Hey, I expect that too. But here's the thing--the initial issues of Animal Man established that he was fighting against this supernatural force called The Rot, and they established that pretty well in its own book. And they mentioned that, eventually, he was going to need the help of Swamp Thing. I'm fine with both of those things. What I'm not fine with is when they go off for literally six months to Go Find Swamp Thing and the story slows to a crawl and all but says "Seriously why aren't you reading Swamp Thing yet?" Because I don't want to read Swamp Thing! I want to read Animal Man!
I dunno. If I was reading a Jeff Lemire book and found out about more Jeff Lemire, I would be happy to have more Jeff Lemire on my pull-list. And, if I were just reading for the character, then I am still buying the book with that character in it.
mean, even in your GI Joe example--GI Joe and Cobra might even be written by different writers, but they presumably have a little bit of thematic crossover and you can reasonably be expected to be interested in both books.
Actually, "Cobra" is significantly different from the other Joe books. The differences in tone and caliber between Costa and Dixon are....they do not even bear descriptions. It would be like comparing early 90s "Batman" with modern "Spider-Man". There really is no comparison.
But, if Costa wrote two Joe books, I would be in for both.
And that's the problem with comics. Maybe you want to sit there and try to make sense of all that bullshit so you can understand where Tony Stark today is coming from, but I sure as hell don't--and neither do any of the new Iron Man fans I meet who see the (wildly popular, successful, and better than any Iron Man comic written in the last five years) films. We want to read about that fucking guy. Where's that book? No, instead we have Tony Stark in space fighting Gods this week, and then acting like a right-wing asshole the next. Fuck comics.
The movies are not appreciably different (for good or ill) from the last decade's worth of comics. At a basic level, they are largely....forgettable. My recall on the movies is a bit better, because there is less content over-all. But, Tony Stark has had so many ephemeral changes (even to fundamentals like a secreat identity) over the last decade or so (since right before "DisAssembled") and.......
At this point, I would say that anything pre-Fraction does not really matter. The Fraction-era stuff is passable, not unlike the movies.
No, instead we have Tony Stark in space fighting Gods this week, and then acting like a right-wing asshole the next.
Gillen's current run is actually pretty good.
Ok, the thing is: the Iron Man we know now just isn't the same *character* he was 50 years ago. He's just the same.. design. The same (TM). Besides which, I don't consider that impressive. Telling a consistent, coherent story over 50 years is impressive, but Marvel haven't.
It depends on how you define a character. Iron Man is a wealthy genius with a drinking problem, and has been for about 30 years. His armour is red, with either gold or silver detailing. Peter Parker is a self-absorbed fuck-wit who nobody in their right mind would care to have around. He wears red and blue tights. In that sense, we do have a consistently defining stasis quo.
Of course, there is not much in the way of a sensible linear narrative.
Ironically, the "X-Men" comics do have character changes. If they could keep characters dead, they would be light years ahead of most comics.
It's just a bit sad to think that, in another fifty years, when god knows what has happened IRL, Tony Stark will still have that same moustache, still be fighting rival businessman in that same deus ex magica suit, and still be banging his same redhead secretary.
No, the sad thing is that 50 years from now, the same fandom will be complaining if Marvel deviates from that model.
All that's gone by the wayside now. If there's a more ageist medium than comics, I'm not sure what it would be.
Wrestling. WWE will not consider new talent over the age of 35. Granted, there are practical reasons for this. But, relatively few workers stay active in the business as they age.
Before the big reboot, those characters were in their 90s. Even Batman was clearly pushing 40, given all his sidekicks and how they've aged.
But, that was also problematic. Jay Garrick should have been in a damned home. Bruce Wayne should have been at least considering retirement. (The side-kicks would make good successors.)
The more passage of time is implied, the more companies needs to make decisions about either re-setting things every so often or letting characters age and die. I would prefer the latter, but will accept the former.
30 is old to a kid. I remember when I was younger, I wasn't that interested in characters like Superman or Batman because they seemed so old to me. I was a bigger fan of their sidekicks because they were closer to my age.
I dunno, maybe I was weird, even by comic fan standards.
When I was 14, I read Dixon's "Robin" books because they were good, not because Tim Drake was about my age.
I could not identify with Tim Drake. Tim Drake was an orphan (or maybe a runaway) who lived in a fabulous house (and later in suburbs that are still alien to me now) and was a gifted athlete (not at all like me) and was fighting crime at night (while I was barely keeping up on my studies) and still had time for social activities (which I could actually manage at that age).
Similarly, I read JSA when I was maybe 15 or 16, not because I was an old man....but because I liked the damned book.
Avengers #1 - this is a ton of fun, Dom derides it but in terms of sheer entertainment, it's a blast and it does a good job setting up everything. Ant-Man is a dick even here, while Wasp is boy-crazy. Loki really does a good job using his tricksterism to mess with everybody. I forgot how much the Hulk talks on the page, it's refreshing compared to just "HULK SMASH" in other media. Art is what you'd expect from the period, but does its job well and has a few thrilling moments (along with low points of the Hulk made up as a robot clown).
And, with Stan Lee's writing, the Hulk's inarticulate gibbering sounds like everybody else!
Dark Avengers - The runup issues are nearly all a waste of time, and having only read IDW and digital comics lately I had forgotten how annoying the ads every other page in Marvel books could be. Once we get into the Dark Avengers stories proper, some of the setup is interesting but the story is like a compressed look at a decompressed story, so it's frustrating. Every issue seems to land on a cliffhanger like a soap opera, some of the payoffs work and others are not good. The idea behind the series is compelling but a bit of a stretch even for comics, and so far hasn't lived up to its promise. I'm missing issues 7-8, was considering getting them on Comixology but it looks like they're not important to the rest of the volume, I hate when that happens. The art shifts so often it's hard to keep track of some things. I'm of a mixed mind so far on Dark Avengers, it's compelling but kinda problematic.
Those first few issues are Bendis establishing tone and setting and the like. My god, he sold me on the series with the first issue man. What is wrong with you?
Osborn's conversations with "Bob" and with the other characters are genius.
Issues 7 and 8 are irrelevant to the rest of the series. Bendis took two months off and some other guy came in to handle the "X-Men" cross-over. It was not bad, but it does not match Bendis' writing. (Everybody talks like a jerk or a tough guy. Osborn comes across as a common mafia thug rather than as a charismatic business man.)
It is not a bad story. But, it is not necessary to read.
"Dark X-Men" is suprisingly good though.
do wonder what kind of mental gymnastics it requires to convince oneself that it's worth getting into modern Marvel/DC/whatevs on the basis of seeing one of the movies, just general curiosity or even nostalgia. The comics are so far removed from their actual mainstream representation, and so bogged down by their histories, that I'm amazed the numbers are as high as they are, like JT implies.
Marvel: Bendis' run on "Avengers" and related books. Current (Gillen) "Iron Man".
DC: Earth 2, Legends of the Dark Knight, Final Crisis, Countdown (if only to be able to reference it as being terrible), Blackhawks, Captain Atom.
For whatever reason, they don't. Dom attributes a lot of that to the lack of a love of reading these days, and that's probably a big part of it. Comics being non-kid friendly and very expensive is probably another part of that.
It is not that people do not have a "love of reading", it is that people do not read. Functional literacy is declining in the US. (This trend goes back for at least 20 years.)
In theory, comics are trying to do the right thing by trying to appeal to more literatue audiences (and distributing in book stores). But, in practice, they are missing the mark and failing to convince the relevant audiences to buy in.
very idea of a movie based on a comic book irks me, and to see it realised with such little imagination...
I am not sure that I see the problem here.
People like to think about the characters, but they don't want to spend huge portions of their lives combing through the minutiae to get there.
The real problem is when having to comb through the back-story and minutia becomes obligatory.
Dom
-rarely goes to movies.....