Hey, just because I haven't had a pull list since 1988 doesn't mean you can discount the power of current-comics-continuity-knowledge-through-osmosis.
I can't believe you're seriously arguing that hearsay on the internet is just as legitimate a way of acquiring an opinion than actually reading the works themselves.
There are three reasons why I do discount and ignore such "views acquired through osmosis," and do not accept them as legitimate:
1) The utter hubris of this is staggering;
2) It's possible to be deceived by osmosis. Here's an example of what I mean: the current Dan Slott SHE-HULK is mislabeled a "comedy" series. It does have a wicked sense of humor, but apart from the first four "law with jetpacks" issues, the book is a very straightforward adventure/action book. Another incorrect view is that Chris Priest's THE CREW was a "black" book set in Da Ghetto. True, there are a great number of minority heroes featured, but the book is NOT "street," in the sense something like, say, POWER MAN is.
(This misconception actually sank THE CREW, because unlike the 70s, fans aren't in the mood for "street" stuff these days.)
3) If all you do is read opinions, you're deprived of
context. Millions of fans refused to see STAR TREK II because they heard Spock would die, and millions more refused to see STAR TREK III because they were going to bring him back. Afterward, BOTH TIMES, what was the general reaction from people that actually saw it? "Oh, I didn't know you were going to do it THAT way."
I'd like to buy a parrot, name it SuperMonkey, and teach it to say, "BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT! BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT!" I'd never have to read another SuperMonkey post ever again.
"Hey, looks like SuperMonkey's got a comment about the latest issue of ACTION COMICS! What do you think he's going to say, Parrot SuperMonkey?"
"BWAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT! BWAAAAWK! JOHNS IS VIOLENT!"
Heck, your reviews and constant praise of Busiek's Superman run has given me a pretty good idea of what's up with that title, and I haven't even touched an issue. Do I have to actually buy the fershlugginer thing?
Yes. Yes you do, if you want to discuss it with any degree of intelligence.
Brad Meltzer is a certainly a writer "of a certain level". Unfortunately, it is a very low level.
QUESTION:
How do you know that?The dearth of more pulpy Omega stories over the last 30 years (besides, presumably, being a product of the Marvel/Gerber war) is sad: the old fan in me wanted to see him in the Avengers, etc
Gerber did have an opportunity to wrap-up the events of OMEGA in his DEFENDERS, which was, predictably enough, a rush-job ending on the level of Hunger Dogs.
Omega's too oddball a character to be in a book as "traditional superheroic" as AVENGERS. He's 100% Defender material, though. The thing I always loved about the Gerber DEFENDERS is his realization that, at some level, all the Defenders are socially unacceptable. Gerber did it first (and arguably, better) than X-Men later did.
I am loathe to say anything that could be interpreted as "Jack Kirby is the most super-special, uniquest guy that ever lived," (because he is just like any other creator, who is "influenced by" as much as influential) but it is true that Kirby and Steve Gerber's work were so personal in nature that I hesitate to see anyone else but Gerber or Kirby doing a continuation of their work. As much as I love Englehart, his DEFENDERS was fun, but didn't have Gerber's approach or understanding.
Well, have they? This was talked about on another thread: where are all the classic characters created since 1986?
II'll tell you now what I said then: I reject the entire premise of this conversation, which has innovation in worldbuilding be a constant, neverending process. It isn't and it shouldn't be.
Eventually, there comes a point where the Marvel or DC earth is so well-established and developed that it not only isn't POSSIBLE to do some kinds of additions (e.g. giving Thor another brother, which would be unbelievable at this point, or creating a new underground kingdom: the Marvel Underground Earth is pretty mapped out now, to the point where any addition would involve answering "why doesn't the Mole Man, Project: Pegasus, or Tyrannus know of this?"), it isn't necessarily desirable, either.
Many hard-core superhero comics fans hate Bat-Mite but the truth is he has entered the pop culture consciousness
So have Jar-Jar Binks and the Electric Slide. He's still a crappy character.
The He-Man tv writers even ripped him off in the character of Orko.
Does it at all impact your assessment that Generation X and Yers despise Orko and find him annoying?
In many ways, hatred of Bat-Mite by superhero comics fans is ironically a form of self-hatred:
Yeah, that would be pretty ironic...if fans despised Bat-Mite for being a fanboy, instead of because he's annoying and doesn't belong in Batman comics.
Bat-Mite is the uber-fan, at once a funny comment on fandom, hero-worship, and childhood.
No. No he isn't.
To be fair, many Lois Lane characters were open-ended and/or bland enough to have tons of potential for a smart modern writer to sink his or her teeth into. Plus they were better designed (usually by Schaffenberger) than any modern garbage.
Yeah? Name me ONE.
I loved the idea of Diana Savage...but she was created in the Schwartz years, when Jimmy Olsen became an interesting "Mr. Action."
I love Kurt Schaffenberger and he is obviously very talented, but his cartoony art style is not appropriate for superheroes and adventure comics. In fact, I think Juan Bobillo and Chris Sprouse are a little too cartoony for adventure books, which is based on the tradition of guys like Foster, Kubert, Adams, and Buscema.
Sure, we all have come to know (some people here like Al Schroeder from first-hand experience) how the connectedness of that first gen of comics fans --a very tiny group-- created a news & gossip network that gradually evolved onto modern fandom. But the difference between then (or even 1988) is one of several orders of magnitude, aided and abetted by the net which speeds up all aspects of life. Not only is Warner/DC's hype machine able to penetrate the NYT's editorial firewall, but minor online fangasms about a cover image or leaked plot-point can be transformed into blog and messboard fodder for months, even spilling over into the "real" news sites and tv, and translating into sales bumps or at least urban legend. The death stunts and reboots of the modern era and the resulting sales are the supreme example of the role of the net in spiking sales into the millions. Something that never really happened in the past despite the best efforts of the primitive telegraphy of the old-school fans.
I think you're confusing two different things: fandom's information network, and media attention to comics.
For example, suppose on one page Superman is being attacked by someone with green-K, then we are left to turn over the page wondering how he can escape, only to find that he all of a sudden has developed a power for neutralising green-K or can suddenly teleport himself out of dangerous situations.
If Superman ever did that, that would have been a terrible, terrible story. That's why we even have continuity: to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
It's like that one issue of MIGHTY CRUSADERS where one of the characters says "Wait, I have the ability to teleport! But I never mentioned it before...and I can only do it once!"
We as the readers have more freedom with the Silver Age and the pre-crisis Superman in general because we have more creative control in our interpretation of the character then we would have with a traditional continuity.
I think this is making a common STTA error: confusing the Silver Age with Superman's sum total existence. The Schwartz-era Super-books had pretty tight continuity.
It could even be argued that in order for him to work, we readers and fans have to fill in some of the blanks ourselves. And we can ignore stories we don't like.
Actually, I think this is a real weakness of Superman comics for a great length of time.
I'm reading through ESSENTIAL IRON MAN VOL. 2 right now, as well as SHOWCASE FLASH, and the thing that strikes me as interesting about these two books is that all of the stories have significance, that they were built on.
How many Iron Man and Avengers stories have gotten mileage out of Whitney Frost/Madame Masque? How many have built directly on her inability to escape the criminal life and her actions taken in the first dozen issues of IRON MAN? The things introduced in the early Flash are forever after parts of the DC Universe: the battle with Captain Cold, his discovery of his ability to vibrate, the first team-up with Green Lantern, and so on.
But Superman at least for two and a half volumes of SHOWCASE, had collective MOMENTO-style amnesia. Very little of this stuff impacted later comics in any way. Superman never remembered there was a short time he was in the army. He never showed greater sympathy to ugly or disfigured people because he remembered having had a lion's head.
The fact this can be done for a great many details is a
weakness, not a strength. It should
not be up to the fans to do writers' work for them.
