books are neat but quality wise I think comics peaked in the 80's the books of today are mostly pretty weak with few exceptions.
:I should never forget that nobody`s the first at anything...which is paradoxical, but so is the entire universe....Probably all of them.
Though the stories are too often repetitive and boring, I really can`t say that they should only be read for historical significance.
That raises an interesting point, how much of historical significance is there in the golden age? Or to put that another way, how much history does a modern reader need. Is it enough to read Action Comics #1 and Detective Comics #27 or do you think that the modern reader would do better with a few more dozen issues of exposure?
:I think that everyone should read more than one comic from every era, that is possible to grasp at. It raises awareness for those comics. Creates respect for them. Gives the reader chance to read some great stuff, and doesn`t make the reader restricted to just all them modern comics.
Granted, if the reader hasn`t grown with those stories, it`s difficult (the level of difficulty varies by the reader) to get use to reading the stories. But it can be overcome. Eventually, the lack of some things, like perfectly smooth color surfaces, wont feel bad at all. Frankly, a reader might grow to love it.
But, the so called older comics aren`t for everyone. And in that case they shouldn`t be read by those persons. But it would also be appreciated if they wouldn`t talk smack on them all the time either. Though, it does give an alternate perspective, which is always interesting.
Ironically, though, all these modern comics will be regarded as not that great (though hunreds of them are absolutely fantastic), after a few decades. Not relevant to the discussion, necessarily, but something I liked to point out.
: I think people should read whatever they want to read.
BUT, I would encourage everyone to check out more than just Detective #27 or Action #1. As a matter of fact I think a lot of the Golden Age stuff was better than the New 52. I liked much of the Siegel/Shuster run of Action better than the Morrison/Morales run and I was actually kind of disappointed with the first couple issues of Batman under Scott Snyder with Batman employing lots of sci-fi gadgets and jumping up to helicopters on the Batcycle and stuff like that.
And @turoksonofstone mentioned E.C. comics - a lot of that stuff is excellent. Shock Suspense Stories is my favorite. Not just historically significant, but just plain good to read.
:I also feel readers should read what appeals to them.
The Golden Age was the beginning of all comic books and anyone interested in the evolution of the medium can see the huge historical significance of that fact alone. You can't know where you are going without knowing where you came from and all that. The WWII period Golden Age Books are interesting because they threw almost all the characters created in the wake of Superman's popularity into the war itself on the home front and the front lines and give you a unique perspective into the early forties era itself IMO. Jungle Men,Gangsters, G-Men, and The Axis Powers abound. I believe when most comic readers think of the Golden Age they only think of Marvel or DC comics but a lot more was going on and other Publishers put out plenty of memorable stuff by the same artists and writers. Dell and E.C. books were better in quality compared to the Marvel/DC stuff IMO. DC comics and Fawcett were the big two back then with Captain Marvel often outselling Superman Fawcett always put out high quality stuff.
The designation of golden age/silver age/bronze age are reflections of the culture at the time that we live in. For instance, I remember reading the letter column of a comic from the late 1950s (which is the golden age to a lot of people) which talked about the comics of the 1940s as the golden age. That being the case, why do you think that there was a move away from the golden age of comics towards the ideas and themes of the silver age?
: As far as the move away from the Golden Age type stories - I want to reserve those comments for the a discussion of the Silver Age in a future roundtable.
:Because the general populace started to think that comics were the products of satan. It was partly caused by the god awful but interesting book, Seduction of the innocent. This of course, led to the foundation of comics code authority, and softening up of comics. No murders, no sexy elements etc.
This isn`t a bad thing, on account of the stories. I don`t care what you might think, there was alot of good stuff.
Batman, monster comics, romance comics (that shaped comics in general), Barks`s Donald duck-yarns ( That were epic in the 40`s, too. Check those out. Honestly. CHECK. THEM. OUT. ), comics of other genres (as usual) etc.
Let us also remember, that the second Flash and Hal Jordan/Green Lantern among other great heroes, (I like them. Besides, there woulda been no Wally West, Hal Jordan or whoevers without them) deputed in the 50`s.
What`s the only real downside, is that the creators were robbed of their freedom to do this and that. Readers were robbed of their freedom to read comics like they use to be. But, they adapted. To survive, you`ve got to adapt. Luckily, the adapting had started in the 40`s already. Take the first appearance of Two-face. It`s very much like a 50`s story. Good stuff.
So, maybe the misunderstandings about comikz...the demonisation of comics makers
( There was something about there being child pornography in them, also. Or something like that. Yeah. Honestly. )
had less to do with comics changing than is thought, these days. Maybe it was simply another natural, evolutionary step.
:I think the showcase silver age start point is best as it has been the standard for a long while with it heralding a resurgence of non-DC trinity costumed superheroes . In the early postwar years the superheroes began to disappear and in the early 50's most competition to Marvel and DC had been snuffed out one way or another and for continuity and market share reasons Marvel and DC books tend to be the major measuring sticks. I like the Platinum Age/Golden Age/Silver Age/Bronze Age/Modern Age/Digital Age comics history model myself.
:I`m da because after the bronze age, there wasn`t a copper age. In time, there woulda also been iron age, nickel age, mercury age, aluminum age...Maybe there`d also be pine-age, giant redwood-age, paper-age, electricity-age, crap-age (Okay, that has always existed along side all the other ages. One could also say that there ain`t any ages, and be completely correct about it.)...
What do you all make of the golden age resurgence from certain companies like Dynamite which try to channel some of the noir elements of the 1930s or of the campy science fiction of the entire period? Is it a gimmick, or do you think modern audiences want golden age like material?
:I believe that it`s a gimmick. And boy, do I love those. But, I don`t think that there`s many who want to read new comics, about golden age heroes who are in the public domain.
But they do want to read quality stories about SOME characters. And since the creators can use characters like Miss Fury or The Spirit (Yes, surprisingly, he`s a public domain character. But his supporting cast isn`t.) completely freely...Why not exploit that? Besides, that way they don`t have to create other similar (though new) characters.
: I haven't read any of the Dynamite books, so I can't speak to their titles in specific, but I don't think it's a gimmick. I read novels set in the 30s and 40s, and that's not a gimmick. Nobody thought it was a gimmick that the film Saving Private Ryan was set in the 1940s. So I don't think it should be dismissed as a gimmick when a period setting is used in comics either. Matt Wagner and Guy Davis did it pretty effectively with Sandman Mystery Theatre. Of course, it all depends on how well it's done. It's been done both well and badly over the years. Denny O'Neil and Michael Kaluta did it very well in the early Bronze Age with The Shadow, for example. But as with all pop culture, stories set in the present always predominate the marketplace.
You speak of gimmick as though it`s a negative thing.
"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries." -- wikipedia
I know that it`s usually dismissed as needless and apparently laced with toxics, if you ask some people. It still doesn`t change it`s original meaning. Which is different, depending on the source, of course.
: I still don't think it qualifies as a gimmick. Nobody calls Boardwalk Empire a gimmick, even though it's probably the only currently airing TV series set in that era.
:Isn't all Science Fiction Campy? I think it is much less a resurgence and much more a rediscovery Alex Ross seems to have a very high regard for authenticcomics history in my opinion just look at his choice of depictions of the Marvel and DC Icons for example and off on his own at Dynamite to see him gravitate toward the Public Domain Characters who have not been watered down with derivative versions and are available to all makes complete sense to me. The Dynamite revival of the earlier Platinum age heroes is just as cool and unlike us Ross can go beyond the Public Domain and get his hands on the legendary licensed characters of the period as well like Shadow, Doc Savage, Green Hornet, Green Lama etc. Dark Horse having already done all of the aforementioned many times telling noir type stories at will in the past and with greater skill than Dynamite has IMO btw. A Gimmick? No. 3-D hologram covers or a massive ill-conceived soft reboot are gimmicks Multiple covers is a Gimmick, god I hate gimmicks. Comics don't need Gimmicks they need incentives. I am not hearing of these revival books breaking any sales records but done correctly I believe they have an audience to serve. Project Superpowers was a crappy story. Comic Characters are only as good as the story they appear in.
:I do like how they changed Green Llama in Project superpowers, how he`s an actual buddhist in that one. I don`t know how authentic a buddhist, since I haven`t read it. Still, a cool idea.
What's everyone's favorite villains from the Golden Age?
:Joker, Lex Luthor, Zor *, Red Skull, Gentleman ghost, most villains of Fletcher Hanks, Scarecrow, Riddler, Two-face, Penguin, Catwoman, Octopus, Dr. Sivana, Mr. Mind, Hugo Strange, Mr. Mxyzptlk (though not all the time) and a few others.
*Though I just like his appearances in Seven soldiers of victory. Haven`t read the rest. I proabably wouldn`t like him in those ones, that much.
: I kind of like The Ultra-Humanite because the weird gender-bending thing was pretty out there for the time.
: The Clown was the nemesis of Ace superheroes Magno and Davey and appeared more frequently than most of his Golden age Villain contemporaries also he was truly evil killed often and had superpowers. The Claw was also a really cool Golden Age Villain with many appearances.
Alright I guess we will sign off now.
: Thanks everyone. Hope everyone learned something - I know I did! See you in the Silver Age!
:Finally, I got the RT I wanted! And it was pretty cool. Many things weren`t covered, but we`ll get to those eventually, I hope. See ya. Figuratively.
I picked up the first issue of Superman-Wonder Woman and was not so impressed (reviewed for anyone interested.) Among the many problems for me was the idea that Wonder Woman wants to train Superman to be a better warrior. As she alludes to, his body is a perfect weapon but he doesn't need to know how to use it. Do the writers have Superman right though? I am not a fighter, have no training, but it would seem to me that warriors would train for a number of factors - speed, strength, durability, stamina, or reflexes. By grace of his alien physiology, Superman already comes out on top in all of these categories. Combined with an already high amount of experience as a fighter then he doesn't really need much more. After all, Wonder Woman is going to teach someone to fight that can stand toe-to-toe with Darkseid in a hand-to-hand battle? Among the many things wrong with the Wonder Woman-Superman romance, the writers have just added another one and I am not sure if it is a strong basis to build the series on.
Episode 4 of Heroes of Cosplay took the cast to Anime Matsuri. Immediately as soon as I started to watch this episode I knew that I was out of my area of knowledge, for while I like comics, I really know very little about anime. As soon as I saw the costumes that were being designed this was confirmed to me, so I had less connection to this issue in that sense. What actually drew me in though was the design that Holly and Jessica went with, as it left the audience at the convention dumbfounded and me as well, which fit in with my entire understanding of anime.
In terms of actual comics stuff in this episode, there was not so much, only a Marvel character cosplay that was part of the convention, and even then the guest judge Becky inexplicably wore a bizarre Black Widow costume with bunny ears (the ears were the inexplicable part). Overall, this episode was less engaging as the characters deal more with outside interests and commitments as opposed to this actual convention (five of the characters are shown working on other projects). There are some tense moments as well, even there there is a decent resolution to them. Perhaps it was better to get such a theme out there as well earlier on in the series, for that the more engaging issues can be shown later?
Well "ruled" is not really correct, I was thinking of where to add this information to the wiki but I am not even sure if it belongs anywhere. As I have stated many times previously, the field of comics quite often follows that of pop culture only maybe a bit too slow. For instance, in the 1960s and 1970s, there was the introduction of several martial arts characters at both DC and Marvel to capitalize on the popularity of the action movies coming out of Hong Kong. Equally later in the 1970s there was the introduction of jive-talking characters like Black Lightning to capitalize on the blaxpoitation movement. A forgotten field of this influence was in the early 1960s, and for a few reasons. At the time comics were more so still aimed at children, and more so, there was only really one major company at the time (DC). The pop culture addition at this time was that of the beatnik movement and there was actually a small influence of the characters into somewhat of mainstream at DC. The most obvious was Snapper Carr, a character that appeared in almost ever Justice League of America issue for some time and therefore had a high profile. The other was Jonny Double, who showed up all over and still show occasionally in modern comics. It is a small and mostly forgotten part of comic history, but for a time, beatniks were in.
This topic came up with me and a friend recently, and I thought I might share it as the environment is an important thing to me (it is what I study after all.) The problem was how the Pacific Trash Vortex is presented in the series Great Pacific, and its sci fi like treatment. I initially had higher hopes for this series as it was going to deal with an environmental issues, but almost from the first moment I knew that something was wrong. It is essentially comes down to understanding degrees of scale. The Pacific Trash Vortex doesn't look like much, because it is still primarily water, the only problem is that it isn't only water. It is like in the asteroid field. We have this impression of the asteroid field being what it is like in Empire Strikes Back with the Aluminum Falcon dodging asteroids left and right while trying to escape from the Imperial Fleet. Nice visual sure, but in reality in our own asteroid field in our own solar system, if you were to stand on one of the larger rocks, you would not be able to see the nearest rock, or you might be able to see one several hundred kilometers away as a faint object. When it comes to the Pacific Trash Vortex, it is the same idea, it is not so much that you can sit in one place and be in a sea of garbage (though there are places like that) but rather that you can be in the sea of garbage and not know it. The smallest pieces of plastic are microscopic, but they too block out the sun just as much as a plastic bag does and blocks the sunlight from reaching below. This affects the life below and affects the whole food web. In terms of science fiction I suppose the series is all right, but in terms of its actual science, its treats the environment the same way that early space serials treated outer space.
Just another thing that I ran across on Discover magazine's homepage was this picture of an artist's concept of the surface of Titan, the Saturnian moon:
This is reminiscent of the short story arc in Warlord of Mars Dejah Thoris where she is abducted by Vampires from Titan and then taken there and later to Saturn. The Titan as depicted is much more like what we might think of as our own moon, and the surface of Saturn was shown to be rocks floating in liquid air. Funny then that the depiction of Saturn is completely off, but might actually have been realistic enough for Titan.
Something caught my eye as I was checking out the Discover magazine homepage today (the article is here if you don't want to bother with my insight into this topic.) Predicting the success of movies has been a notoriously difficult process as most indicators have proved ineffective at doing so, especially as compared to the predictability of some other trends. What they have recently though is that the popularity (and therefore financial success) of a movie can be linked to the amount of time and the number of edits on their wikipedia page in the weeks and days leading up to the premiere. Essentially the idea is that people take a certain amount of ownership for certain works that they associate with, and that for every person that is doing this that it correlates to a certain fixed amount that aren't.
This of course refers to comic book movies as well, in fact probably more so, as comic movies are at the moment pretty much box office gold for movie studios. It is also reasonable that this same rule applies to other wikis. I am sure that it applies to the movies on Comic Vine as well (even when we have no firm rules as to what constitutes a movie which should be added to the wiki). What is interesting for me though is the absolute inaccuracy of this as it would be applied to comics themselves. Whereas there might be some individual issues or volumes that are more edited than others, it is also likely that those volumes have been added in a serial behaviour to the wiki, because they themselves are in a serial format. I suppose in certain case though that such information could be used to predict the success of comics, but only in an extended manner. For instance, one might be able to tell the success of comics by the number of concepts associated to them, or the number of key characters, or even if people consistently break site rules to add certain issues early.