TF Views

Apparently Spider-Man will be getting a teenage sidekick named Alpha. This from the company that had Spidey deal with the devil because Quesada thought the marriage aged the character too much...

And given the history of sidekicks in the Marvel universe, he'll probably die horribly.

The editorial logic behind de-marrying Spider-Man was worse than the way they went about it. Marvel cannot simply de-age one character by decree while not de-aging every other character. Or more accurately, they cannot do that without raising a whole mess of questions that they should know readers will ask and expect answers for.

The official timeline (strongly implied in post "Dark Reign" Avengers comics) assumes that the modern age of heroes began a bit more than 15 years ago. And, even *that* is a stretch the more you hold to Marvel's "the stories happened as published" rule. (Why the hell was there no internet during the formation of Avengers? Ham radios? Really? Captain America's teen hotline used phone banks, but did not have a server or two? Buggawhatzit?) If we assume that 616 Parker was 15 when he was bitten by the spider, he would still be at least 30 now. Why the hell are Cold War era characters relevant when current Marvel assumes that the heroes did not emerge until *after* the damned Berlin Wall fell?

Yes, I know that there are unofficial breakdowns of Marvel that assume each editorial era is a different Earth, (similar to the informal split between DC's Earth 1 and Earth 2 in the Silver Age). But, those are (as stated) unofficial.

Between that, and the fact that Marvel has constant soft-reboots, 616 Marvel titles are some of the most predictable and stagnant books on the market. (One could argue that Archie has as much, if not more, progress.)


Dom
-Marvel needs a "Crisis".

Before Watchmen: Nite-Owl #1

If I’ve apparently decided to sample at least the first round of these Before Watchmen things, I like to think that I’m doing so for my more incredulous peers, who might be interested in how they turned out, but don’t want to actually support DC’s decision in the first place (Scourge? Where ya been?). I wouldn’t say I’m ‘taking one for the team’, since besides Comedian, the other books haven’t been awful or anything, but I definitely know I’m writing these reviews because I know people are curious, morbidly or otherwise.

Anyway, in the case of Nite-Owl, this is one I actually expected to suck, if for no other reason than it’s written by the infamous JMS (if you think I’m going to attempt to spell his last name, you’re crazy). Turns out I pre-judged too harshly, and it’s fairly inoffensive on the same level Minutemen is. This one focuses on the transition between the two Nite-Owls, seeing Dan as he was raised, how he met Hollis, and ended up taking on the mantle, with some insight into Dan’s personality and how he might have evolved into the guy we know in Watchmen. We also get to see how he and Rorschach met and formed their partnership, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a little amusing to finally see the pre-breakdown Rorschach in action. In fact, aside from some domestic darkness and daddy issues shadowing the origins and edges of this story (which almost feel like they were put in obligatorily by JMS because ‘Watchmen is supposed to be gritty’) this story is pretty idyllic. Granted, it’s the first part of four, so there’s plenty of time for things to turn sour (and indeed, they foreshadow that using events from the actual Watchmen comic), but here it’s just a likeable little prequel story about Nite-Owl. Between the mostly upbeat nature of the piece, the slightly over-written expanded origin for Dan taking over as Nite-Owl, and the crossovers from events with the actual comic, this comes across more like a speculative fan-fiction than a true entry into the universe or whatever, but it’s a perfectly inoffensive one, and I daresay it’ll strike the biggest chord with ‘fans’ of Watchmen. Kubert’s very pretty art does it a lot of favors as well, coming across suitably like a ‘modernized’ style of Gibbons’ work.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt though, this thing might actually be hopelessly mediocre, but after Comedian, anything else seems genuinely impressive.

Dominic wrote:The editorial logic behind de-marrying Spider-Man was worse than the way they went about it. Marvel cannot simply de-age one character by decree while not de-aging every other character. Or more accurately, they cannot do that without raising a whole mess of questions that they should know readers will ask and expect answers for.

*snip*

I forgot the name of the guy that began writing "One More Day", but I recall reading an interview with him, where he asked Joe Q all sorts of questions. Important questions. Like how the decision to alter such a huge chunk of a character's personal history would affect the world around him. He said that Joe Q's answer for everything was, "It's magic. Don't think about it. It's magic." It seemed relevant just now.

BWprowl wrote:Before Watchmen: Nite-Owl #1

If I’ve apparently decided to sample at least the first round of these Before Watchmen things, I like to think that I’m doing so for my more incredulous peers, who might be interested in how they turned out, but don’t want to actually support DC’s decision in the first place (Scourge? Where ya been?). I wouldn’t say I’m ‘taking one for the team’, since besides Comedian, the other books haven’t been awful or anything, but I definitely know I’m writing these reviews because I know people are curious, morbidly or otherwise.

Up until my recent troubles, I was actually full-monty in for several books as well, so if nothing else, I appreciate it. This lets me know which ones will be interesting or worthwhile enough to pick up in trades next year.

Anyway, in the case of Nite-Owl, this is one I actually expected to suck, if for no other reason than it’s written by the infamous JMS (if you think I’m going to attempt to spell his last name, you’re crazy). Turns out I pre-judged too harshly, and it’s fairly inoffensive on the same level Minutemen is.

This is the thing that's bothering me the most about these--so far it seems like everything either sucks hardcore (Comedian) or is "Inoffensive at best," like Minutemen and Niteowl...and it just begs the question, then why do 'em? I mean, I know, money, blah blah blah, I get that, but if there wasn't anything to add that would be...'good,' then why do it?

But there's still time. We haven't seen Ozy's book yet (which apparently is lush enough to require six whole issues!) nor Silk Spectre's (which might redeem what is otherwise a Token Girl Character who is, honestly, the worst character in the original Watchmen.)

This one focuses on the transition between the two Nite-Owls, seeing Dan as he was raised, how he met Hollis, and ended up taking on the mantle, with some insight into Dan’s personality and how he might have evolved into the guy we know in Watchmen. We also get to see how he and Rorschach met and formed their partnership, and I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a little amusing to finally see the pre-breakdown Rorschach in action. In fact, aside from some domestic darkness and daddy issues shadowing the origins and edges of this story (which almost feel like they were put in obligatorily by JMS because ‘Watchmen is supposed to be gritty’) this story is pretty idyllic. Granted, it’s the first part of four, so there’s plenty of time for things to turn sour (and indeed, they foreshadow that using events from the actual Watchmen comic), but here it’s just a likeable little prequel story about Nite-Owl. Between the mostly upbeat nature of the piece, the slightly over-written expanded origin for Dan taking over as Nite-Owl, and the crossovers from events with the actual comic, this comes across more like a speculative fan-fiction than a true entry into the universe or whatever, but it’s a perfectly inoffensive one, and I daresay it’ll strike the biggest chord with ‘fans’ of Watchmen. Kubert’s very pretty art does it a lot of favors as well, coming across suitably like a ‘modernized’ style of Gibbons’ work.

That sounds pretty good though! Rorschach is clearly the protagonist of Watchmen, but we're obviously not supposed to "like" him. He's a deplorable character who does deplorable things. (But we've had this argument before--I still say he's likeable on the level of believing in something and never compromising, and that in itself is an admirable trait.) But Dan...Dan's always right there, man, with us every step of the way. He just wants to be good. He just wants everything to work out. His only real crime is fucking someone else's woman. (And you could argue that fault is on Laurie more than Dan. And if Year One is anything to go by, we're not exactly supposed to count that against characters, for some reason.)

(Seriously, I always thought Jim Gordon having an affair was a bad move, because it makes Gordon a jerk. They always say Harvey was the "best of us," but I seriously think Gordon is. I see him and I don't see the kind of guy who'd fuck someone on the side. But that's me, and I guess we all have different standards for this kind of thing--for me, cheating is one of the worst things you can do.)

Crab is talking about JMS. He is responsible for one of the worst runs of the comic since the clone saga. (Oddly, Marvel is now marketing the original "Clone Saga" as worthy of being reprinted.) But, to be fair, he was not responsible for "One More Day". That was all Quesada.

The marriage, (or lack of it), would have a huge impact on "Spider-Man" books, but the changes would be largely contained. But, somehow, I do not think that Quesada was too worried about that.


And, here we go.....

http://www.fpcomics.com/

Apparently, Fun Publications thinks that they are an actual publishing company. Not only are they presenting their convention comics as actual comics, they are even developing an in-house (or maybe creator owned) property. And, their stable of writers includies Forest "Balancing Act" Lee, Jesse "really bad prose stories" Wittenrich, and some other guys who have given us little enough reason to be confident.

Even Transfans were calling out Wittenrich for sucking, and now Wittenrich is writing a zombie themed kiddie book.

So, we have a publisher that is known for publishing franchise specific convention comics, (if they are known at all), trying to "go legit". Their franchise specific books are barely acknowledged/respected even by members of the fandoms they are specifically marketed to. (It could be argued that Fun Publications' TF and Joe comics are to other TF and Joe comics what many comic readers see TF and Joe comics as being compared to other comics.) And, the one in-house property they have is written by the least credible writer in their stable.

I cannot promise that I am not going to review and slam their stuff regularly. But, I can promise that I will not go out of my way to do so. I plan to pick up "Invasion" when it comes out later this year. But, I will not go out of my way to pick up the Joe or zombie books. (Of course, if they show up on the shelves at the local comic shop, then....)


Dom
-well, mocking them will be "fun"...

Onslaught Six wrote:This is the thing that's bothering me the most about these--so far it seems like everything either sucks hardcore (Comedian) or is "Inoffensive at best," like Minutemen and Niteowl...and it just begs the question, then why do 'em? I mean, I know, money, blah blah blah, I get that, but if there wasn't anything to add that would be...'good,' then why do it?

Well, it’s worth noting that I’m still very skeptical towards these books, due to the very nature of their conception. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I haven’t allowed myself to be overcome with enthusiasm for them to any degree yet, which definitely colors my reviews of them. If one of the books *does* pull a Dai-Buster, and really wow me, you’ll know, but for now it’s mostly that anything that doesn’t take a dump all over the original is going to get praised for that, but there’s otherwise not much to go on.

With that in mind, you also have to remember that we’re just one issue into each comic, so things are just getting started, and in some cases (like with Silk Spectre) it’s hard to tell exactly where they’re going to end up, so I feel I should withhold final judgment until more of the book’s ideas become apparent. With the exception of Comedian (which managed to crash and burn so spectacularly just after takeoff that it almost made it look skillful), these things are still being felt out, there’s still plenty of space for them to wind up awesome/terrible.

But there's still time. We haven't seen Ozy's book yet (which apparently is lush enough to require six whole issues!) nor Silk Spectre's (which might redeem what is otherwise a Token Girl Character who is, honestly, the worst character in the original Watchmen.)

I reviewed Silk Spectre when it came out two weeks ago. I liked it about the same as Minutemen, but for different reasons (it actually feels less afraid to do its own thing, and the era during which Laurie was a teenager is one that wasn’t actually explored too much in the original comic, so this one’s got some fresh ground to cover). It has a few spots of incongruous art styles, and feels a bit padded in places, but overall it’s not bad so far.

Minutemen and Comedian are going to be six issues as well, with Silk Spectre, Nite-Owl, and Rorschach being four. Not sure about the others.

I don’t have any problem with Laurie in the original Watchmen, but she definitely falls victim to being overshadowed by the more driving, defining characters like Rorschach and Comedian. On the other hand, she’s a rather vital component of Dr. Manhattan’s characterization and shares in a lot of his part of the story, and many events in the comic (especially towards the end) wouldn’t have occurred without her, so she certainly never feels token or inconsequential, in my eyes.

That sounds pretty good though! Rorschach is clearly the protagonist of Watchmen, but we're obviously not supposed to "like" him. He's a deplorable character who does deplorable things. (But we've had this argument before--I still say he's likeable on the level of believing in something and never compromising, and that in itself is an admirable trait.) But Dan...Dan's always right there, man, with us every step of the way. He just wants to be good. He just wants everything to work out. His only real crime is fucking someone else's woman. (And you could argue that fault is on Laurie more than Dan. And if Year One is anything to go by, we're not exactly supposed to count that against characters, for some reason.)

I’d say Rorschach is enjoyable, or entertaining, as opposed to strictly likeable. I’ll admit that he has some admirable traits to go along with his deplorable ones, and it’s hard not to feel at least a little sympathy for the guy when you find out *why* he’s so messed up. He provides a good contrast to the genuinely idealistic Dan, and watching as these two previously like-minded partners end up with conflicting worldviews and split is one of the interesting things I’m looking forward to following in this book.

Right now I’d say Minutemen has the most potential as far as base concept and the talent of the person working on it, but Nite-Owl has more potential in terms of *showing* us what it might end up being able to do later.

Comedian has potential as kindling.

I reviewed Silk Spectre when it came out two weeks ago.

I'm Dante, and I'm the biggest idiot ever!

I don’t have any problem with Laurie in the original Watchmen, but she definitely falls victim to being overshadowed by the more driving, defining characters like Rorschach and Comedian. On the other hand, she’s a rather vital component of Dr. Manhattan’s characterization and shares in a lot of his part of the story, and many events in the comic (especially towards the end) wouldn’t have occurred without her, so she certainly never feels token or inconsequential, in my eyes.

See, I see her as the slutty chick who gets all pissy and won't stand by her blue man who is clearly doing important World-Helping Things. Lois Lane doesn't get all pissy and go bang Batman, does she?

I'm glad I've never read Watchmen and don't care about the characters or the prequels. They're all expys of characters like Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, etc. anyway, aren't they? Didn't Alan Moore create them because he couldn't use the originals?

Onslaught Six wrote:See, I see her as the slutty chick who gets all pissy and won't stand by her blue man who is clearly doing important World-Helping Things. Lois Lane doesn't get all pissy and go bang Batman, does she?

Eh, Jon’s clearly treating his relationship with her as an afterthought, instead of spending actual time/energy on giving her affection or what have you. She feels frustrated and neglected because of that, so while I’d think she does believe that the jobs Jon is doing are important, she doesn’t feel like the relationship itself is working out. Hence her going to Dan, who has been a close friend to her for a while and does seem to genuinely care about her, rather than just seeing her as another project to be tended to the way Manhattan does.

Then again, I think it’s clear that I’m immensely fucked up when it comes to matters of relationships and sex and so forth, so I don’t know that I’m an authority to postulate on these things, and you can probably just ignore all my opinions up there.

andersonh1 wrote:I'm glad I've never read Watchmen and don't care about the characters or the prequels. They're all expys of characters like Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, etc. anyway, aren't they? Didn't Alan Moore create them because he couldn't use the originals?

Well you’re *technically* right, but there’s, like…a lot more to Watchmen than that. A *lot* more. It’s less about the characters themselves, honestly, and more about the aspects of superheroes in comics in general that they represent, as well as ideas regarding real-world authority, decision-making, how we perceive individuals and organizations as ‘superpowers’, and a whole other mess of socially and culturally-relevant issues Moore was exploring in the mid-80’s. How much you like it really depends on how you feel about deconstructionism, as the book is a *massive*, brutal deconstruction of the ideas of superheroes in comics. I know you tend to focus on and enjoy the more idealistic elements of superheroes, Anderson, and dislike stories that ‘bring them down’, as it were, so I honestly don’t know that Watchmen would be your cup of tea.