The Most Honest SUICIDE SQUAD Review You'll Ever Read

Let me just say this - I've seen and hated Man of Steel. I have the "Ultimate Cut" of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice on reserve via the Chicago Public Library, since I didn't want to see it in a theater. (Those who know me will tell you - I'm not a fan of Zak Snyder as a filmmaker). So I went into Suicide Squad with an open mind yesterday - many have called it confusing; several have claimed that it "doesn't suck", even going as far as to organize a Wizard World panel explaining why the movie doesn't suck (and, as a result, preaching to the converted).

My take - Suicide Squad is much better than many critics will have you believe...and is a very solid film with a few flaws.

Perhaps critics, having to endure Batman V Superman, came into this film with huge preconceptions. Being a guy who loves caper/heist/let's-get-together-and-make-trouble films, Suicide Squad is an easy sell. But what makes Suicide Squad unique is that it has a relentless storytelling drive - yes, it hits all the key tropes, and also spends time in flashback...but there's an energy to this film that makes it unique.

So unique that, quite honestly, I feel this, and not Justice League, should be the lynch-pin of the DC Cinematic Universe. It does everything that Iron Man did so well - provide an emotional center, suggest a complete worldview, and tell an interesting story....even if that emotional center consists of an assassin who cares about his daughter and a woman trapped in a very unusual relationship.

(And yes, Viola Davis nails Amanda Waller, providing both a rationale for the Squad's existence as well as insight into the DC Cinematic Universe's status quo).

But it's not just that...it's the fact that the secondary characters have enough shading to make this worth watching. The thug who loves pink unicorns. The romance that serves as a secondary emotional consequence. The "villain seeking redemption" trope that plays out in a very interesting way....and Ayers manages to do something that Snyder never does: tell a compelling story.

For those of you who are still unconvinced: think "The Expendables with supervillains", and you're halfway there.

But Suicide Squad has several flaws that make it an OK, rather than exceptional, film:

• In the first half of the movie, familiar tunes are very overused. It's a nice, post-Pulp Fiction  strategy: use familiar songs to suggest mood, theme, or character. When Guardians of the Galaxy used songs, it helped establish Peter Quill's ties to Earth; here, it's done to establish the nature of several characters and situations...but it's too loud and too obvious. 
• If I were Jared Leto, I would be disappointed in Suicide Squad. His performance is underwhelming and...well, the Joker might have been better served as a behind-the-scenes character who complicates the Squad's lives.
• The ending sequence....OK, maybe Snyder's house style is dark and smoky, but Ayer? You know better. There were times I had difficulty determining what was happening.
• Still not convinced of Affleck-as-Batman. However, I was impressed with one sequence in which Will Smith - as Deadshot - shoots Batman. I would pay to see that actually happen in a Suicide Squad sequel.

In short, many of you who read this will wait until Suicide Squad comes out on DVD or on request. If you can see it in a theater, go see it. As soon as possible. 

Because this, my friends, is the movie that DC should be proud to get behind.

Review: DC REBIRTH # 1

You've probably already read many of the spoiler-y articles that came out before last week's release of DC Rebirth # 1. Long time readers of this blog know that I've been....well, more than a little critical of DC's approach, especially since the New 52. So this review may be a bit shocking.

I liked DC Rebirth # 1.

One of the things that I enjoyed about the book was that it never felt like another reboot or retcon....the story really focuses on what has been missing from DC Comics for awhile. (Or, "Yes, Geoff Johns goes meta in this one.") The story also feels like it's "pasting in the cracks" with the New 52 rather than scrapping everything to rethink characters.

I'm going to avoid spoilers, but one of DC Rebirth # 1's strengths - despite it being all set-up - is that the story has a definite agenda. Johns' script actually moves towards a given purpose, that there's a mission behind the story. (And before you cynically sneer "Yeah: to sell comics" - DC Rebirth reads like actual thought and planning was put into the writing). Even though there is a citation for two comics to read for background, DC Rebirth # 1 manages to kick off the story without the "need-to-bring-a-new-reader-on-board" baggage.  

(My only complaint about the story is that it seems to be leaning towards reengaging older DC fans...but that's premature on my part).

Oh, and about that ending....it's not as straightforward as other, more spoiler-centric articles might suggest. The book's epilogue feels more evocative than anything else....and that's one of DC Rebirth's strengths. I'm actually intrigued to read more details.

So DC has, at the very least, kickstarted attention and conversation with DC Rebirth # 1. Please don't let other online reviewers influence your opinion - read the book. Make up your own mind.

You'll find that I'm not too far off base.

Tonight's Must-Watch: LEGENDS OF TOMORROW

I'll give it to Berlanti Productions - they wear their Doctor Who fandom on their sleeve.

Yes, in other interviews they've given, members of the production team have talked about Who's influence on The Flash. Legends of Tomorrow (which premiered last week, and is run Thursdays at 7 PM CST on the CW) is no exception - it basically can be described as "Doctor Who meets DC Comics' Justice League".

Even on that simplistic note, I would enjoy it, but based on the premiere....this is going to be one really fun show.

Much of the influence even goes to the design of the show - a futuristic world that wouldn't seem out of place on Day of the Doctor; a group of seemingly omniscient people who oversee the continuum, refusing to interfere....and a sole individual who is willing to break his oath to change things and make a difference. Heck, even in the ray gun sounds are reminiscent of new Who...

Arthur Darvill wouldn't be out of place in complaining about typecasting, but he does bring a real sense of humanity to Rip Hunter. (And let's be clear - he wants to break Time Lord, er, I mean, "Time Master" policy for purely personal reasons). Even at the critical point, when Rip Hunter reveals the truth behind his intentions - far beyond the "legends" line that gets referred to in the tv spots - it feels less like "noble hero" and more like "man acting from personal agenda".

It's one of the reasons that I enjoyed Legends of Tomorrow...but the other is that this is a slow that is filled with Easter eggs galore, and that really has a sense of excitement about it - even more so than The Flash.

So I know what I'll be watching Thursday nights - won't you join me?

5 Things I Learned Reading DC's CONVERGENCE

When I'm not engaging in my Rocketing Into Spring Road Show - or currently enjoying the heck out of my new freelance gig - I've been reading comics.

Most notably, DC's Convergence "event" series.

There's been a lot of coverage of this event, and I'm not going to be an exception. However, rather than perform a traditional review, I thought I would engage in my semiregular habit of posting 5 bullet pointed items...more specifically, 5 things that I have learned reading DC's Convergence series.

1. Yes, comics in the 1990s really were that bad - Thank you so much, Week 2, for reminding me of this. But not in a very painful way.
2. The Big Two Aren't Subtle About Their Universe-Spanning Changes: Let's see - we have Multiversity (which is a much better variation on Crisis on Infinite Earths) and Marvel's Secret Wars (which is a similar premise). Plus, with the most recent issue of Justice League...it looks like both companies are looking to clean house. Or, in DC's case, "more business as usual"....
3. DC will pretty much publish anything, won't they? - I understand the need to thoroughly use all of their past characters & content: after all, DC gets plagued with the usual complaints of "why-don't-you-make-comics-like-I-remember-as-a-youngster"? But there's something a bit off about the choices they're making: Crime Syndicate? (And why not the Morrison version?) Superman in Detective Comics? Earth-2 Robin & Huntress in Action Comics? Yes, this is published during the office move from New York to California....but there should be some form of 'editorial control'. (You know, thanks to Scott Lobdell's Blue Beetle and Keith Giffen's Supergirl Matrix, I've lost my love of the bwah-ha-ha.
4. Yes, nostalgia will play a key factor - OK, I loved both Legion books. And the Infinity Inc. one-shot. But the whole premise - various heroes trapped in a city for an entire year - gets a little tiresome. And some concepts don't need to be their own books or universes (Really? Vampire Justice League? Who asked for that?) and finally:
5. Some revivals speak for themselves: I will accept DC's Convergence only because it offers us this panel. Which I love to death for various reasons....and in all honesty, makes me wish they would go back to basics. 

Why I Love DC's Multiversity

...Because only Grant Morrison can pull off a talking tiger in a Shazam uniform - with a jet pack and ray gun - about to fight monsters:

From DC's Multiversity: Thunderworld

Comics I've Been Reading: MULTIVERSITY

Granted, I am somewhat of a Morrison fan, but I have to admit...he's been disappointing me of late.

Much of his work on Batman...left me a bit cold. It wasn't bad, but Morrison's mix of trippy philosophizing and Silver Age love just....maybe it had worn on me a bit, and it felt a little jarring. So when I heard about DC's Multiversity - which would be a kind of throwback to multiple-earth-storytelling, I was mildly apprehensive....

....and with issue one, I was very underwhelmed. It seemed like a throwback, almost a bad impression of what a Grant Morrison comic looks like. Maybe it was the frequent references to both Infinite Crisis and the just-as-frequent use of Marvel analogues....but the book just didn't do it for me. (Except for Captain Carrot - if you dislike Captain Carrot, you probably dislike democracy. And puppies). At the very least, I decided to give it another issue, and hope it thrilled me.

....and issue 2 (aka The Society of Super-Heroes) really felt like something unique and different. It wasn't just the Golden Age/pulp-style take on the DC Universe; it actually felt like the stakes were being increased. Chris Sprouse's art drives much of the story, and quite honestly, the mix of prose and old-fashioned style really lifts it apart. It seems....well, the least Grant Morrison-y, and....

...ok, I was not looking forward to issue 3. An Earth where the sons and daughters of superheroes were self-obsessed? I get enough of that in my private life. (Self-obsessed people - not sons and daughters of superheroes). I wasn't giving up on The Multiversity just yet - I simply thought that reading issue 3 would be, well, not quite a priority. It probably was just going to be less than what I expected....and those expectations were low to begin with.

But The Just isn't as bad as I expected - it's actually rather OK. On the one hand, I needed to reread this book in order to get at what's happening (which doesn't end with a bang or a whimper, but a kind of "oh well, whatever, nevermind.") It's also a nice callback to the DC Universe in the 1990s....and the fact that I referred to both "a nice callback" and "the DC Universe of the 1990s" should be a bit disconcerting. On the other hand, there's a real sense of both world-building and establishing the nature of the threat.

(This is probably the first book in which....yes, I can see Damian Wayne as Batman. Seriously).

Am I going to continue with The Muliversity? Yes - it may have been a bit overhyped, but it's an attempt to expand the DC multiverse....and hopefully play around with characters and concepts.

And now, Grant Morrison has warmed my heart by managing to surprise me. Go figure.

The Too-Much-Drama-At-DC-Comics Brouhaha

Between more creative team shuffles, an ill-thought out creative challenge (which resulted in a stern Twitter lecture on context), and various shenanigans, DC Comics finds itself under public scrutiny.

And I, for one, am tired of the negativity....but I think I have a possible insight into why DC Comics is misbehaving, and one of the possible fixes.

I only realized this when reading this fine timeline via Gutters and Panels, I saw that the person who runs DC Entertainment - Diane Nelson - comes from the field of "brand management". Basically, this means that her speciality is figuring out how to position a particular brand in the marketplace, determining how the audience interacts with that brand, and making sure that the product matches up to the brand.

Throughout DC Entertainment, however, this seems to be playing itself out in a very destructive way - freelancers may be let go because their efforts aren't "meeting the brand". (Editors may be more in clue to the DC Entertainment "brand" - whatever that is - and making last minute changes because storylines don't fit the "DC brand"). Instead of focusing on the key element of DC Comics - most notably, the actual comics themselves - the powers that be (and that includes Dan Didio, Jim Lee, and the rest of the wacky gang) are focusing on fulfilling DC Entertainment's "brand promise"....at the expense of actually having products which promote that brand. (Or, as fellow blogger Siskoid might say, it's the John Nathan-Turner school of management).

Ironically, this also means that people who practice this - who are more focused on the image and on being the "top dog" - often lose out on opportunities. In my own life, after a fellow colleague in the field (whom I'll refer to as "Connector-In-Chief", mostly for purposes of satire) requested ideas for a presentation, I suggested my "Doctor Who Guide to Social Media". As the Connector publicly stated reluctance, needing to go to "the community", several members of this person's group shook their heads in affirmation - they wanted this, the Connector did not. (Eventually, the Connector-in-Chief stated that they were canceling the meeting in which I would have presented....but I had gone ahead and scheduled it anyway. Besides, the Connector-in-Chief's behavior towards me seems to indicate that they feel that I am a "threat" to them, and that having me around takes the focus off of them. It's understandable - after all, I am much younger, smarter, and better looking...but that goes without saying.)

But enough about me - this is a post about DC Entertainment.

With the amount of online copy generated about DC Entertainment's shenanigans, it's probably not suprising that the leadership team sees this as a victory - that they're dominating online conversation. Sadly, I believe we are seeing the sharp decline and sad fall of a major comics company. Somewhere in this story is a great book - a Barbarians At the Gate or The Smartest Guys In the Room - about DC Entertainment.

I just refuse to be one of the people who help write it.

The Laura Siegel Brouhaha

Recently, there's been a lot of commentary made about the open letter Laura Siegel Larson wrote to fans about the continuing litigation against DC around the family's rights to Superman -  much of it from current, presumably younger fans about how "greedy" her family has been.

(And admittedly, I cannot honestly say that I haven't stirred the pot somewhat with my own comments).

Rather than repeat the usual argument - that Siegel and Shuster had no way of "knowing better" - let's look at this through a modern context.

First, with all of the excessive lawyers' fees that DC is paying, it would have been much easier (as Ms. Larson suggests) to simply pay the families of both creators. After all, it is not as if Siegel and Shuster's efforts did not pave the way for DC's success, nor is it wrong to suggest that any person who works hard and creates something profitable should benefit from those efforts.

Looking at DC's representation - and their efforts to discredit Larson's attorney - are more than slightly offensive; it borders on unethical. It is one thing to try the case in the "court of public opinion"; it is another to make claims that have very little basis in reality. I can understand DC's need to protect its copyright, but it smacks of stories about how lawyers walk through conventions and prevent artists from doing licensed characters as commissions. At some point, doing the right thing can be more advantageous than efforts to avoid doing the right thing.

And yes, more rabid fans drive the controversy home by pointing out the "greed" of both families - whatever their intentions (and despite my earlier comments, let's assume the best of those intentions), they have a legal right to make claim over the benefits of their forebears' efforts. After all, we have a presidential candidate who has benefited from being part of a powerful political family, a real estate mogul in New York who built his own empire on his father's financial successes....wouldn't it be fair and right for other families to benefit in a similar way?

My position is clear - Siegel and Shuster were the victims of slightly devious business practices, and although they received some compensation, DC had to essentially be shamed into doing the right thing. So my advice - both sides sit down, work out a reasonable agreement, let the court case go, and move on.

If that isn't truth, justice, and the American way, I have no idea what is.....

The Reboot That Never Was: A Review of BATMAN EARTH TWO

DC Comics - as a company - seems to enjoy revamping and rebooting its characters. After all, the most recent news seems to be the spate of "zero issues" that is being released that promise to tell "the truth" behind the events of the new 52.

In addition, there are numerous reports of how Batman continuity has been a bit...well, since old 52 stories are now considered "canon", there's a bit of a brouhaha about continuity.

Which is a shame, because the recent release of Batman: Earth One by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank could have easily served as a "new 52" reboot of Batman.

First and foremost, keep in mind - this is a really good, honest take on Batman. Unlike Superman: Earth One, the "more naive version of hero" approach works. It seems less like "emo Twilight Superman" and more "reality-based Batman". Johns uses some touchstones of Batman's mythology and...well, there are some great twists and turns that could have easily led into the Court of Owls storyline. In addition, there's a great moodiness and noir quality to the art that makes this a great read.

It's also a shame because this approach could have easily been folded into the new 52 continuity, which is surprising given that it's one of DC's "attempts" to lure new readers. Yes, it's a more "vulnerable, unsure" Batman, but quite honestly, it has a similar tone to many of DC's reboots/revamps. It's strong enough to stand on its own, and at the end....I actually found myself looking forward to the inevitable sequel.

Reading Batman: Earth One was surprising in many ways - not just because it's a really strong tale that deserved to be told, but that it seemingly reads as a blueprint for a reboot that was never to be.

The "Waffles For Stephanie" Brouhaha

Via Handmade Stuffs on Flickr -
because I think it's cute

As many of you have probably read over the internet, there is a movement about - a group of fans is encouraging the mailing of waffles by like-minded fans to DC Comics in order to convince them bring back Stephanie Brown in light of her impending appearance in the Smallville comic.

Now on one level, I completely understand - as a character, Stephanie's been done pretty wrong by DC as the result of some wrong-headed decisions. (Many of which do not include the smart one of having her be the first female Robin....but that's besides the point). I loved Bryan Q. Miller's recent take, and quite honestly - I love the character. A relatively young, fun character who made Batgirl the one Bat-book you should have read....and didn't.

However, this waffle thing? The most misguided, irresponsible move on the part of fans everywhere.

Now, you'll probably scold me for being negative, but quite honestly....sending frozen waffles to a comic company is simply taking a bad stunt (which worked for a series in escaping total cancellation) and just repeating it. It's all show and no tell - given the amount of investment that DC has taken with its reboot, having it insert a character for no other reason other than "we love her"....seems silly.

Via Flickr - No waffles for you,
Dan Didio!

(In order words, she's not "iconic" enough for DC. But I still love her to death).

So, to help those who want to do something positive in Stephanie's name, let me suggest the following actions:

• Get together with some like-minded friends, purchase a case of waffles, and donate them to a food pantry or a homeless shelter.
• Pool your money and donate it to a domestic violence shelter, or an organization that deals with reproductive justice like the Illinois Caucus on Adolescent Health.
• Pool your money, donate to the Hero Initiative in Stephanie's name, and send a taunting note to DC comics.
• Go to Indy Planet (or preferably, your local indie comic shop)  and order a cool indie book written by a woman. You'll be helping foster a cool creative scene.
• Donate to your favorite female-created web comic. They would definitely appreciate it.

This isn't a typical male-written "gee-look-at-the-goofy-ladies" post. Yes, Stephanie Brown is a cool character. But sending waffles to DC as a way of encouraging positive action....is a waste of perfectly good waffles. 

Taking Time for BEFORE WATCHMEN: MINUTEMEN

Normally, when I blog about a book, I have a very simple reaction - either I like it, or I don't like it. (And "don't like it' can include parts that I like). Most things I read I have an overall emotional reaction to, whether it's positive, negative, or neutral.

But Before Watchmen: Minutemen is a book that I am having completely ambiguous feelings about.

On the one hand, simply as a comic - it's stunning. Darwyn Cooke crafts a story that easily could fit as a precursor to the graphic novel. Granted, this is an "introducing the band" issue (meaning that next issue will kick-start us into the story), but there's strong characterization, building upon what Moore and Gibbons suggested and stated. And as other reviewers have stated, it is a bit wordy, but given that we're being told this through the eyes of the writer...I can forgive it.

Yet, on the other hand, and perhaps I'm reading too much into this...there isn't a sense of investment in the narrative. With Cooke's other work, like New Frontier, or his adaptation of Richard Stark's The Hunter and The Outfit, there's a really strong sense that Cooke is telling a story he wants to, in a way he wants to, and that it's satisfying. Perhaps the controversy about this book has me tainted (or even, given what happens, that it's a deliberate storytelling device), but it doesn't seem as if Cooke feels that sense of investment in these characters, and reading the book....is a good experience, but has me feeling a little unsure of how to proceed.

(The two-page Crimson Corsair backup? Did nothing for me. But Minutemen did affect me enough to want to purchase issue #2).

This is a mixed review - it's not a bad book (and as the first of six parts, it's not going to necessarily be the most intensive), and as a great example of superheroic storytelling, Before Watchmen: Minutemen serves the bill, echoing Moore and Gibbons' work without aping it. But there's not much of an emotional core to the book so far, and although it is the first issue....Cooke has done better.

So I'll keep reading Minutemen...but I'll probably skip on the other prequel titles.

Because if this book - which is the "highlight" - doesn't seem engaged in its characters, the other titles may seem like bad fan fiction in comparison.

The Alan Scott/EARTH-2 Brouhaha

As much as DC's reboot has left me with a general feeling of "so what", I have to admit that creatively, they've taken a huge gambit. It may be that they're driving sales with events and controversy, but at least they're willing to make some major changes.

As you may have read from many an outlet (including the New York Times), Alan Scott, the Golden Age Green Lantern, is going to be "outed"...or at least, rebooted as gay.

As a straight, white, heterosexual male...I have to admit, I commend DC - oh, sure, they created/revamped Batwoman as a lesbian, but that was a bit different....the character was, at best, a long forgotten relic from a different time. In all regards, she may as well be a newly-created character.

Many a fanboy will be making the obvious homophobic jokes (at least, along with the characterization of their female counterparts as "feminazis" and urging them to "go back to the kitchen"), but the fact that DC is willing to revamp a character like this - and to not dwell on his sexuality (like, say, Marvel's infamous "outing" of Northstar in Alpha Flight)...but it's time the medium grew up a little bit.

I'm also heartened by the fact that James Robinson - who I admit I've had issues with in terms of his more recent work - is handling the character. Robinson has a way of handling characters in a way that doesn't seem forced, and that has a very poetic, nuanced quality to the work. This may be a "stunt" on DC's part, but the fact that they're handling this stunt with care speaks volumes.

Oh, sure, we'll have the obvious protests and cries from more conservative organizations (as well as less-educated fans), but in all honesty....I think this is a good thing. It shows that DC's recent reboot may have been a creative gamble...but it's not the only creative gamble they're willing to take.

And if it means a superhero universe that looks more like our own (except without Rob Liefeld's involvement), so much the better.

Crisis In Multiple: A Review of DC's EARTH-2

In all honesty, the "new 52" from DC has left me rather....well, blah.

There are some personal preferences, admittedly (like Demon Knights), but for most of it, it feels like I'm back reading comics in the 1990s. Lots of high end drama, but nothing really going on creatively. Granted, DC in the '90s had both poorly written books (Justice League: Extreme Justice, anyone?) and intelligently written books that built upon and played with history (Starman, Chase). So with the creative team on Earth-2 (James Robinson's writing, Nicola Scott's art) stirring some interest - along with, admittedly, my own fanboyish love of Earth-2 - I checked the book out with an open mind.

It's safe to say that we probably won't be reading another Starman from James Robinson - not so much because that's his creative "peak", but he deserves the opportunity to stake new ground. Thankfully, this book is no Justice League: Cry for Justice...but it's also not really unique and original, either. In fact, the only change is that...well, DC had a slightly better spin on this premise a few years ago, called 52. Plus, there's a very slight sense of editorial self-sabotage, limiting the history of this world. I don't expect a carbon copy of past efforts, but when an episode of Smallville manages to recontextualize the JSA in modern times (and I wonder - is "recontextualize" even a real word?), staying within narrow parameters just seems...well, like he's not even trying. But for a first issue, it's fine.

However, the one part of this book I cannot criticize is Nicola Scott's art - I thoroughly enjoyed her work for Secret Six and Birds of Prey. It's a pretty solid fit, and quite honestly, was the more enjoyable aspect of this book. What will be interesting to see is how all of these factors play out in the coming months.

So far, I have to say that the only people looking forward to this series fall into one of two groups: retailers and old school DC Fanboys like me. Retailers may defend this series, but then again....they have a stake. Old school fanboys....may not like it, but at the very least, should keep an open mind.

It's good enough to warrant me checking out issue 2, but quite honestly...it didn't grab me. DC can - and should - do a lot better. 

Open Letter to Chris Roberson

Dear Chris,

I'm posting this publicly one in fannish admiration (I loved your Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes Crossover, and liked what you did on Superman), but also to offer my support.

You've come under fire for quitting DC Comics due to its impending Before Watchmen series, as well as its overall treatment of creators. You have cited this article as an impetus, and you've also made your thoughts more apparent in this Comics Journal interview. As a humble blogger, I just want to say....

...thanks for taking a stand. And having the courage of your convictions.

Many of my colleagues have either taken the obvious Roberson's-being-egotistical, or more likely, "It's a shame, but at least we'll have Before Watchmen." Online, we're more likely to hide behind keyboards and screens and declare what should be done, but we rarely - if ever - take a hard line ethical stance. It's easy to forget that behind one of our favorite art forms there are business and ethical matters that we may not take an active interest in.

It's easy to be a cog in the machine - I'm proud that you are actually not just quitting an unethical company (a company that's going to play the "creator's-family's-lawyer-is-an-opportunist" card in order to protect their interests), but making it clear that this is ultimately about rights, not about money, or credit, or anything.

It's also a shame that many of my comics-loving brethren have been vocal about looking forward to Before Watchmen - from a business standpoint, it makes sense (DC has characters, and they're reusing them); from a creative and ethical standpoint, it's bankrupt, showing that corporate interests are being moved forward at the expense of - and not in service of - creative ones. I think it's particularly damning when you said, about one of the supporters of the project (and whom you replaced on a book given his other writing commitments):

As I said on Twitter then, anyone who uses past injustices against creators to justify new injustices against creators is beneath contempt. I think that that is despicable and abhorrent. The mindset— I don’t agree with that, I guess you could say.

Such honesty and directness is frowned upon not just in the comics industry, but in our day-to-day lives. When given the chance to take such a high-minded stance, some of us avoid it, because we don't want to rock the boat. We allow ourselves, to misquote one of my favorite shows, to be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed, and numbered. I'm very heartened and inspired that someone, at the very least, is saying, "No, I won't. This is wrong."

So in that spirit, I'm going to start seeking out your other, non-DC, creator-owned work, and look forward to reading your future efforts. After all, it's the least that I can do. I appreciate anyone willing to put their reputation on their line in such a positive way, and that shouldn't be flamed....it should be encouraged.

Thanks again,
Gordon

Challenging the Unknown - A Review of DC UNIVERSE PRESENTS # 6

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for some of the "lesser known" characters and concepts from the Silver Age of Comics.

Much like the later Golden Age (many books available via download at the Digital Comic Museum), there's the right mix of smarts and adolescent, pulpy fun. So you would think that in "the new 52", DC might be willing to apply some modern-day smarts to a classic franchise.

In DC Universe Presents # 6, we're presented with a rebooted Challengers of the Unknown, a group of reality show contestants who find themselves living on borrowed time.

It's also...not very good.

In fairness, the art by Jerry Ordway is great, but the writing - by Dan Didio - leaves a lot to be considered.

Much of it reads like bad fan fiction - a mashup of various sources (including past DC continuity) thrown together that, at its best, should read like a high-tech version of Indiana Jones, or even an old-fashioned version of Leverage. Here, however, things just seem to hang - none of the characters really has anything to hook into, and even though it's your basic "origin" plot....there's really nothing here to make one care about these Challengers.

(On a side note - I really wish Didio would get over his fascination with Kirby. The OMAC obsession was starting to get a little obnoxious, but he seems to have pulled back....but to dive into another Kirby creation with a similar approach seems a little reckless)

This book might have benefited from either some better editing and/or another pass through the word processor. It's not horrible, just slightly unreadable. Of course, the benefit of an anthology book is that it allows for greater risk taking.

Personally, I think Didio should take up the challenge and push this series further into the unknown....if only to insure that no readers are lost because of this arc.

The WATCHMEN Prequel Brouhaha

After all the discussions, the rumors, and the consumption of many Hostess Chocodiles, DC Comics has officially announced its plans to publish several prequel series to 1985's Watchmen.

And already, the internet is abuzz with conversation, complaints, mindless frothing, and general apathy.

Although Brant, Ron and I will probably be discussing this at this week's Zone 4 recording (episode to go live next week - be sure to head to either our web site or Facebook page to get updates), I thought I would make some general remarks both humorous, blatantly irreverent and hopefully....somewhat insightful.

• I get it - DC is in the business of publishing books. In addition, it's also (much like Marvel) now more of a franchise & licensing company; much of its reboot had to do with making various characters more palatable to use in other media. Given the relatively poor performance of the Watchmen movie, DC had to decide how to extend this franchise....so it shouldn't be all too surprising that they are moving in this direction.
• Personally, a Minutemen series makes the most sense - after all, a similar take on Golden Age material might be interesting. But in all honesty....does anyone care about a sane Rorschach? A non-pudgy Nite Owl? The book was pretty self-contained, and given that DC owns the Charlton characters that the novel was spun off from, well....they could have easily turned this into a separate Earth. Speaking of which.....
• Alan Moore has complained about how his characters are being used....and how his graphic novels are being reshaped into movies. It's kind of hard to take the comments of a man who has "revived" older, more obscure characters seriously. I'm reminded of a story involving a writer who, when asked if Hollywood had "ruined" his novels, stated, "No, they didn't - they're still on the shelf for people to read"
• Dave Gibbon's comment about "may this series achieve the success (DC) desires" - is it just me, or is there a hint of snark and sarcasm in that line?
• Many of DC's recent decisions - from changing their logo to "renaming" Captain Marvel into Shazam - seem less motivated by creative needs and more by business needs. (Most of the creative teams seem more like their in-house team than, say, recruiting the best fit for the character). It's one thing to build upon a universe; this seems like an event comic of the worst kind - more to drive awareness and say, "Look! This is still here!" than any real creative endeavor. (I have no problem with spin-offs, but I wonder if the story really lies in the characters before the events of the novel. That may be just me).

In short - I'll buy Minutemen, but everything else....either wait for the trades or ask at the library.

Thoughts? Comments? 

My Feelings About DC's New Logo In A Nutshell

(OK, actually I've spoken about them at length for the Zone 4 podcast, but thought this was cute nonetheless):




(Thanks to pal Brant of Zone 4 - you will be joining us on Friday, won't you, dear reader?)

Going Medieval: A Look at DEMON KNIGHTS # 1

I was really, truly prepared to dislike Demon Knights # 1....

Not out of prejudice, you understand - I've never really been a sword-and-sorcery, magical fantasy kind of guy. Never played Dungeons & Dragons, haven't read or watched a frame of  Game of Thrones. It's only been recently when I read - and enjoyed - Burrough's A Princess of Mars. Granted, I loved Paul Cornell's other comics work, including Knight & Squire (now collected in trade paperback), so I thought I would at least give it a chance.

I'm glad I did, because so far, this is the most enjoyable book of the "new DC 52" relaunch.

Part of what makes this book enjoyable is that this has all the earmarks of a good first issue of any comic - sets the tone, starts a storyline, and creates engaging characters that we want to follow. (It also helps that Cornell cleverly recasts several DC characters in this - in short, this book takes fine advantage of the reboot). It also has a slightly sardonic sense of humor which may be why I like this book - so much of sword and sorcery/medieval fantasy works seem to take themselves extremely seriously. Yes, there are dramatic moments, but the writing cleverly balances several seemingly different elements - it may be "busy" (as some other reviews have put it), but it's never dull.

Diogenes Neves and Oclair Albert's art really helps sell and strengthen the tone of this book. It hits a strong balance - it never seems extremely ornate or generic. There's a clever use of fonts to suggest the "supernatural" quality of specific characters, and in short...this is just a very enjoyable comic that starts off relatively strong.

Many bloggers and web sites have taken "pools" to see which DC relaunch books survive and which get canceled. I hope that more people check out Demon Knights - it has potential to be a really strong, unique book amongst the plethora of superhero-driven books which DC has included in its relaunch.

Give Demon Knights a chance. At the very least, you'll get to help one worthy book beat the odds.

...But It's the Same Soundtrack: A Review of JUSTICE LEAGUE # 1

(Obligatory Graham Parker reference as a shout-out for my pals at the Comic Treadmill)

So here we are - after all the hype, all the publicity around DC's go-for-broke reboot (The first major one since Crisis on Infinite Earths), we come to the first major release of the "new DC Universe", Geoff Johns and Jim Lee's Justice League # 1. And many of you may be asking....Is it any good?

The answer is...no.

In all honesty, it's not that the tone is wrong: in fact, this book is perfectly pitched towards a younger readership. That's one of the things that Johns gets right - it's not your Bronze Age fan's Justice League book. I'm not going to criticize it for "reading younger", since DC is looking to go after, essentially, the Marvel audience.

Much of the problem of the book, however, is that it apes too much of other books to be distinctive on its own. The decompressed storytelling comes dangerously close to making "Geoff Johns" DC-speak for "Brian Bendis". The Batman/Green Lantern riffing was better done by Frank Miller in All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder. (Although GL's "you're just a guy in a Batsuit" is priceless). Jim Lee's art seems....well, way too generic for a book like this. Although there's room for "big screen comics", Justice League # 1 seems more like a "mockbuster" than, say, a Bruckheimer spectacular.

And for a book called Justice League....well, I get that you need to do the "getting the band together" sequence. Not much happens, except that two heroes fight, we learn about the possible "big bad", and that Victor Stone likes football. Oh, and a third hero comes in to continue the fight. It's as if DC's editorial staff predicted that the leadoff book would sell high, so why even try to put together a decent story?

However, I have to admit that I'm still holding out hope for the rest of DC's relaunch (including the upcoming Action Comics # 1, which shows us an earlier Superman that seems closer to his socially conscious roots - don't believe me? Watch this recent documentary).

Ultimately, DC is taking a well-deserved gamble on its line after spending much of the past few decades "tweaking" continuity since Crisis on Infinite Earths. Not every book will be a success, admittedly, but the lead-off book should be relatively strong, providing a much greater "hook" for potential readers.

Although its initial pre-orders were strong, Justice League # 1 shows that although it gained great publicity...it loses where it matters most: it's not a good comic.

More About the DC Reboot Brouhaha

I know that I've stayed relatively silent amongst the comic blogerati when it comes to the DC revamp; much of it is that I think I've pretty much stated my case in both this previous blog post and in this week's Zone 4 podcast.

In short, it feels very much like DC is engaging in its usual hedging of bets, attempting to "reinvent" itself whilst simultaneously holding onto that old nostalgic feel. It's an effort to move boldly forward in distributing comics....but creatively, it's a huge step backward, with DC hedging its bets.

One very important example is the return of Barbara Gordon as Batgirl. There are two much better pieces about this written than I could write, but it really takes away from a fundamental piece of storytelling - Oracle, as a character, is someone who reinvented herself in the face of tragedy. Now, she's going back to....well, being Batgirl, only because of the belief that only one character can be Batgirl. (And in regards to age, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call her Batwoman?)

OK, won't open that particular can of worms....

But I will have to say, I now spell class Gail  Simone, especially with her recent note about the cancellation of Secret Six. It was a series that, quite frankly, had a unique tone and some really characterization. She could have easily dismissed DC (as JMS did when he left Marvel) or purely played the corporate line; this piece straddles both.

I'm also a little disappointed that the renumbering of comics happens with both Action and Detective. Given some of the rights around Superman occur with the 1938 Action # 1.....it just seems a little spiteful and unfair. But that may be just me.

However, leave it to an NPR blogger to help put this all into perspective.

At least one good thing has happened - in light of reduced funds, I now can easily cut down on my comic reading, because quite frankly, I'm tired of the roller coaster. This isn't fannish entitlement - it's a guy realizing that, well, there's a bigger comic universe out there, and I need to charge head-on into it.

But I need to leave my cozy neighborhood first. And DC is making it easier.