shadowpdf1's forum posts

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Stoopid! 
 
Just another reason to end a long-standing title and replace it with a new #1.  They didn't even call it a different name!  Marvel is ridiculously #1 crazy (and that's saying a lot considering what DC is doing right now),  If Marvel wants to split the X's then just start up another new title.  Why kill off the numbering of a venerable title?  Ugh!
#2 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio
@omertalvendetta said:

                Most overrated writer in history... I have a feeling this whole revamp started like this...  Morisson.... "I want to write Superman, from scratch.  Make it so." DC Executives....  "We shall.  We will restart Action Comics just for you.  Hell, we should just do the whole universe while we're at it." 
           

ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE, SIR!!!!!  I agree completely.   
 
From what I have seen of this DCnU, it will be an abject failure.  It appears that no one at DC understands what they need to do to get new readers.  And making something current that is already timeless only serves to turn the character into something he's not.  Want people to enjoy Superman?  Don't change the world around him, don't change his character.  Write good Superman stories.  That's something that hasn't been done in years.   
 
As for the rest of the DCU .... Well, they threw the baby out with the bathwater, didn't they?  Then they refilled the tub with mud.  God I hope this is a Flashpoint thing and that the DCU will revert after a few months.  Probably not, though.
#3 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Amen, Tony!  This "revamp" is, for the most part, crap.  Of the 52 #1s I'm only mildly interested in a few of them ... maybe 5.  You are right in that this new direction will not attract readers from outside comics.  You might get a few speculators for the #1s, and, of course, many diehard DC readers (of which I consider myself)  might join in.  I believe, too, that eventually things will go back to normal.  Maybe this is because of the Superman lawsuits; maybe it's tied in with Flashpoint.  My point is: I don't care.  This really doesn't look like my DC and I'm not going along for the ride. 
 
RIP DC
#4 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio


Let's leave aside the large possibility/probability that Johnny isn't really dead and that we will see him in issue #600 (Marvel has expressly said no to this).  If you take the Fantastic Four within their world (and ignore the fact that they are characters directed by corporations and wild-eyed writers) you have to remember that the foursome are adventurers.  Sometimes people die on adventures.  It's no one's fault.  We live in a time where we need to point the finger, assess blame.  Ours is a litigious society, after all.  But Johnny made the choice and it is his to own.

 

That said .... Johnny went supernova, beyond anything he had done before, and literally burned his suit off him.  (Some of the unstable molecules could not adapt to the sudden extreme temperatures that Johnny generated, became hyper unstable, and were burned up.)  Annihilus discovers the suit among the ashen ruins of his minions.  He also finds Johnny, out cold, perhaps used up.  A plan hatches ....

#5 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not up on the comic series ... only watched the TV show.  What if Jenner told Rick that Rick's blood is the cure.  That would be the final irony for Jenner as the reveal would come to late for him to do anything about it.
#6 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Hex, 
 
You spent a lot of words making my point.  Nearly every post - including yours - focusses on the sexual/homosexual portion of Mr. Cooke's comments instead of looking at and examing his complete statement.  He's upset - not ranting - about the state of comic books today.  He doesn't like people getting raped in comics.  He doesn't like Batman swearing or feeding rats to little boys.  He's upset by the laziness of writers who suddenly change decades old characterizations of iconic heroes simply to excite sales.  He's upset that writers inject their own 45-year-old sensibilities into the stories to entertain 45-year-old readers in a medium that used to be exclusively for the young.   And you - like almost everyone else - leave out the part where the young lady who started this thread asked how we would make changes to the industry, if at all. 
 
If you read my comment, you would have seen that for people to be arguing about homosexuality or Mr. Cooke's feelings toward homosexuality is actually off-topic.  And if you had read Mr. Cooke's original comments more closely, leaving out the knee jerk rantings of a super-socially sensitive blogosphere, you probably would have seen the fuller meaning of his words beyond the questionable examples he cited to illustrate his point. 
 

 
@HexThis
said:

" @shadowpdf1 said:
"

Leave it to a social minority to blow up all out of proportion one small piece of Darwyn Cooke's comments into the only thing people talk about.  Seriously, do gays think that Batman feeding a boy a rat is a "gay thing?"  Do they think that iconic heroes swearing is directed solely at their group?  Or characters getting raped?  And do all of you socially conscious straights really think sex or sexual orientation was the sum and total of what Mr. Cooke had to say?  This is social sensitivity at its worst, where we take a small bit out of something someone says, does, or whatever, and then beat hell out of it, ignoring the central and truly important elements of the original comments.  It's disingenuous and it's designed to muddy the waters rather than openly discuss a topic.
 

Whether or not he's homophobic is obviously a point of contention, however, his lack of eloquence and general whininess is more than apparent so I don't blame anyone for being offended by his words, they were simply clumsy and inarticulate enough to warrant that reaction and based on that quote alone it isn't ridiculous to make certain assumption. Do I believe he's homophobic? Maybe not consciously so but he doesn't make a good case otherwise in the quote everyone's discussing or else he wouldn't have had to clarify later on.   
#7 Posted by shadowpdf1 (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Leave it to a social minority to blow up all out of proportion one small piece of Darwyn Cooke's comments into the only thing people talk about.  Seriously, do gays think that Batman feeding a boy a rat is a "gay thing?"  Do they think that iconic heroes swearing is directed solely at their group?  Or characters getting raped?  And do all of you socially conscious straights really think sex or sexual orientation was the sum and total of what Mr. Cooke had to say?  This is social sensitivity at its worst, where we take a small bit out of something someone says, does, or whatever, and then beat hell out of it, ignoring the central and truly important elements of the original comments.  It's disingenuous and it's designed to muddy the waters rather than openly discuss a topic.

At the heart of Mr. Cooke's exasperated comments was a plea for so-called creators to leave alone the time-tested works of others; to instead develop their own characters if they want to make social comments or simply explore new ideas in super-hero comics.  Mr. Cooke was lamenting that inventiveness has gone out of the industry, at least as it deals with the original and beloved heroes that began it all.
 
In this, he is both right and wrong.  Yes, too many creators have fallen in love with their own what-if scenarios and with the current deconstructionism of comic book characters.  This is supposed to be a post-modern and cool thing that shows off not only the writer's intellect but also his worthiness to work in a serious medium (i.e., something not printed in funny books).  

Writers always long to be taken seriously, no matter the genre or medium, and taking up a cause celebre is a fast track to acceptance.  But it's more than that.  The young fan-turned-comics-writer, which began in earnest in the '60s, has literally gone viral in the new millenium.  And so these well-meaning individuals rush in and tear up the landscape, all for the sake of sales and epic cross-over events, without a thought to the condition in which they leave the playing field when they are done. They've got a "brilliant" idea that they just have to tell, but once it explodes onto the page they leave to do something else. Very, very few stay for the long haul and develop a body of work that transcends the next over-priced hard-cover reprint.  

Of course all of this cannot be blamed on the writer, and this is where I differe with Mr. Cooke a bit.  At the heart of the comics de-evolution of the past 40 years is the decline of the editor as a creative force.  Gone are the days of Julius Schwartz and Mort Weisinger and their generation.  Men like Julie provided steady leadership of their charges assuring continuity of character rather than being slavish to the fan-lust of story continuity. These editors had their flaws, to be sure, but Superman always looked like Superman, behaved like Superman, and in the world in which he lived Superman, and family, followed a known set of rules from writer to writer, artist to artist, year to year.  These constants may have bored the post-modernists, and fueled their what-if fires.  But to the Man of Steel's millions of fans (as well as to the fans of other like heroes) this was a comforting and enjoyable world to visit time and again.  Without such strong hands, like the dissolution of the studio system in Hollywood, the lack of editorial control in both story content and direction has lead to creative chaos.    

There is no doubt that fantastic stories have been created in this new world of comic books.  Thank God for the modern editorial freedom that allows Hellboy and Fables and a host of other books, small and large, to thrive.  But a lot has been lost over time, too.  

Mr. Cooke said "when the industry of superhero comics realizes it's sights to the young people it was meant for, I'll be there with both arms and feet outside."  

While I thrill at hearing this from one of my favorite creators, I must disagree - if only slightly - with him.  

Kids have been left out of comics for decades, to be sure.  As Mr. Cooke comments, this is an "old man's" medium now, by and large, and virtually all of the comic book producers cater to the older reader. Marvel considers itself an intellectual property marketing company that provides in its monthly offerings storyboards for potential movies.  While DC has pulled itself back from the dark brink that Marvel gleefully tumbled over several years ago, it still seems a bit embarrassed to wholly give itself over to being a comic book publisher. Image and Dark Horse and Boom and Moonstone and Dynamite have carved out a small space for themselves filling in niches.  In fact, the only company that remembers that it is, truly, a comic book publisher is Archie Comics.  And even they have stumbled a bit recently, what with their move to glossy paper and page bleeds, their bandwagon hopping "epic" events, and the ill-conceived redesigns of their bankable characters.  

Marvel and DC have offered up kiddy fare in the past but it's not the kind of thing kids really want.  They want to be able to read Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Green Lantern, Thor, The Avengers, et. al., without crashing into adult issues and pages worth of dialogue and talking heads without even a single punch being thrown.  Kids want action, dramatic artwork, and a thrilling pace.  Too much of today's comics plod through with endless talk, political intrigues, and other "adult" sensibilities. And while titles like Batman Adventures were interesting, even captivating, they were still segregated from the main. Kids want to be part of the ongoing action of their favorite characters, not visit a version of them at some sort of kiddie park gulag.  

Like with everything popular, so much of comics has a sameness about it.  The fix is actually simple, though, especially for DC.  They already have natural divisions.  DC Universe, Vertigo, Wildstorm, etc.  What they need is another division; one that is actually part of the DC Universe proper.  Unlike Mr. Cooke, I believe that comics don't have to be just for kids.  It's a canvass that is so large it can hold everyone and every kind of story telling.  But what we need now is a Batman book, a Superman book, a Justice League and a Green Lantern book that tones down the adult sensibilities.  That uses some of the old-fashioned story-by-fisticuffs techniques that made those characters popular in the first place.  Not a total regression; after all it's been 50 years since the beginning of the Silver Age.  And not a total removal from the main continuity of the day, either - there will always be cross-overs and epics, and we don't want to deny these titles their place in the run.  Still, a return to the cleverest bits of old and to the character continuity that made each of those icons what they are today will spark interest in new, youthful readers.  

Marvel could probably do it, too.  They seem to be on that path already with the quietly brilliant title Thor The Mighty Avenger, a book that outshines everything done with Thor in the past decade, and offers a bright, comic book future for the Thunder God.   

Archie, too, could pull back from its silly experiments. Very easily.  And now that DC has messed up for a second time on the Red Circle characters, perhaps Archie will develop a relaunch that will be in keeping with its enduringly youthful audience and show respect for the characters' pasts as well.  

Changes like this will bring Mr. Cooke back into the super-hero fold, I believe, if he ever really left.  Some closed minded creators will run from such changes, but many others will flock to the opening of these doors.  More important than that, however, will be the young.  The kids.  The ones who used to own this industry, and who surely deserve a seat or two at the table once again.  

Bravo, Mr. Cooke!  Thank God someone prominent in the field spoke up at last!    

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2