TF Views

Death's Head is coming back, I read over on TFW that there is going to a DH graphic novel or something. They had a pic of a new design for him.

Nnnnnnnot quite.

Death's Head showing up here likely was meant to promote the upcoming DHII book. But, the book you are referencing is going to follow Death's Head II, the Abnett character from the 90s. (Fun fact, that series was one of the few Marvel books to acknowledge TF at all, as an alternate universe.)

I get the impression that DH, if seen again, will be shown landing "elsewhere" and taking the contract he was shown carrying out in "High Noon Tex" over 25 years ago.

-late edit: I was wrong. The upcoming DH book is focused on the original Furman character. But, it is written by Lanning, hence my confusion (associating Lanning with Abnett, and thus with DHII.)

They’re so different that they might as well be new characters, and in fact they really are.

What is wrong with that?

Jay Garrick’s New 52 Flash costume still looks terrible.

Uh.....well, yeah.

Alan Scott looks like Parallax when Parallax was just Hal Jordan gone crazy and not a giant space bug.

I think they are gong more for the Alex Ross "Kingdom Come" design.

To be fair, at least one aspect of Alan Scott has carried over from the modern JSA… he should be the most powerful character on the team, but he gets taken out by the bad guys in under a minute.

He is the most powerful member of the team. But, the new Alan Scott is not the most skilled fighter. And, (as you point out) he did get double-teamed. (And, really, is getting taken out by Superman really that bad? I mean, c'mon, Superman.)

And the big reveal of the book is one I had guessed some time ago without even having to read the book, because it was so obvious. Brutaal (which is an absolutely stupid name) is… surprise… Superman. I liked this plot better when it was the last episode of Superman the Animated Series. This corrupted Superman is of course the same one that was supposedly killed in issue 1, only all we saw was him being overwhelmed by Parademons and vanishing. No body=not dead. And it’s blatantly obvious that he’s only been flying around in another costume for a few issues since his introduction so he could rip all of that off this issue for the shocking ending. It’s so ridiculous, he’s still wearing some version of his Superman costume underneath. I guess it really is long underwear.

I am trying to hold back on this one. If DC kills E2 Superman again (and keeps him dead) or if they keep him bad, I will be okay with it (less so the latter though).

I do not want "Earth 2" to start falling back on "dead characters come back" type writing. The appeal of the book is that the big changes (theoretically) stick. Along similar lines, I do not want this to become another "Injustice" (which is the book that the new writer is currently on). I have nothing against a rogue Superman. But, the idea is not terribly original. "Injustice" is a current ongoing about that concept. It is not a bad book. But, it does not quite measure up to books like "Squadron Supreme" (arguably the best Justice League story DC never published) or "Red Son" (easily one of the most intelligent treatments of Superman ever).

I am hoping for the best though. I figure it will be apparent what kind of book this is going to be by the end of the year. (This is the third disappointing issue in a row though. My enthusiasm for "Earth 2" is much diminished at the moment.)

But Earth 2 has none of the charm or creativity of the Golden Age books.

The charm and creativity of simplistic story-telling and cliche?

What does Earth 2 amount to?

The answer to this question relies as much on what we know about DC's editorial mandates as it does on what we know about the writers.


Still, as stated above, I am not happy about how the book has been going.

Last month, we got two one-shots. One of which was "Earth 2" by virtue of branding. The other was a half-assed origin mixed with a "return of...." story that might have worked with a bit more polish as a b-plot for 2 or 3 issues of the book. This month, we get the end of an arc and a writer's tenure along with a "guess who is back" moment.

I will give the new direction a few more issues. (If nothing else, I know that comics are not meant to be read as single issues.) But, what was once my favourite book is now the one I am most likely to drop.

Sparky Prime wrote:How do you think he looks like Parallax? I can see his costume looking a bit like Sodam Yat's Ion costume, but I don't see Parallax at all.

He looks very similar to the pre-cape Parallax from GL #50, albeit with a lot less detailing. Green body suit with big shoulder pads. Yeah, it's not an exact match, and it may in fact be closer to someone else, but that was just my visual impression while I was reading. It's probably just the shoulder pads or the silhoutte that did it, because it needs more black and white to really pull that look off.

And there is certainly more to the characters than you're giving them credit for. But to each their own.

I've only read 6 issues out of 16, so that's fair enough.

Dominic wrote:

Alan Scott looks like Parallax when Parallax was just Hal Jordan gone crazy and not a giant space bug.

I think they are gong more for the Alex Ross "Kingdom Come" design.

That could be another interpretation, if they took that look as a bodysuit rather than armor.

He is the most powerful member of the team. But, the new Alan Scott is not the most skilled fighter. And, (as you point out) he did get double-teamed. (And, really, is getting taken out by Superman really that bad? I mean, c'mon, Superman.)

Oh yeah, it's totally fair. It's just amusing that the JSA/Justice Society series pre-New 52 had Alan taken out by the villain three or four times in about 30 seconds flat, and here he is in the New 52 and the same thing happens. Circumstances and context matter, I know, but it's just amusing.

But Earth 2 has none of the charm or creativity of the Golden Age books.

The charm and creativity of simplistic story-telling and cliche?

There is some of that, certainly. There's also a lot of creativity and energy and enjoyment in those old stories. The Golden Age is surprisingly far more grounded (if I can use that term with superhero comics) than the Silver Age. And there is a feeling that the characters enjoy what they're doing, which goes a long way to making the books enjoyable. When characters are mired in doom and gloom month after month, it gets tiresome, at least to me.

Robinson had the chops to write a great series. Starman proved that. Either he lost his touch with Earth-2, or editorial meddled too much, or something. I know he's read a lot more Golden Age material than I have, so he could have hewed a lot closer to the original characterizations while still modernizing the setting and writing quality. But he didn't, and I wonder why.

The point of "New 52" is *new*. That is probably why Robinson, and DC as a whole, did not adhere to the old comics.

And, let's be honest, the comics we read as kids did not adhere much to what came before. Is anybody going to seriously argue that the O'Neil, Starlin or Grant Batman is the same as Bob Kane's Batman? Byrne's (generation defining) Superman was a huge deviation from the Silver Age. Even Marvel, which claims to have consistency, has some necessary changes over time. How much did Peter David's "the Incredible Hulk" resemble the episodic and redundant Hulk books of the early 80s, never mind from further back?

There is some of that, certainly. There's also a lot of creativity and energy and enjoyment in those old stories

The thing is that most old comics were not very creative. They followed standard patterns: stories had to be one issue or less, bad guy loses, good guy has xyz dynamic with his secret identity.

Why is that book worth reading?


I am willing to give "Earth 2" a chance, even if I have not been happy with it of late. (I have found plenty to like in books that I expected to find risable in the past.) But, that is contingent on "Earth 2" not being the same damned comics I have been reading for 25+ years.

andersonh1 wrote:He looks very similar to the pre-cape Parallax from GL #50, albeit with a lot less detailing. Green body suit with big shoulder pads. Yeah, it's not an exact match, and it may in fact be closer to someone else, but that was just my visual impression while I was reading. It's probably just the shoulder pads or the silhoutte that did it, because it needs more black and white to really pull that look off.

I just don't see it. The Parallax costume had a lot more to it. Ion is the closest resemblance I get from his costume.

There's also a lot of creativity and energy and enjoyment in those old stories. The Golden Age is surprisingly far more grounded (if I can use that term with superhero comics) than the Silver Age. And there is a feeling that the characters enjoy what they're doing, which goes a long way to making the books enjoyable.

Creativity grounded in such stories like those that starred Streak "The Wonder Dog" more so than Green Lantern himself? I dunno, I'd say are a lot of Golden Age stories that were pretty silly and simple as well.

Robinson had the chops to write a great series. Starman proved that. Either he lost his touch with Earth-2, or editorial meddled too much, or something.

Reader's personal taste? I'd really have to say Earth 2 has been one of the best titles to come out of the New52 reboot personally. Even if the Superman reveal was completely predictable.

Dominic wrote:The point of "New 52" is *new*. That is probably why Robinson, and DC as a whole, did not adhere to the old comics.

I think it's possible to capture the essence of the character while not adhering to old plots and plot development. It just seems to me that if you're going to take a pre-existing character, that it doesn't make sense to change them so much that they're essentially not that character any more. Why not just create someone entirely new?

Is anybody going to seriously argue that the O'Neil, Starlin or Grant Batman is the same as Bob Kane's Batman?

Which one of Bob Kane's Batman variations? They're nothing like the Batman that evolved once Robin came into the picture, but they're a lot like the Batman that existed during the first year he was published.

The thing is that most old comics were not very creative.

How do you know that? How many have you read? I'm constantly surprised by just how creative the old stuff is. Not all of it, of course. The Black Canary archive I just finished does match your description entirely. The premise and setup are creative, and pretty forward-thinking for the 1940s, but the actual plots are very repetitious and formulaic. It's a case of wasted potential. On the other hand, the stories that do strike off into something original are very good, and show just why the character is still around and in publication 60 years later.

Why is that book worth reading?

Because it's entertaining. Because it educates me about the early days of a character, and how their original creator saw them. Because I get some laughs out of the deal. Because I see all the clever ideas as they take shape and become a part of the character's history. Because not all plots are repetitive and as you describe them.

Sparky Prime wrote:Creativity grounded in such stories like those that starred Streak "The Wonder Dog" more so than Green Lantern himself? I dunno, I'd say are a lot of Golden Age stories that were pretty silly and simple as well.

Absolutely right. In that respect they're no different than modern comics. A lot of stories are boilerplate comic book superhero storytelling, even today. A few rise above that and give us a quality story, and there are a few gems that really stand out. The 1940s are no different than the 2010s in that respect.

Robinson had the chops to write a great series. Starman proved that. Either he lost his touch with Earth-2, or editorial meddled too much, or something.

Reader's personal taste? I'd really have to say Earth 2 has been one of the best titles to come out of the New52 reboot personally. Even if the Superman reveal was completely predictable.

Sales would indicate that a lot of DC's readers agree with you. There's no denying that.

Which one of Bob Kane's Batman variations? They're nothing like the Batman that evolved once Robin came into the picture, but they're a lot like the Batman that existed during the first year he was published.

You get what I am saying. O'Neil's Batman influenced Starlin and (to a lesser extent) Grant. But, how much did it influence Morrison? What about Snyder?

The Silver Age doofy Batman is irrelevant to current Batman comics, even if it defined Batman for pre-70s readers.

How do you know that? How many have you read?

I have read plenty of old comics, hence my distaste for them.

A lot of stories are boilerplate comic book superhero storytelling, even today. A few rise above that and give us a quality story, and there are a few gems that really stand out. The 1940s are no different than the 2010s in that respect.

And, I call out modern comics for being lazy. ("Iron Man" just had two issue in a row with "predictable last minute saves". I am not happy about that.)

But, I am going to go out on a limb and say that more comics from the 40s have that sort of problem than comics now.

Reader's personal taste? I'd really have to say Earth 2 has been one of the best titles to come out of the New52 reboot personally. Even if the Superman reveal was completely predictable.

Ya know, I flipped through some early issues of "Earth 2" last night.

If Superman was intended to not be dead, there was no lead-in to the reveal. And, there are some plots that Robinson has not fully resolved before leaving. -Hawkgirl's side plot. -Miracle and Barda v/s Fury in the ruins of Gotham. -Robinson touched on the firepits right before the war arc started, but has not done anything else with it. -what is happening with Terry Sloane?

Is there any word on the circumstances of Robinson leaving? Any word on editorial directives?

andersonh1 wrote:Absolutely right. In that respect they're no different than modern comics. A lot of stories are boilerplate comic book superhero storytelling, even today. A few rise above that and give us a quality story, and there are a few gems that really stand out. The 1940s are no different than the 2010s in that respect.

I'm not seeing why you have such an issue with the modern comics then, if they're no different in that respect.

Dominic wrote:Is there any word on the circumstances of Robinson leaving? Any word on editorial directives?

Nothing confirmed. I've only seen one article that claims a creator at DC heard they were planning on launching another Earth 2 title and were asking another writer to work on it, which Robinson took as an affront to the work he'd put into the title. Given that's all hearsay, whether or not it's true is anyone's guess.

Sparky Prime wrote:I'm not seeing why you have such an issue with the modern comics then, if they're no different in that respect.

I like modern comics, just not the New 52. And whether it's old comics or new, my first question is this: do I like the lead character or not? If not, for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter how well-written the book is. That's why I avoid 99% of the New 52, because I hate what the characters have become. That's why there are only a few Marvel comics I've ever bought and read on a long-term basis. They may be well-written, but I just can't get attached to the characters. Daredevil is the exception. That's a rare book that drew me in with the writing as much as the character. With Superior Spider Man, it was the humor around the way Ock still acted like a mad scientist even while trying to be heroic, so again, character drew me in and then the story turned out to be really good.

Dominic wrote:I have read plenty of old comics, hence my distaste for them.

I understand that, and up until sometime earlier this year, I'd have agreed with you. My tastes have changed, for whatever reason. Now I really enjoy the older comics, or at least some of them. I'm sure I'll find stuff I don't like.

andersonh1 wrote:I like modern comics, just not the New 52. And whether it's old comics or new, my first question is this: do I like the lead character or not? If not, for whatever reason, it doesn't really matter how well-written the book is. That's why I avoid 99% of the New 52, because I hate what the characters have become.

I'm more of a character driven reader myself, so I get that. But I still just don't see what your gripes with the New 52 is. Some characters have had some fairly significant changes to them, I'll grant you, but I don't see that they've really become so different.

That's why there are only a few Marvel comics I've ever bought and read on a long-term basis. They may be well-written, but I just can't get attached to the characters.

When I first got into comics I was a total Marvel fan. I'm still a big fan of Spider-Man. But it was terrible storylines like OMD and the Ultimate Universes Ultimatum really ruined my enjoyment of reading those characters books. I had a hard time getting attached to the DC characters, but I got interested in the Sinestro Corps War, and that finally pulled me into those books.

andersonh1 wrote:

JediTricks wrote: I'm only replying to this because issue 2 also had blank white eyes on both Batman and Robin's cowls, alternating in and out of panels indiscriminately. If this is a style choice, they really need to own it instead of dicking around, panels with white eyes a la comic books should have different elements that pop out and speak with their own unique voice separate from the rest of the panels' art.

I didn't notice it so much in issue 2. If that or any issue had blank white eyes in longshot, when it's hard to fit so much detail into the drawing, I understand that. I just don't care for it all the way through the book if the various artists are going to be trying to represent the live action Batman, where we always saw Adam West and Burt Ward's eyes behind the masks.

This was in the closeup and mid shots in several panels. The long shots are more acceptable, this wasn't it.

Yeah, I noticed the "training on ice" comment and immediately thought of Batman Begins and Christian Bale. And I ranted about the global warming comment in my review of issue 2 earlier in the thread, because it's so anachronistic for a series ostensibly set in 1966.

I don't think modern writers really understand tongue-in-cheek anymore, they think snark is the same thing. The original show was tongue-in-cheek humor but not snarky and self-aggrandizing the way modern humor like this "look at me applying a joke about how the past wouldn't expect global warming to ever fail them" gag is.

Is anybody going to seriously argue that the O'Neil, Starlin or Grant Batman is the same as Bob Kane's Batman?

Which one of Bob Kane's Batman variations? They're nothing like the Batman that evolved once Robin came into the picture, but they're a lot like the Batman that existed during the first year he was published.

I'd agree Anderson, they were more focused, more direct, more serious without being a brooding douche or a clown.

The thing is that most old comics were not very creative.

How do you know that? How many have you read? I'm constantly surprised by just how creative the old stuff is. Not all of it, of course. The Black Canary archive I just finished does match your description entirely. The premise and setup are creative, and pretty forward-thinking for the 1940s, but the actual plots are very repetitious and formulaic. It's a case of wasted potential. On the other hand, the stories that do strike off into something original are very good, and show just why the character is still around and in publication 60 years later.

Dom always spouts off with comments like this, judging outside the merits of its own time and refusing to actually even give the material its own fair shake on its own level. He only will judge comics against his favorites of the last 15 years. Yeah, there's a lot of churn so you end up with repetition - lots of fighting gangsters and evil landlords and the like - but if you take them in as "we needed books coming out weekly and this is what was on the public's mind aside from the war" then you start to see personality and art come up even in the churn.

Why is that book worth reading?

Because it's entertaining. Because it educates me about the early days of a character, and how their original creator saw them. Because I get some laughs out of the deal. Because I see all the clever ideas as they take shape and become a part of the character's history. Because not all plots are repetitive and as you describe them.

Bingo. Oh, and also because they're cheaper and more satisfying in small bites than wading through months and months of dubious writing and overblown shiny art just to get to an overblown, underwhelming conclusion to an artificially-inflated story arc (or you get to the end of a run and realize the author stopped having something to say so they just ended it prematurely for fear of merely telling interesting stories until they got back on track).

Absolutely right. In that respect they're no different than modern comics. A lot of stories are boilerplate comic book superhero storytelling, even today. A few rise above that and give us a quality story, and there are a few gems that really stand out. The 1940s are no different than the 2010s in that respect.

No, the 2010s are preaching to a different choir and to ensnare them with different, more manipulative tools. The '40s are more honest and direct.

Dom wrote:The Silver Age doofy Batman is irrelevant to current Batman comics, even if it defined Batman for pre-70s readers.

I wouldn't agree with that. Silver age Batman fought wackier villains which are now hip to "reimagine" as realistic, Silver age Batman had a greater focus on gadgets which the '70s age tried to downplay but has since come back on the rise, Silver age Batman was more dynamic in action and fighting movement.