Comics are Awesome II

[BWprowl]

Yeah, those fans need to grow the fuck up.

Again, says who? Who says comic book characters that continue to sell can't be published in perpetuity, or at least until the market dries up? If you don't like the current approach, no one's forcing you to buy a comic with a 50 or a 75 year old character. But for those of us who enjoy reading about such characters, who are you to say "grow up"? What makes your point of view valid, and theirs invalid?

I gotta say, I'm actually with Anderson (and by extension, Sparky ) on this one. How come you're so concerned with what other comics fans do and don't like, Dom? I mean, we've talked round and round here about what we perceive with problems with narratives in comics. In my corner, I'll say a lot about how I'd like to see companies like the Big 2 handle continuity and reboots and how they're stupid the way they do things and how comics have to be marketed and all, but then your side of things seems to be to call out the people that *do* enjoy these big, continuity-entangled forever-ongoing titles. Look, I admit that half the reason I'm buying Superior Spider-Man is to laugh at the butt-devastated fanboys losing their shit over it (and oh man this week's issue is a *gold mine*), but I certainly wouldn't tell fans like Sparky and Anderson that they should stop liking what I don't like (indeed, most of my discourse with Anderson on the issue has been out of personal interest in trying to understand his viewpoint and preference, since it's just so foreign to me).

I mean, you've got your Earth-2, I've got my Scarlet Spider, Sparky has his Green Lantern, and like he said no one's forcing us to buy the other books that cater to other people's preferences. Really, Anderson is the one getting screwed on this one since DC has apparently decided that they don't want to publish any comics starring older characters.

But yeah, now that I think about it, complaining about the people who complain about comics is just as silly as complaining about comics: completely inconsequential in real life and not worth getting worked up about because you can't change anything. Oh, what a fool I've been.

[Gomess]

S'why we all need to write our own dang stories.

[Dominic]

Hold on a minute Gomess.

But yeah, now that I think about it, complaining about the people who complain about comics is just as silly as complaining about comics: completely inconsequential in real life and not work getting worked up about because you can't change anything. Oh, what a fool I've been.

Fair point.

But, a peeve of mine is "people living down to stereotypes". And, a stereotype about comic fans is that they just blindly follow a character because they luv there faverit chawuctah. "I hate Wolverine because he is a big meanie!" And, uh, they are not wondering what the writer is doing when they write Wolverine to be a big meanie? "Why is Spider-Man such a tool?" Because that is how he is fucking written. "I read comics with Spider-Man in them because Spider-Man is a good unto himself even when the comics are bad!" This shit really makes me crazy.

In my daily life, I actually find Irish drunks to be slightly more offensive than non-Irish drunks. (I dislike drunks in general, and have known a diverse range of them. But, you see what I mean.) This has been "a thing" with me for years.

In the case of comic fans, I get annoyed when their complaints implicitly run along the lines of "I would rather have bad comics with a character that I know and like than good comics without that character".

In all seriousness, there is not a single book on my pull-list, not a single property, that I would stay with if it went bad. If Costa was pulled from "Cobra", I would be done with "GI Joe", (with Costa's run being a large part of what would survive the inevitable purging of my collection). I would drop "Transformers" if it ended up in the creative hands of (as a hypothetical) Kirkman, Dixon, Ennis, Waid, Kurtzman and Orci. I would stay with "Earth 2" if Robinson left. But, I would be done with it the minute that book dropped the high concept of "the big events are going to stick". (I would probably start picking up Marvel's various "Ultimates" books to fill that void, albeit at greater cost in money and space.)


Okay, now to tackle Gomess' question.

I *could* write my own stuff. But, I do not have the time to do so consistenly or well. And, sometimes, I want to see what other people can do.

Figure it this way. I like wrestling. I like some types of match and gimmick more than others. I am completely incapable of doing anything at a wrestling show beyond helping with the ring crew, acting as an audience plant and (sometimes) working a camera. That is it. I like wrestling. I have had the chance to learn about it directly from guys who have been in the business for years. But, I cannot wrestle. I suck on the mic. I would make a shitty wrestling show, which means that if I want a good wrestling show I have to go to (or watch) one.

If somebody likes movies, making their own movie is not likely to go well (unless they have an unusual amount of skill, money and man-power).

I can write. But, even discounting the time it would take for me to produce something worthwhile, I still cannot draw worth a damn. I cannot make good comics. If I want good comics, I have to buy them from somebody who can make them. Text stories would be an option. But, again....I would need more of a return on my time.

[Shockwave]

I tend to follow the franchises I enjoy. For example, a comic will get my attention and money by virtue of being "Transformers". That is, I follow the concept. Giant robots fighting that change into stuff is enough to be entertaining to me. So, when I get a TF book I know that at the very least I will be entertained. I own all three movies on dvd. I watch them because they are entertaining. But I do not regard them as "good" in the greater scope of the franchise. And I am not shy about telling people that. On the reverse side, I generally hate Pokemon on concept alone. So, even if there is a well written Pokemon comic I wouldn't care to read it because I turned off by the core concept.

[andersonh1]

Good writing is A component, not THE component of comics that I read, books I read, tv shows I watch, etc. I will continue to be a Doctor Who fan, because I like the show and concept, despite the presence of several turkeys during it's long history. Grant Morrison's ADD all over the place plots on his recent Action Comics run don't ruin the character of Superman. Star Trek V doesn't negate the quality of the other movies simply by virtue of being associated with them. Etc. I'll put up with some bad writing on occasion if the overall concept or characters are good. There are levels of bad writing that can cause me to give up on something temporarily, but if I like the character or franchise, I'll be back. I dropped the Eight Doctor novels because they had become so dire and grim and I got no joy out of reading them at all. I hated the things. But I'm still a fan of the character.

Conversely, I don't care how brilliantly written a run of GI Joe might be, or Iron Man, or whatever because I don't have any interest in the characters. I'm not emotionally invested in them. Same thing with MLP... it may be very well written, but because I don't care about the ponies, the quality of writing is irrelevant to me. Good writing alone wont' spark my interest.

I tend to follow the franchises I enjoy. For example, a comic will get my attention and money by virtue of being "Transformers". That is, I follow the concept. Giant robots fighting that change into stuff is enough to be entertaining to me. So, when I get a TF book I know that at the very least I will be entertained. I own all three movies on dvd. I watch them because they are entertaining. But I do not regard them as "good" in the greater scope of the franchise. And I am not shy about telling people that. On the reverse side, I generally hate Pokemon on concept alone. So, even if there is a well written Pokemon comic I wouldn't care to read it because I turned off by the core concept.

Agreed. This sounds very similar to my approach.

[Dominic]

I can get behind reading for a concept, but only to a point.

I am reading "Earth 2" and "Legends of the Dark Knight" purely on the basis of concept.

"Earth 2" is an ongoing comic that (thus far) assumes that big events will stick. That is all too rare in comics, especially from the big two. So long as it is done competently, I am in. But, if the book deviates too much from that concept or if the general quality of the book drops too low, I am out. (I have not seen any reason to worry about those outcomes so far. But, either of those would be triggers.) I am not reading that book because I care about Green Lantern or the others. The whole damned team could get wiped out, and I would be fine with it.

"Legends of the Dark Knight" is basically a "Batman" anthology series. It consists of exactly the type of "done in one" stories that people claim to want. It does not have a fixed creative team, (often having multiple stories per issue), which means that the tone and quality of the stories will vary. All told, this is probably the most new-reader friendly book on shelves right now. How well it sells over the next year or so is going to be real evidence for or against the merit of comic companies publishing short stories. This book will never be one of my anchor books. But, it could easily be somebody's gateway book. (I plan to purge my runs of this every so often, and only keep maybe the top third or fourth.)


However, concept is only going to carry a book so far. "Tony Stark as Iron Man" has been done. On its own, it is not worth my time to read. Now, if somebody has an idea for the futurism inherent in "Iron Man", (as is the case with Gillen), I will be on board for it. But, I would be happy to read an "Iron Man" comic that assumed Stark had long ago stepped (or drunkeny stumbled) down and been replaced....if the book was good.

I was in to "GI Joe" from maybe '84 until about 5 years ago. At first, the fact that it was "GI Joe" was enough to hold my interest. But, as I got older, it was the content more than the characters that kept my interest. (I was stop and go with the comics during the Devil's Due run because the comics were not always good.) I am not reading "The Cobra Files" because it is a Joe book. (It really does not read like a modern Joe book if we assume that Dixon is setting the standard.) I am reading it because I am a fan of Costa and it is a *good* series on its own.

And, like I said above, under the right circumstances (assuming certain conditions happening at the same time for a long enough time), I would drop "Transformers" as a hobby. (As it stands, Hasbro has more or less killed my interest in toys as a whole.)

Grant Morrison's ADD all over the place plots on his recent Action Comics run don't ruin the character of Superman

Morrison's writing is actually pretty focused. He knows what he is going to say before he starts writing. Morrison tends to plan his stuff out, often farther than editorial will allow. (The delay of "Multiversity" may well be as much DC editorial's fault as it is his.)

Good writing is A component, not THE component of comics that I read, books I read, tv shows I watch, etc. I will continue to be a Doctor Who fan, because I like the show and concept, despite the presence of several turkeys during it's long history. Grant Morrison's ADD all over the place plots on his recent Action Comics run don't ruin the character of Superman. Star Trek V doesn't negate the quality of the other movies simply by virtue of being associated with them.

And, the question is would you rather have badly written/produced "Doctor Who", "Superman" and "Star Trek" or something *good*?

I am done with "Spider-Man" not because "I do not like Peter Parker", but because the mainline comics have been shit for about 20 years.



Dom
-damned well expects "Earth 2" to be a different book next year.

[Shockwave]

I can get behind reading for a concept, but only to a point.

I am reading "Earth 2" and "Legends of the Dark Knight" purely on the basis of concept.

"Earth 2" is an ongoing comic that (thus far) assumes that big events will stick. That is all too rare in comics, especially from the big two. So long as it is done competently, I am in. But, if the book deviates too much from that concept or if the general quality of the book drops too low, I am out. (I have not seen any reason to worry about those outcomes so far. But, either of those would be triggers.) I am not reading that book because I care about Green Lantern or the others. The whole damned team could get wiped out, and I would be fine with it.

"Legends of the Dark Knight" is basically a "Batman" anthology series. It consists of exactly the type of "done in one" stories that people claim to want. It does not have a fixed creative team, (often having multiple stories per issue), which means that the tone and quality of the stories will vary. All told, this is probably the most new-reader friendly book on shelves right now. How well it sells over the next year or so is going to be real evidence for or against the merit of comic companies publishing short stories. This book will never be one of my anchor books. But, it could easily be somebody's gateway book. (I plan to purge my runs of this every so often, and only keep maybe the top third or fourth.)


However, concept is only going to carry a book so far. "Tony Stark as Iron Man" has been done. On its own, it is not worth my time to read. Now, if somebody has an idea for the futurism inherent in "Iron Man", (as is the case with Gillen), I will be on board for it. But, I would be happy to read an "Iron Man" comic that assumed Stark had long ago stepped (or drunkeny stumbled) down and been replaced....if the book was good.

I was in to "GI Joe" from maybe '84 until about 5 years ago. At first, the fact that it was "GI Joe" was enough to hold my interest. But, as I got older, it was the content more than the characters that kept my interest. (I was stop and go with the comics during the Devil's Due run because the comics were not always good.) I am not reading "The Cobra Files" because it is a Joe book. (It really does not read like a modern Joe book if we assume that Dixon is setting the standard.) I am reading it because I am a fan of Costa and it is a *good* series on its own.

And, like I said above, under the right circumstances (assuming certain conditions happening at the same time for a long enough time), I would drop "Transformers" as a hobby. (As it stands, Hasbro has more or less killed my interest in toys as a whole.)

So, even if there is a well written Pokemon comic I wouldn't care to read it because I turned off by the core concept.

A core concept can put me off, either for being stupid ("Marvel Zombies") or just for being something...distasteful. I am much less comfortable with "Pokemon" and similar franchises after having fostered an abandoned fighting dog. Do I think that "Pokemon" is going to inspire the next Michael Vick? No. But, I am not sure that pit-fighting critters should be fodder for entertainment. So, it would take a *really* good "Pokemon" comic to get me in.

Grant Morrison's ADD all over the place plots on his recent Action Comics run don't ruin the character of Superman

Morrison's writing is actually pretty focused. He knows what he is going to say before he starts writing. Morrison tends to plan his stuff out, often farther than editorial will allow. (The delay of "Multiversity" may well be as much DC editorial's fault as it is his.)

Good writing is A component, not THE component of comics that I read, books I read, tv shows I watch, etc. I will continue to be a Doctor Who fan, because I like the show and concept, despite the presence of several turkeys during it's long history. Grant Morrison's ADD all over the place plots on his recent Action Comics run don't ruin the character of Superman. Star Trek V doesn't negate the quality of the other movies simply by virtue of being associated with them.

And, the question is would you rather have badly written/produced "Doctor Who", "Superman" and "Star Trek" or something *good*?

I am done with "Spider-Man" not because "I do not like Peter Parker", but because the mainline comics have been shit for about 20 years.

When I was reading Bendis' "All-New Spider-Man", I thought that Gahnke(sp?) was a great character. But, that was not even close enough to keep me reading the book. (I had to drop something, and that book did not make the cut.) Bendis writing Luke Cage in "New Avengers" is a passable read. Luke Cage is a good character. But, "New Avengers" was just counting time until the next event.


Dom
-damned well expects "Earth 2" to be a different book next year.

Anderson and I would prefer to have "good" Dr. Who. (or Superman, Star Trek, whathaveyou). Barring that, there's enough in those franchises to keep us entertained even through the bad parts. I would rather have a bad TF comic than any Pokemon comic. Because at least with the TF comic I'm getting something that will at least entertain me with characters I like, while the Pokemon comic loses me on sight alone.

[JediTricks]

Their numbers are about average for IDW's TF, though.

I read that as meaning we have elite tastes.

I was just talking about this with a friend of mine the other night, and the real problem is that there's a disconnect between the media portrayals (movies) and the comics themselves. If you see Iron Man and you absolutely love Tony Stark in those...well, good fucking luck finding an Iron Man comic where he's actually written like that guy. (Fraction's run is as close as you're gonna get, and even that goes off the rails.)

If Marvel had a "movieverse" series of books, I'm sure those might actually be through the roof.

I think they tried that, but forgot to get anybody who could write.

My favourite part of that setup is how a large portion of, well, everybody is so willing to be antagonistic to pretty much any group, because they just want to label someone "the enemy" and beat the tar out of them...a lot like America. (Look at all the racist crap that spewed forth after the Boston bombings.)

Quoted for truth.

Those examples of Lee's writing are everything wrong with comics. After reading that, I really want to curb-stomp somebody.

You are a bigot, an intolerant fanboy in this matter. Aside from the abuse of exclamation points, and let's face it, that was just the STYLE! OF! THE! TIME!, there's nothing wrong with how The Hulk is written there

I agree that "New Nation" should have been a freebie, or at most a dollar book. But, the set-up in the "Secret Invasion" book was good. Bendis can set and write a scene. I am not sure why you think that the early issues of "Dark Avengers" make hash of the scenes with the Cabal.

Norman clearly shows he's not up to the task of backing up his claims, he can't be everywhere at once, he's not particularly good at managing his situations much less policing his threats, he personally vouches for Doom's safety only to immediately let the guy get his ass handed to him for 2 more issues. The Cabal isn't some street lowlifes meeting under a warlord, this is seriously world-shifting stuff and Normie's clearly not up to the task, yet they still act like he is for no apparent reason.

Would you rather have 20 odd pages of the characters punching each other? We have read that scene how many times over the years? It has been done. Nobody cares at this point.

It'd be nice to have them do SOMETHING, a common goal, a training exercise, flashbacks to what each member is capable of, even an outline of what they are going to be doing together and how they should be doing it. Instead it's "let's stand around and fill a whole page with word balloons before walking into the next panel to fill it up with word balloons from a slightly different angle."

"Dark Avengers" was the first ongoing Marvel book that I had read in *years*. I knew next to nothing about any of the characters save for Osborn (who, as far as I was concerned should have been dead). I had some familiarity with "Secret Invasion".....and not much else.

I had no trouble following "Dark Avengers" and could understand what was going on. I knew enough to assume that the important stuff would be covered before the end of the series.

Wait, you had some familiarity with Secret Invasion and don't count that as foundation?!?

You are way too forgiving to assume important stuff like what drives characters will be covered later, that is some twisted thinking via a lifetime of comic-book reading.

You also do not need all of the back-story. The real Avengers are irrelevant. Ditto for Tony Stark. Osborn is in charge, which is all you need to know and more than obvious from reading the comics.

I didn't know how much I needed though, some of it WAS needed for the foundation here, especially with so little character development in issues 1-4. So unless I already know what I need to know to cherry-pick exactly what I need to know to set this up, how else am I supposed to get most of that intel? Shit, I didn't even spend all that time reading their full listings, just the content that looked close to the timeline I was jumping into. How can you not see that's a problem???

There is a question of the "ewwww Transformers" stigma to deal with here.

I read that as meaning we have elite tastes.

No there isn't! Because we are perpetually in the "middle" of Tony Stark's life right now. Literally everything that has happened up to this point is still in the "middle," and very little of it has been retconned out or jettisoned, so it's just this big bulky weight of bullshit. (Three words: Teenage Tony Stark.)

Not false, there isn't a "Dark Knight Returns" Iron Man story (nor a shitty sequel to that which undercuts the whole fucking first series). As for teenage Tony Stark, worst comic book ever, a smart kid goes to school and does nothing interesting, I bet that'd be a hard sell. Now if you gave him a super lab where he invents shit that requires adventures to deal with...

Which is why DC has done the occasional "Crisis" story to refresh their universe so they can keep going with it. And Marvel has their own way of doing that.

Up until the bronze age, there wasn't a solid continuity in which to break, and a "universe of characters" didn't exist, so power-reboots were easy. The radio show gave him a ton of powers, many of which we see as foundational to the character, yet some were dumped easily enough well before Crisis on Infinite Earths came about. Continuity is both a blessing and a burden in that way.

Then mabye they should take the Star Trek route. Captain Kirk died definitively in Generations. They didn't feel the need to bring him back in any sort of context that counted (Shatner's novels are not canon). And the franchise moved on without him.

I loved "The Return", I don't care what Generations says, there's a black Defiant-class starship named "Enterprise" in my interpretation of the Trek canon, Shatner knows better than almost any author how to put together framework that is exciting Trek content.

People get attached to characters and don't want to see them killed off.

Yeah, those fans need to grow the fuck up.

And if they're not grown-ups?

Besides, as decompressed as comic books are, your lifetime will only have you read about 4 years of those comics characters' lives anyway. You will live to a ripe old age and die in your 90s before Iron Man has to get an iron prostate exam, at best you'll see Tony talk to his doctor about thinking about getting one in "another 10 years or so, when you're at that age".

Yeah, we all make mistakes.

Awwww dammmmn! Dom with the degree snap!

No, the real reason they let Kirk (and later Data) die was because the damned actors were getting too old to play the characters correctly.

They didn't "let" Kirk die, the forced the issue. Shatner was deeply hurt when they didn't ask him to be part of the handoff to the new crew in the '09 Trek movie, and he's NOT too old to play the character, he's still very lively and quick-witted and able-bodied.

And, in both cases, fans howled and raged.

In the Kirk thing, it was shittily done and even the writers acknowledge that on the DVD commentary. In the Data thing, not many howled and raged, especially with B9 to just retcon it out of happening altogether anyway.

S'why we all need to write our own dang stories.

I write my story every day, only I do it on the fabric of the universe, the ink is the blood I spill in the streets, the quill is every bone in my body.

But, a peeve of mine is "people living down to stereotypes". And, a stereotype about comic fans is that they just blindly follow a character because they luv there faverit chawuctah. "I hate Wolverine because he is a big meanie!" And, uh, they are not wondering what the writer is doing when they write Wolverine to be a big meanie? "Why is Spider-Man such a tool?" Because that is how he is fucking written. "I read comics with Spider-Man in them because Spider-Man is a good unto himself even when the comics are bad!" This shit really makes me crazy.

"Dom doesn't realize he's behaving ironically as he's speaking with the voice of a thousand stereotyped comic-book-guys." - 5th wall broken bitches, right through the 4th wall into the 5th!!! Suck it, 5th wall! (The fifth wall is the wall within each of us, ooooooo.)

Seriously, you are regurgitating arguments I've been hearing in comic shops for as long as I can remember, at least 35 years (my mom's been a comic book fan since before I was born). You are just as bad as those who follow blindly their characters, you allow your perception of others' beliefs color your own world, and you react vehemently and even - on the page - violently from that.

Anderson and I would prefer to have "good" Dr. Who. (or Superman, Star Trek, whathaveyou). Barring that, there's enough in those franchises to keep us entertained even through the bad parts. I would rather have a bad TF comic than any Pokemon comic. Because at least with the TF comic I'm getting something that will at least entertain me with characters I like, while the Pokemon comic loses me on sight alone.

I am one foot out the door on Doctor Who, Moffat has burned me for 3 series now. Star Trek lost me with that last movie where there was no chance of that happening with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier because they were different kinds of mistakes and decisions that led to each's problems. There are limits.

[Sparky Prime]

And time to catch up on some comics...

Green Lantern Corps #19
Rocks begin to cover the GL's on Oa and severs Volthoom's hold on them. This turns out to be Mogo who then transports the entire Corps to his (her?) surface to protect them. But of course it isn't long until Volthoom catches up and decides to create an army of construct doppelgangers. The next few pages has absolutely no dialog. It's literally nothing but fighting. Eventually the constructs stop moving and Mogo reveals it was an illusion she (he?) created in order to build up the Corps willpower and focus them after their encounter with the First Lantern had drained them. After a little more pep-talk, the Corps is ready for action once again...
Not sure why Volthoom doesn't actually chase after the GL Corps when Mogo scoops them up. I suppose Volthoom doesn't really care if they get away right now, since he got the energy he wanted from them, and his powers let him do or change anything he wants. But still, it seemed a little odd he'd just let them go like that. Although it's good to see Mogo is back in action, I felt like this issue was pretty much filler with nothing but Mogo helping the Corps get their bearings before the finale.

Green Lantern New Guardians #19
Carol finds Kyle and together track down Sinestro, now that he's back in the world of the living. They are surprised to see Korugar has been destroyed. It's a nice touch here that Carol points out Kyle looks even more out of it then how she found him after his encounter with Volthoom. Now that Kyle is a White Lantern, the recent deaths in the area weakens his power. Sinestro shows up and attacks them, believing Volthoom somehow gave Kyle his new powers while also realizing the powers of a White Lantern can bring his world back to life. B'gd and Simon show up and stop Sinestro's attack and allows Kyle to try restoring the planet. Kyle doesn't believe anything except Nekron can raise the dead, but tries anyway. A city and its people start to form, but Kyle says he can only open the door, and he needs their help, for them to want to go through the door, to bring them back. His strength gives out and the city returns to rubble. Once again angry, Sinestro takes Kyle's ring (while Carol projects Kyle in a bubble) but the ring says he isn't compatible and it flies to Simon who then tries to restore Korugar, but he isn't able to handle the rings power and is also deemed unsuitable before the ring returns to Kyle. Sinestro decides this is no longer worth his time and, with his Yellow Battery, flies off to get revenge for what happened to his world.
I don't understand why Kyle says nothing but Nekron can raise the dead in this issue. He was there in Blackest Night when the White Lantern rings restored some people to life. So shouldn't he know a White Lantern could do that? But on the other hand, that was directly because of the Life Entity, and even it seemed to have limitations bringing back people from what we saw in Brightest Day. So I dunno. Simon also mentioned in this issue his ring can't do anything to Sinestro, which I'm not sure why that is. I'm guessing the writer confused his ring for the duplicate Sinestro made for Hal. But in this case, Simon has the original ring and Sinestro's is the duplicate Simon intended for Hal. Aside from those inconsistencies, this was a pretty good issue. I liked that the White Lantern ring doesn't work for anybody, seeing how much work Kyle had to do to get it in the first place. Sinestro's not thinking clearly having lost his home world and looks like he will be returning to his yellow uniform at long last.

Red Lanterns #19
Little bit of a recap of the last issue with the Red Lanterns reacting to Atrocitus ordering them to kill him, which they don't understand why he's ordering it, but follow the command anyway. The Manhunters advise against Atrocitus order because of his mindset after his encounter with the First Lantern but he doesn't listen to them, he just wants to die. The Red Lanterns arrive and attack but when Rankor says something needs to put an end to the rage, the word "rage" triggers something in Atrocitus. He shouts he can FEEL and decides he needs to live. He actually starts to grow stronger with the Red Lanterns attacking him. Somehow. The RL's stop fighting and Atrocitus says he has been reborn, that he can feel the Rage of all the others and that he was too focused on his own Rage before. But first, he says he needs to go to Oa and deal with the Guardians, the other Red Lanterns want to come with him and Atrocitus allows it.
I feel like we're repeating the some of the early issues of this series here. The first story arc was all about establishing that Atrocitus felt aimless with the source of his Rage (Krona) dead, and had decided to use the Red Lanterns to avenge others Rage throughout the universe. And this issue kinda does that all over again with Atrocitus deciding he was too focused on his own rage and starts to feel the others. I also found it odd, the Inversions who captured Ratchet a few issues ago just leave when they hear Atrocitus wants the Red Lanterns to kill him. They even discuss turning Ratchet into their puppet but decide it would be a waste of magic if the Red Lanterns kill Atrocitus. Makes me wonder if that was a plot point they decided to drop since it didn't go anywhere. At any rate, despite the odd plot twists in this issue, it was an improvement over the last few issues at least.

The finale to Wrath of the First Lantern will be in this months Green Lantern #20.

[andersonh1]

They didn't "let" Kirk die, the forced the issue. Shatner was deeply hurt when they didn't ask him to be part of the handoff to the new crew in the '09 Trek movie, and he's NOT too old to play the character, he's still very lively and quick-witted and able-bodied.

Did you see the ad Shatner did for a new Star Trek video game, where he's sitting on the couch with a Gorn, and the two of them get into a fight that mimics the fight from Arena, only for Shatner to run out of breath and declare "we're too old for this"? It's hilarious. I'll have to dig up a link to the ad and post it if you haven't seen it, it's awesome.

Edit: here it is: http://www.startrek.com/article/shatner ... ther-again

I am one foot out the door on Doctor Who, Moffat has burned me for 3 series now. Star Trek lost me with that last movie where there was no chance of that happening with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier because they were different kinds of mistakes and decisions that led to each's problems. There are limits.

Absolutely. But the thing about franchises is that there will always be new writers or producers or actors down the line who will do something different, so there's always a chance for a revival of quality. 2009's Star Trek was a movie I enjoyed, but it was a badly-plotted mindless action movie in a lot of ways, and the characters are shallow as they can be compared to the originals. Watching seasons one and two of the old series very recently then watching the movie for comparison demonstrates just how well the old show was often written, and just how well Shatner, Nimoy and the others brought those characters to life. But I'll still be going to see Into Darkness, because I enjoy Star Trek in general, and because even the flawed 2009 movie had some good stuff in it, and there's plenty of potential for the sequel.

Doctor Who has had lapses in quality before. I thought the writing during most of Sylvester McCoy's time was terrible, as if they'd completely forgotten even the basics of plotting and dialogue. It's almost painful to watch some of the episodes produced at the time. And a lot of the NAs and EDAs were really dreary and dismal and I quite reading them after a couple really made me feel like I'd just wasted a couple of hours of my life. But I still enjoy the character and the franchise, even if some dire things have been produced with the Doctor Who logo on them. There's more than enough quality in the majority of existing material to keep me interested.

And sometimes my opinion on things changes. I used to find the Graham Williams era silly and didn't care for most of it. Now I find it tremendously entertaining, and Tom Baker's clowining around is a lot more fun than I remember.