In short, when you have only a knife to fend off an entire village of people hellbent on killing you, you warrant sympathy and support of the world community.
But when you have a rocket launcher and you're facing off with a group of monks armed with torches and their teeth, sympathy swings the opposite direction no matter how evil you insist those priest are.
So, as you may remember, I got into comics through, of all things, the death of Superman. It happens.
Anyway, I always thought it would make a pretty cool movie. Not the death itself, of course, which is just a brawl against a mindless monster and pretty predictable when the title is (spoiler alert) "The Death of Superman". But the "Return of Superman" was a lot of fun, with enough over-the-top action (the destruction of a city, four supermen against an army of aliens, Superman shattering the Cyborg) that it could translate to a cool roller coaster movie.
Well, it looks like someone agreed with me, um... sort of:
This cartoon actually seems kind of... odd to me. If it takes place in the DC Animated Universe, well, they've already done the "World Without a Superman" bit in a Justice League episode called "Hereafter," and Steel, at least, was introduced in Superman: the Animated Series. They've even already had Superman fight Doomsday. Twice.
Which means this movie is just going to repeat a lot of what's already been done, cut out the stuff that actually makes the story interesting, and make me pay $20 to buy it (or $4 to rent it, or I could NetFlix it, but you get the idea).
But it isn't helped by the narration. I just get a creepy vibe by the leering way he says "See, Superman in love. See, Superman be dark and dangerous. See, Superman get the shit kicked out of him by a walking plot point!" Or the time spent lavinshing praise on the 70 minutes of EXTRA FEATURES (Note to future publicity people: "Extra Features" are enticing if and only the film they come from was any good to begin with). Or maybe it's just the portentousness of the narration feels more like the trailer to Comedian than like something I should take seriously.
Then again, Jerry Seinfeld would like it either way, I guess.
So Hippolyta turns to her top generals and says, "We're going to march on Washington D.C., slaughter their leaders, destroy their monuments, and kill one little boy."
There's some muddled confusion so Nubia steps up and asks "Why one little boy?"
And Hippolyta turns to Wonder Woman and says, "See, I told you no cares about Washington!"
Okay, so anyone who knows the original version of that joke knows I just did a bad, bad thing, but the point remains: no reader cares when they see Amazons blow up the capital building (which is certainly full of people) or invade the Mall by the tens of thousands. But kill one little child right in front of the reader, and everyone decries the violence present in Amazons Attack.
Or to put it another way, one dead child is a tragedy. One thousand dead children are a statistic.
I honestly don't get you people, sometimes. The ones that don't think such violence belongs in superhero comics. To me, that's just unfathomable. Superheroes use violence to protect people from extraordinary, fantastic threats. Those threats themselves have to be horrible. An army that has no mercy for children? There's a word for that... what is it? what is it?
Oh, I remember, "Bad Guys."
NEWSFLASH: The Amazons are the BAD GUYS of Amazons Attack. That's in case you didn't get it from the F*&^ING TITLE!
Within the first four pages, Will Pfeifer and Pete Woods establish the threat as a large, superpowered army that kills everyone they come across. We know what the Justice League is up against and why it NEEDS to stop them, immediately. That's called good writing.
And as for those who think that it's out of character for Amazons to be so warlike, all I have to say is, "ARE YOU HIGH?" The only consistent part of the myth of the Amazons is that they are a tribe of Warrior Women. Think Xena. Think the "Amazons" in Y, the Last Man.* Even if we limit it to DC Amazons, this was a tribe last seen pulling out the "Purple Death Ray" against a horde of invading OMACs. They do nothing but fight or train to fight! And considering they learned their combat strategy and tactics three thousand years before the Geneva Conventions, they're probably not taking many prisoners.
But maybe you just don't want to deal with the consequences of large scale violence on a personal level, or maybe you just don't want to think about children dying. I almost understand that, I guess. I suggest you read something more all ages appropriate, like Jeff Smith's Shazam: The Monster Society of Evil. Nothing bad happens to children there...
52 is coming to a close, so far it's been really satisfying. The pleasure of multiple plotlines is when they cross and merge, and with this week's revelations of what Evil Skeets is and what he wants, tying the Space Heroes to the Mad Scientists to Booster Gold, and with Renee Montoya, Will Magnus, and basically every superhero on Earth preventing Intergang's attempt to destroy the world in the last few issues, all the last issue has to do for me is explain what any of this has to do with Ralph Dibny's magical mystery tour or Lex Luthor's Everyman project.
Plotwise, that is. Thematically, I think I've got this egg cracked.
Over at the indispensable 52 Pickup, Douglas Wolk asks, "in a sentence, what's 52 about?"
And my answer is: "52 is about change, those that try to change the world, those that try to change themselves."
Thematically, global change vs. personal change is what ties the major plot threads together. Each plot features at least one character out to remake the world, whether it be Intergang with their Crime Bible, Lex Luthor and his mad dreams of Planet Lexor, Black Adam's "Freedom of Power" treaty, Lady Styx and her hunt for what the Space Heroes saw outside the universe, or Evil Skeets, whom I'll get to later. Even Ralph Dibny was trying to re-write the laws of the new age of magic to get his beloved wife back.
And they all failed. As they learned, real change can't be imposed from without. Anything that can be changed easily can just as easily be changed back, and difficult changes will be fought and rejected by the world itself. This is the pattern of DC's major crossover villains, from the Antimonitor to Parallax to Superboy Prime: they keep trying to destroy the universe in order to remake it as they want it to be, only to be beaten back by characters who refuse to go. (Ironically, it's always in storylines in which the writers and editors are specifically destroying the universe to remake it as they want it to be, only to see the changes they made undone with the next five years).
52 argues that change IS possible, though, but it has to come from within. Ralph can't bring back his wife, he can only become the hero he once was. Natasha has to build her own armor. Dr. Magnus rediscovers his inner mad scientist. And Vic Sage can't make Renee Montoya the new Question, she has to become The Question on her own.
Therefore... of course the caterpillar is the Big Bad of the series!
The villain of 52 had to be Mr. Mind, a character capable of making the personal change that Black Adam and Lex Luthor could not. Mr. Mind doesn't just change; he endures a literal metamorphosis! And it is only through metamorphosis that Mr. Mind can adapt to the new world (or worlds, I should say) before conquering it!
Doug Wolk worries that if you don't already know who Mr. Mind is, the reveal that he is Evil Skeets makes no sense. But I think it's a Fair Play Mystery. Mr. Mind's clearly seen in the very first issue, where Sivana talks about whether science or magic changes the world, and the image of his cocoon ominously ends both issue 3 and issue 10. Issue 39 even takes two panels out of the deployment of the Four Horsemen to introduce background info on Mr. Mind in a "We can't tell you why, right now, but this is important information" kind of way.
In a genre and medium famously criticized for the stagnancy of its characters and stories, it's nice to see a story devoted to the very idea of change, taking on new identities and new forms, growing from experience, or falling from grace. And in that context, a villain evolving before our eyes is the only kind of villain that makes sense!
This Wordballoon interview with Greg Rucka (which is independently worth a listen for his thoughts on 52, Wonder Woman, and bringing Bucky back) ends with a discussion of the viability of a new Lois Lane-centric ongoing.
Rucka states the conventional wisdom, that setting a book in a superhero-universe without having a superhero lead is a non-seller, and points to his own critically praised but low-selling Gotham Central as proof. When the interviewer, John Siuntres, counters that a Daily Planet-ensemble book would still feature Clark "Superman" Kent and therefore might be viable, Rucka laughs it off, hoping that DC doesn't have the same idea, because while he'd love to write such a series, he just doesn't have the time.
Well, Greg, as much as I truly enjoy your work (and I do), I don't think you're the best writer for a Lois Lane ongoing. You have the characters you do well (i.e. Montoya), but Lois isn't a hard-drinking soldier dealing with a dead partner and a loss of identity.
Lois Lane is a driven, quick-witted, sharped tonged reporter with sometimes more brass than common sense dealing with real, topical issues set against a fantastic/science fictionopolis, and whose hard-bitten cynical exterior protects the surprisingly vulnerable heart of a true romantic. But, most importantly, Lois Lane takes crap from no one.
I know (my MySpace friend) Warren Ellis has that pesky "exclusive" contract with Marvel, but I honestly think he'd make a fantastic Superman writer, and an even better Lois Lane writer. Anyone who's read Transmetropolitan knows he can do the journalist hero; anyone who's read his run on The Authority knows he can do the super human action; and anyone who's read New Maps of Hell knows he has the Lois and Clark playful, competitive banter down cold. Their dialogue comes off as two people who both love each other and continually want to impress each other.
So what say you, Warren? Ready to give up writing "The New Adventures of Dark Speedball" in favor of "The Continuing Adventures of Lois Lane's Husband: Clark Kent"?
C'mon, Lois Lane deserves her own bowel disruptor!
While both have a dream of a better world for their respective repressed minorities, Martin Luther King was a pacifist who refused to use violence, even to defend himself.
Professor X trained his students to be masked vigilante freedom fighters who beat the crap out of anyone, human or mutant, who gets in the way of his goals.
No, Professor X's belief that mutants have the right, and sometimes to the need, to use violence to defend themselves makes him a lot closer to, appropriately enough, Malcolm X.
It would be an interesting story, I think, if Xavier and his small army of demi-gods met a truly King-esque mutant rights activist, someone who thinks the violent tactics of the X-Men themselves hurt the cause, one who refused to attack the Sentinels, but rather lay in front of them, absorb their blows and refuse to budge. This would be particularly entertaining if said pacifist was the Blob.
I bought WWIII because I thought it would give me some answers on what happened in OYL.
I bought all of Infinite Crisis, Identity Crisis, all of 52 so far, and will probably buy all WWIII garbage too.
Then my collection of how DC went into the toilet will be complete.
So let me get this straight, he bought World War III because he wanted to get answers to continuity questions, then complains that it's nothing but answers to continuity questions? And somehow that's DC's fault? It makes my head hurt!
First off, it's hard to say DC is "going down the toilet" the same week they release The Spirit, Manhunter, and The Brave and Bold, and a week after they put out All-Star Superman. They clearly can and do produce quality books. And one can't fault a company for releasing books like this when "fans" buy them no matter what; fans more interested in accumulating facts about fictional people's lives than in reading, y'know, good stories about characters.
If this disgruntled fan truly didn't approve of this material, why did he buy it? It seemed clear that WWIII was always going to be what Jog calls Gonzo Continuity Porn, moments of explanation without context, subtext, or meaning of any kind. That's why I didn't buy it, (and from what I've read, I'm glad I didn't. Thanks, BB!)
Fans like this guy are addicted to salt, asking for more and more until the original flavor of the story is buried under the same seasoning. Then they complain that everything tastes like salt and their blood pressure is too high. Yes, DC's going to keep giving you salt as long as you keep buying it, but they offer healthy alternatives. In fact, they really, really want you to try their healthy alternatives. So it's just not DC's fault when you have your heart attack!
Now that I got that off my chest, I can talk about all the really amazing comics that I DID buy yesterday. There were so many truly great comics (in a week in which All-Star Superman didn't even come out that it's hard to know where to start.
My favorite, right now, was The Brave and the Bold #3, featuring the two best things to come out of Infinite Crisis, the new Blue Beetle and a kinder, gentler Batman.
Blue Beetle, Jaime Reyes, is a character we think we've seen before: teen hero, chosen by chance/fate, gifted with phenomenal power and immediately dropped over his head into the craziness of superhero-dom. But the differences from Spider-Man et. al. are telling: he doesn't hide his powers from his family; he rarely encounters other heroes, living out in El Paso, TX; and perhaps most telling, he doesn't have an "Uncle Ben" moment of personal tragedy that drives him. He just does what he thinks is the right thing to do, given his extraordinary situation. In this way, he's one of the most relatable superheroes in comics today.
And the "new" Batman is a hoot as well. He's still scary as all get out, but Mark Waid and George Perez make it clear that it's an act, a purposeful attempt to seem more than human to fit in with the supermen around him. So, to the thug he interrogates, he's nothing but shadow and menace, but to Jaime he's reassuring, asks for help, and on page three, even though it's hard to "hear" in the snowstorm, he makes a joke about hot chocolate (true fact!). It's a hell of an improvement over his treatment of Kyle Rayner, Green Lantern, when Kyle was the novice with more power than experience.
And while the two of them tracking down a missing alien is fun, the real joy comes when they fight the Fatal Five, whose members include a guy who can cut through anything, a guy who can burn through anything, a woman whose magic eye can DO anything, and Validus, who is ALWAYS flipping out! The Fatal Five, remember, routinely make trouble for an entire LEGION of Superheroes, and Batman and Blue Beetle face them down. No, that's not true, Batman runs away while Blue Beetle bravely and foolishly holds them off all by himself. Since he's not killed, I'd say he does pretty well.
Though really, I don't think I'm conveying how much FUN this book is and how well the writing compliments the art. George Perez's skill as a detailed storyteller has only improved over the years. He fills his backgrounds and characters with wonderful details but his staging is clear, his characters feel real, and their emotions are expressive. Similarly, Waid's script is filled with details culled from DC long and extensive history, but the book is absurdly new-reader friendly. Even Batman's origin is retold on the first page. I never felt that I HAD to read Blue Beetle's own series to understand this issue, but I'm sure glad that I do.
Most of all, Brave and the Bold is exactly what I want a Justice League title to be. A romp through the ginormous playground that is the DC Universe. In the first three issues alone, the characters have gone from the Batcave to Las Vegas and from Space Casinos to the Mexican Border, with suggestions of both the far future and the Endless! Furthermore, while being a fun romp, it's also an exploration of how varied the superhero genre itself can be. So far it's crashed through police procedural, teen romance, sci fi actioner, buddy comedy, and if next issue's cover is any indication, BIKER FLICK!
There's a palpable feeling that anything could happen, that the joy of comics is that the story could turn in any direction, and that only in superhero comics could anything as whacked out as THAT last page ever happen.
And that was only ONE of the amazing books I read yesterday!
"I'm also enjoying The Roar of Comics immensely - Steve is a guy who wears his heart on his sleeve. He's the kind of blogger whose passion doesn't outstrip his intelligence, and who can make the greatest points with the least amount of snarkiness."