GrandHarrier
Member
I may have started looking up pictures of Cats as Superheroes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
COMICS! |OT| May 2015. Those things your favorite movie/show/game/etc. was based on.
- Thread starter Spike Spiegel
- Start date
- Status
KoruptData
Member
I flipped thorough my Delux HC's of Waids Daredevil vol 1 and 2 Which collects the first 22 issues and can't remember anything. I checked out the rest of the run from the library and was just going to read those. Should I go back and read the stuff again or is the story arcs pretty self contained?
This is a different store. I don't go to the sniffer store anymore.
echoshifting
Banned
I'd say each arc is pretty self contained. There is long term stuff, but it's mostly stuff like what's going on with Foggy and Matt's relationship with Kirsten. I don't think you need to read the whole run to know what's going on with those storylines.
He's out there watching you. Waiting to smell everything you own.
Sometimes I wonder how many books he has and what he does with them.
He cooks them.
Fuck the truth. When you are a superhero with evil and insane villains, you do everything to save your private life.
I fully understand Matt and would support him without a single doubt.
echoshifting
Banned
It's been many years since I last visited Bendis DD, but isn't he sort of a dick to his friends, too? His wife? I know he is under fire through the entire run but I do remember thinking he was being an asshole to the very people who were trying to see him through this. I'm with you on his treatment of the
Globe guy,
I really need to read all that again sometime.
KoruptData
Member
Thanks! You would mind touching on the relationship with Foggy and Kirsten through 22 issues? I read issue 23 and at the end, Foggy told Matt about
his cancer.
You're lucky, i hear he progressed to sniffing customers there now.
I'd sniff him if he was there. See how he likes it.
echoshifting
Banned
I would say all you really need to know is that, at that point in the story, Kirsten and Foggy were both really worried about Matt's mental health...that his new outlook on life is a ruse and he's not dealing with his shit at all. Kirsten even attempts to enlist the aid of the police and the Superior Spider-Man to bring him back down to earth. One key storyline involves the body of Matt's father, Jack Murdock, being taken from its resting place, which seems to get into Matt's head a little. Between those concerns floating about and the cancer storyline (which you came in right at the right time for), I'd say you're good to go, but maybe somebody else can help me out with stuff I'm missing.
KoruptData
Member
What's up with Mark Waid digging up the remains of superheroes parents? See JLA Tower of Babel.
Thanks BTW.
Someone explain the coincidence to me. Is it just multiversal shenanigans?
Don't click that unless you've read Multiversity 2 and New Avengers 33.
Don't click that unless you've read Multiversity 2 and New Avengers 33.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
So any idea if Ultimate Reed is surviving Secret Wars?
Because if he is, everyone is terribly, terribly fucked right?
Because if he is, everyone is terribly, terribly fucked right?
Secret Wars 0 is mostly a catch-up for what's happened in NA/A before going into SW.
We have no idea.
616 has a lot more to deal with U. Reed than the Ultimate Universe did, their own Reed & Valeria Richards for starters.
tringworldso
Member
Interview with Ivan Reis on Multiversity 2
http://www.newsarama.com/24368-vivi...van-reis-on-final-character-filled-issue.html
http://www.newsarama.com/24368-vivi...van-reis-on-final-character-filled-issue.html
Serpentine
Banned
Officer Downe is insane. Chris Burnham is sooooo good at drawing ultraviolence, especially dismemberment and eyes popping out of skulls
So....I've always felt that any author of notoriety is someone who you ought to atleast be knowledgeable about. Someone who you should 'get'. So I've tried reading Morrison comics. I've read All Star Superman, Flex Mentallo, some of his Batman run, his action comics run, and A Serious House on a Serious Earth.
Personally, I'm not impressed. I've gotten into debates here on gaf about his work, and they have never ended to my satisfaction. Which isn't to say that I wanted to 'win' those debates, exactly, and most of them were civil, but I wanted to come to some kind of resolution where either I see something I have missed or the Morrison fan atleast sees where I'm coming from. But at the end, I always felt a sort of disconnect, where I didn't really understand what deeper meaning that the fans felt about his work, while most fans seemed to just shrug me off as 'not getting it' but can't explain what they do get that I don't. I'm not mentioning this because I wish to be antagonistic to Morrison fans, but it's just been my experience with them, and this disconnect is what has kept me coming back and trying to read Morrison comics, trying to gain this special insight will apparently change my entire view on Morrison, or atleast understand his supposed brilliance. We can respectfully disagree on what brilliance is, but what bugged me was that I wasn't sure what was supposed to be brilliant about Morrison in the first place, because other readers seem to have such a different reaction from me.
Pax Americana is the latest thing I've read from him. I've read some of Multiversity (the first issue, Pax Americana, Ultra Comics, and the last issue), but I want to focus on Pax Americana because, he himself says, it's his magnum opus. Many other fans have agreed it's his most brilliant work. If you're wondering why I've been asking for fans to offer their takes or analysis, it was an attempt to better understand both PA and Morrison fans in general. And it's a direct response to watchmen (which I feel a lot of his work has been), which is my favorite comic. This post isn't a review of PA per se, more just jotting down some thoughts and what it tells me about Morrison as a storyteller.
This analysis here is the best one I had found, and kind of what kicked off this whole post. It talks a lot about the many things PA does, but the conclusion stuck with me for a while:
I think this quote tapped into what I loathe about Morrison as a writer. This guy has spent an extraordinary time trying to examine what Morrison is trying to say here, page by page, only to be baffled as to wtf happened, and conclude saying what it PA stated more about another comic than itself. This is not good to me.
I didn't understand PA until I read the story in chronological order, which made things much more clear. The first reading of the story was basically incomprehensible to me, as it took a while for me to realize it was being told in reverse order. Once I did realize it, and I reread it, it was still fairly confusing. In reading this analysis, I realized I missed other more minor, but basic plot details. While I'm sure plenty of people here will disagree with me, I really feel that Morrison just flat out sucks as a storyteller. It's not to say he doesn't tell interesting stories, but I defy the notion that this immensely confusing layout is worth the minor thematic consistancy of things being able to be read in reverse. It's only when I read it backwards that it actually felt comprehensible, which was my third reading of the story. And I'll get to the reason that I think it's a poor way to tell a story in the first place.
But the second part of the quote here, the one that reflects on PA being a response to Watchmen, states Watchmen is cold and inhuman because of it's calculated meticulousness. I read that, and I reflected on how I percieve PA emotionally, and Morrison's other works. All Star Superman especially is harolded as one of the most emotional superman comics, and I know I am a huge outlier in that I found it completely emotionally unengaging. And I know I found nothing emotionally engaging in PA too. But, if this reading is correct, Watchmen is supposedly the cold work, because it deconstructs the superhero genre. I considered this for a good long while. And I realized that this might be the reason that I see Morrison's work as so alien to what I consider good writing.
Watchmen is cold and inhuman? Watchmen was one of the most human stories I've ever read. We went deeply into the psychology of Rorchoch, discovering what made him who he is. Into Ozymandias' musings on his quest for justice. How Dr. Manhattan slowly lost his humanity, and the turning point of his character development was how Silk Spectre made him appreciate humanity. I could go on and on with the number of human moments in Watchmen. I should mention Watchmen was the first comic I ever read, and to my mind, it never deconstructed superhero comics. I never thought of it in those terms because, it being the first comic I read, it was the isolated from the rest of the industry. I just took the story on it's own, and now that I know the impact it's had and what it was influenced by....it's not any more or less richer than it was. I had never thought Watchmen was rich because it subverted typical superhero notions, or commented on the cold war, or whatever other bullshit was happening around it. It, by itself, was what was brilliant and rich, without needing to know whatever industry tropes it was subverting, without needing to know it's impact on the industry afterwards. Whatever deconstruction that Watchmen put the genre through was a means to tell that story, rather than the story used to deconstruct that genre. There was no ulterior motive or goal, Moore just told a good story.
Pax Americana....I'll say this much: I am pretty impressed with some of the techniques used here. How the peace motif comes up, the comic references,the mythology references, the Captain Atom musings on 'trying to locate love'. The reversed order is annoying as fuck to work with, but it's thematically appropriate to the comic. One thing I've always credited Morrison with is his ability to come up with pretty cool ideas, and he's clearly very well read both in the history of comics and more esoteric things. But the truth is, I don't care about anything happening here. The emotional hook that explains President Harley's plan is hidden from us until the last panel. The driving conflict of the story is the idea for Algorithm 8, which is supposed to end crime, it being analogous to Ozy's plan for world peace, with it being ambiguous as to whether it works. But whereas Watchmen's war solution was something that is uncertain due to the fickleness human nature, we have no idea whether Algorithm 8 works because it's never explained how you can thwart determinism just because you know determinism exists. That is a far more abstract, philosophical notion than the close examination of humanity watchmen did. And the discovery of this Algorithm turned the question into having a 'full color spectrum' philosophy rather than the black and white one he had before. I don't really understand why, it's never explained, it's just a character change that happens off screen when he finds it out. We don't know why he believed in black and white morality in the first place, why he was so cruel. We don't really get a reason why the Peacemaker does what he does except a throwaway line of how he believes that there is an order to the universe. Why? What makes him believe this so strongly he will risk everything to do it? Why is Ted such a shallow asshole here? What's his story? Why does Nightshade like doing what she's doing?
I feel the only character whose humanity is actually depicted is President Harley's, but that's only after I had gone through the comic 3 times and rearranged it to make it comprehensible. But that was when I realized, I didn't really discover a character, I solved the puzzle. Which was a feeling of satisfaction, but not the same kind that I get when I read a good story, but when I figure out an answer. "Oh, that's that's what it is." rather than "I can understand why he believes it so strongly". It's a subtle difference, but strong. As Atom depicted, it's hard to love pieces. He was much more compelling as a whole, but I shouldn't have had to go through so much work to get to this. And even with this, every other character doesn't have the privilege of backstory and detailed character development in PA. As the quote above says, we still don't know who was working with Harley, or who was working against him. Without knowing what the other characters are doing, we don't know why they did what they did. We don't have any basis to even think about whether he was right about Algorithm 8 or not. If I hadn't read that analysis, I'd have no idea who the hell the metal arm guy is supposed to be, because it sure as hell isn't explained anywhere in the comics. It leaves so much unanswered, instead using those spaces for other purposes.
Furthermore, the scenes that are meant to provoke some kind of emotional reaction on a raw, visceral level fall flat to me because the depiction is so melodramatic. In particular, I am thinking of the Question's murder of the informant dude, the one that was stuck and got electrocuted. "What kind of person does this to a human being?!" and "I don't help bad guys". Might as well have dropped in a "OH, THE HUMANITY!!!" in there somewhere. This actually doesn't come up in PA as much, but it has been a problem for me in other Morrison comics, which just immediately functions ironically as an emotional disconnect It makes me feel like the writer is trying to manipulate me rather than trying to create a believable scene. Again, if we're going to compare this to watchmen, then I'd say Watchmen comes out ahead because we have delved deeply into Rorschach's character. In contrast, Rorschach telling his story just feels like him telling his story of how his life happened, which reacts the emotional resonance.
The point I'm making here is that the story, the basic isolated from the rest of the industry story of what is happening in PA, is shallow. Whatever motivations and backgrounds and whatever the other characters have, it's found in the histories of other comics. On it's own, PA performs some interesting tricks in terms of format, I see little to be found here for poignant human moments or even believable characters. But what DOES it say? Well, as the above conclusion states, it's a response to things outside the comic. Atom's disassembling and reassembling of his dog is meant to reference what Watchmen did to the comics industry. When the Question is trying to explain his motivations, Morrison decides to make it a burn on some other writer than an insight into the Question's character. It references Spiral dynamics and this wierd color thing that isn't ever really explained, but made significant to understanding the structure of the story. And lots of other stuff I missed, I'm sure.
Pax Americana feels like story being used to deconstruct Watchmen or make statements, or experiment with concepts that Morrison found cool. That's all well and good, but it's using the story as a means to some kind of end. So when we go back to the original statement....
I literally cannot disagree with this more. Watchmen is very full of emotion and human moments. You cannot have the genuine darkness it depicted without those human emotional moments. It's Pax Americana that comes off as trying to use the story as a tool for gimmicky purposes or otherwise a means for making a statement. It's format is a barrier that we have to work through to get at the few human moments it has. And when it tries to depict something emotional, it comes off as manipulative rather than believable. I'm not saying it's a bad or uninteresting, but cold and inhuman are perfect words to describe it in my mind. It feels like a platform for which Morrison speaks his mind, which is fine if you like listening to the guy, but he doesn't ever work hard to make us believe the world he depicts. In fact, at times, he resents the implication he ought to, in other comics. I feel like this represents the disconnect I feel with Morrison's understanding of writing. It's like one of us lives in bizarro world, where the words inhuman and emotional resonance have opposite meaning to the other guy's world.
It's not that I disagree with what Morrison says all the time, necessarily, and he has some interesting ideas. I don't even completely hate all his comics. But that doesn't make him a good writer in my eyes. And at the end of this...I still don't really get what brilliance people supposedly see in him. But to each his own. I'll probably read the rest of his Batman run sometime out of boredom, but.....but.....honestly, I'm kind of lost as to what to write next. I wanted to get my thoughts down, and I have, and hopefully it will spark some interesting discussion, but if you'd ask me if I had a 'point' here, I'd probably not know what to say. I just wanted to organize my thoughts on the guy, and hopefully it wasn't too boring a read for you. So I'll end it here, and hope the cult of Morrison won't sacrifice me using chaos magic or whatever.
Personally, I'm not impressed. I've gotten into debates here on gaf about his work, and they have never ended to my satisfaction. Which isn't to say that I wanted to 'win' those debates, exactly, and most of them were civil, but I wanted to come to some kind of resolution where either I see something I have missed or the Morrison fan atleast sees where I'm coming from. But at the end, I always felt a sort of disconnect, where I didn't really understand what deeper meaning that the fans felt about his work, while most fans seemed to just shrug me off as 'not getting it' but can't explain what they do get that I don't. I'm not mentioning this because I wish to be antagonistic to Morrison fans, but it's just been my experience with them, and this disconnect is what has kept me coming back and trying to read Morrison comics, trying to gain this special insight will apparently change my entire view on Morrison, or atleast understand his supposed brilliance. We can respectfully disagree on what brilliance is, but what bugged me was that I wasn't sure what was supposed to be brilliant about Morrison in the first place, because other readers seem to have such a different reaction from me.
Pax Americana is the latest thing I've read from him. I've read some of Multiversity (the first issue, Pax Americana, Ultra Comics, and the last issue), but I want to focus on Pax Americana because, he himself says, it's his magnum opus. Many other fans have agreed it's his most brilliant work. If you're wondering why I've been asking for fans to offer their takes or analysis, it was an attempt to better understand both PA and Morrison fans in general. And it's a direct response to watchmen (which I feel a lot of his work has been), which is my favorite comic. This post isn't a review of PA per se, more just jotting down some thoughts and what it tells me about Morrison as a storyteller.
This analysis here is the best one I had found, and kind of what kicked off this whole post. It talks a lot about the many things PA does, but the conclusion stuck with me for a while:
I think this quote tapped into what I loathe about Morrison as a writer. This guy has spent an extraordinary time trying to examine what Morrison is trying to say here, page by page, only to be baffled as to wtf happened, and conclude saying what it PA stated more about another comic than itself. This is not good to me.
I didn't understand PA until I read the story in chronological order, which made things much more clear. The first reading of the story was basically incomprehensible to me, as it took a while for me to realize it was being told in reverse order. Once I did realize it, and I reread it, it was still fairly confusing. In reading this analysis, I realized I missed other more minor, but basic plot details. While I'm sure plenty of people here will disagree with me, I really feel that Morrison just flat out sucks as a storyteller. It's not to say he doesn't tell interesting stories, but I defy the notion that this immensely confusing layout is worth the minor thematic consistancy of things being able to be read in reverse. It's only when I read it backwards that it actually felt comprehensible, which was my third reading of the story. And I'll get to the reason that I think it's a poor way to tell a story in the first place.
But the second part of the quote here, the one that reflects on PA being a response to Watchmen, states Watchmen is cold and inhuman because of it's calculated meticulousness. I read that, and I reflected on how I percieve PA emotionally, and Morrison's other works. All Star Superman especially is harolded as one of the most emotional superman comics, and I know I am a huge outlier in that I found it completely emotionally unengaging. And I know I found nothing emotionally engaging in PA too. But, if this reading is correct, Watchmen is supposedly the cold work, because it deconstructs the superhero genre. I considered this for a good long while. And I realized that this might be the reason that I see Morrison's work as so alien to what I consider good writing.
Watchmen is cold and inhuman? Watchmen was one of the most human stories I've ever read. We went deeply into the psychology of Rorchoch, discovering what made him who he is. Into Ozymandias' musings on his quest for justice. How Dr. Manhattan slowly lost his humanity, and the turning point of his character development was how Silk Spectre made him appreciate humanity. I could go on and on with the number of human moments in Watchmen. I should mention Watchmen was the first comic I ever read, and to my mind, it never deconstructed superhero comics. I never thought of it in those terms because, it being the first comic I read, it was the isolated from the rest of the industry. I just took the story on it's own, and now that I know the impact it's had and what it was influenced by....it's not any more or less richer than it was. I had never thought Watchmen was rich because it subverted typical superhero notions, or commented on the cold war, or whatever other bullshit was happening around it. It, by itself, was what was brilliant and rich, without needing to know whatever industry tropes it was subverting, without needing to know it's impact on the industry afterwards. Whatever deconstruction that Watchmen put the genre through was a means to tell that story, rather than the story used to deconstruct that genre. There was no ulterior motive or goal, Moore just told a good story.
Pax Americana....I'll say this much: I am pretty impressed with some of the techniques used here. How the peace motif comes up, the comic references,the mythology references, the Captain Atom musings on 'trying to locate love'. The reversed order is annoying as fuck to work with, but it's thematically appropriate to the comic. One thing I've always credited Morrison with is his ability to come up with pretty cool ideas, and he's clearly very well read both in the history of comics and more esoteric things. But the truth is, I don't care about anything happening here. The emotional hook that explains President Harley's plan is hidden from us until the last panel. The driving conflict of the story is the idea for Algorithm 8, which is supposed to end crime, it being analogous to Ozy's plan for world peace, with it being ambiguous as to whether it works. But whereas Watchmen's war solution was something that is uncertain due to the fickleness human nature, we have no idea whether Algorithm 8 works because it's never explained how you can thwart determinism just because you know determinism exists. That is a far more abstract, philosophical notion than the close examination of humanity watchmen did. And the discovery of this Algorithm turned the question into having a 'full color spectrum' philosophy rather than the black and white one he had before. I don't really understand why, it's never explained, it's just a character change that happens off screen when he finds it out. We don't know why he believed in black and white morality in the first place, why he was so cruel. We don't really get a reason why the Peacemaker does what he does except a throwaway line of how he believes that there is an order to the universe. Why? What makes him believe this so strongly he will risk everything to do it? Why is Ted such a shallow asshole here? What's his story? Why does Nightshade like doing what she's doing?
I feel the only character whose humanity is actually depicted is President Harley's, but that's only after I had gone through the comic 3 times and rearranged it to make it comprehensible. But that was when I realized, I didn't really discover a character, I solved the puzzle. Which was a feeling of satisfaction, but not the same kind that I get when I read a good story, but when I figure out an answer. "Oh, that's that's what it is." rather than "I can understand why he believes it so strongly". It's a subtle difference, but strong. As Atom depicted, it's hard to love pieces. He was much more compelling as a whole, but I shouldn't have had to go through so much work to get to this. And even with this, every other character doesn't have the privilege of backstory and detailed character development in PA. As the quote above says, we still don't know who was working with Harley, or who was working against him. Without knowing what the other characters are doing, we don't know why they did what they did. We don't have any basis to even think about whether he was right about Algorithm 8 or not. If I hadn't read that analysis, I'd have no idea who the hell the metal arm guy is supposed to be, because it sure as hell isn't explained anywhere in the comics. It leaves so much unanswered, instead using those spaces for other purposes.
Furthermore, the scenes that are meant to provoke some kind of emotional reaction on a raw, visceral level fall flat to me because the depiction is so melodramatic. In particular, I am thinking of the Question's murder of the informant dude, the one that was stuck and got electrocuted. "What kind of person does this to a human being?!" and "I don't help bad guys". Might as well have dropped in a "OH, THE HUMANITY!!!" in there somewhere. This actually doesn't come up in PA as much, but it has been a problem for me in other Morrison comics, which just immediately functions ironically as an emotional disconnect It makes me feel like the writer is trying to manipulate me rather than trying to create a believable scene. Again, if we're going to compare this to watchmen, then I'd say Watchmen comes out ahead because we have delved deeply into Rorschach's character. In contrast, Rorschach telling his story just feels like him telling his story of how his life happened, which reacts the emotional resonance.
The point I'm making here is that the story, the basic isolated from the rest of the industry story of what is happening in PA, is shallow. Whatever motivations and backgrounds and whatever the other characters have, it's found in the histories of other comics. On it's own, PA performs some interesting tricks in terms of format, I see little to be found here for poignant human moments or even believable characters. But what DOES it say? Well, as the above conclusion states, it's a response to things outside the comic. Atom's disassembling and reassembling of his dog is meant to reference what Watchmen did to the comics industry. When the Question is trying to explain his motivations, Morrison decides to make it a burn on some other writer than an insight into the Question's character. It references Spiral dynamics and this wierd color thing that isn't ever really explained, but made significant to understanding the structure of the story. And lots of other stuff I missed, I'm sure.
Pax Americana feels like story being used to deconstruct Watchmen or make statements, or experiment with concepts that Morrison found cool. That's all well and good, but it's using the story as a means to some kind of end. So when we go back to the original statement....
I literally cannot disagree with this more. Watchmen is very full of emotion and human moments. You cannot have the genuine darkness it depicted without those human emotional moments. It's Pax Americana that comes off as trying to use the story as a tool for gimmicky purposes or otherwise a means for making a statement. It's format is a barrier that we have to work through to get at the few human moments it has. And when it tries to depict something emotional, it comes off as manipulative rather than believable. I'm not saying it's a bad or uninteresting, but cold and inhuman are perfect words to describe it in my mind. It feels like a platform for which Morrison speaks his mind, which is fine if you like listening to the guy, but he doesn't ever work hard to make us believe the world he depicts. In fact, at times, he resents the implication he ought to, in other comics. I feel like this represents the disconnect I feel with Morrison's understanding of writing. It's like one of us lives in bizarro world, where the words inhuman and emotional resonance have opposite meaning to the other guy's world.
It's not that I disagree with what Morrison says all the time, necessarily, and he has some interesting ideas. I don't even completely hate all his comics. But that doesn't make him a good writer in my eyes. And at the end of this...I still don't really get what brilliance people supposedly see in him. But to each his own. I'll probably read the rest of his Batman run sometime out of boredom, but.....but.....honestly, I'm kind of lost as to what to write next. I wanted to get my thoughts down, and I have, and hopefully it will spark some interesting discussion, but if you'd ask me if I had a 'point' here, I'd probably not know what to say. I just wanted to organize my thoughts on the guy, and hopefully it wasn't too boring a read for you. So I'll end it here, and hope the cult of Morrison won't sacrifice me using chaos magic or whatever.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Now I am over this sinus infection. All the things that have been holding me back have been disposed of through every orifice. Coming for comic superstardom and Chic Fil A girl. Maybe this month I will read some comics.
I keep meaning to respond to your Pax Americana posts, I'll try and get my thoughts together this weekend and we can discuss.
Freezasaurus
Member
Nah, you really shouldn't bother. Just go see Age of Ultron and call it a day.
I only really got that post out as fast because I have two tests tuesday, so I need to spend most of the weekend studying, and if I hadn't written that out, I'd be bugging me until I did. Feel free to post or PM me whenever, and I'll reply as soon as I can, but it might take me a while if it's something meaty.
A lot of what you say is fair, I think. I've grown colder on Pax the more distance I have from Quitely's pages. Your critiques of Pax -- its coldness, its insular nature, its overt-formalism -- is how I suspect Morrison feels about Watchmen, so there's definitely a way in which Pax Americana is "meant" to elicit your reaction. But as you hint at, Morrison's criticisms of Watchmen via Pax Americana fall completely flat if you think one way about Pax and the complete opposite about Watchmen.
That said, while Pax Americana is probably Quitely's best comic, it's not really representative of Morrison's work because it's Morrison doing a Moore piss-take, taking Moore's ultraformalism and (with Quitely) pushing it even further in a way he almost never does. You've read other stuff by him though, so I won't tell you to do more of that. I do think though, for all we can rightly point to him and be suspicious of his bullshit (about superheroes, magic, corporations etc.), Morrison is a very humanist writer and it's really that that people who like him are responding to.
my name is ed
Banned
I prefer James Harren who is a bit similar in style.
We will probably not see a capes artist with a mainstream, established or common artstyle win an Eisner.
I read the first volume and the art was great but the writing was...not A tier
Its better than the first in most regards. It does feel like it needs to be longer and you get the sense Whedon overstretched himself in some areas. Its probably the most superheroic movie since Spider-Man 2.
Reading that last sentence over, god Im a huge nerd
GrandHarrier
Member
Baron von Loathsome
Member
Just got back from Avengers. I liked it better than the first. I enjoyed the twins more than I thought I would. Ultron is one of the better MCU villains for sure. Renner's Hawkeye still doesn't do anything for me.
my name is ed
Banned
Frye, you consistently provide great analysis. Pax Americana as a reflection of how Morrison feels about Watchmen is spot on.
I can talk about Pax Americana a lot so Ill probably have some lengthy post later this weekend
CorporateClown
Member
I think I agree with the statement that Watchmen is a more emotional experience than PA. I absolutely loved PA, but not for some sort of emotional resonance; I loved it for its themes and story telling. It's not some epic like Watchmen, but I'd argue PA as a single issue might be stronger than any other single comic book issue out there. That is my opinion, of course.
That's not to say Morrison cannot elicit an emotional response from me. I'm a lifelong Batman fan and his run on Batman was able to both appeal to my adult sensibilities as well as that sense of wonder and awe I had as a 5 year old reading a Batman comic for the first time. For me, no Batman story will top it for that reason.
I love Multiversity and his run on Animal Man for similar reasons. They told bizarre stories that both made me think as well as reflect on comics as a medium and why I enjoy them.
That's not to say Morrison cannot elicit an emotional response from me. I'm a lifelong Batman fan and his run on Batman was able to both appeal to my adult sensibilities as well as that sense of wonder and awe I had as a 5 year old reading a Batman comic for the first time. For me, no Batman story will top it for that reason.
I love Multiversity and his run on Animal Man for similar reasons. They told bizarre stories that both made me think as well as reflect on comics as a medium and why I enjoy them.
Thank you for the reply.
I agree with the humanist philosophy, and it is extremely appropriate to some of the characters he writes (Superman), but I don't know if any philosophy should be the sole driving force of a storyteller. I mean, I'm sure it's a real credit to him as a person, but storytelling shouldn't be about telling the reader what to think or beleive. I get enough of that from Jenova Witnesses. Storytellers have to leave room for the worldviews they don't agree with, or otherwise I just feel I am being preached at. This is probably the root of my problem with him as a writer. But I'm glad that others resonate with that philosophy atleast. If nothing else, it's a good philosophy to have in real life.
I think this might be another reason why I am never going to resonate with Morrison others seem to. I'm only a recent comic book reader, started around the time new 52 began. I grew up watching Batman TAS and Superman TAS, and JL and so on. They engaged me and I loved them, but I don't know if I'd describe myself as having a sense of wonder and awe about them. As I've said before, the reason I felt batman was good growing up because he was a tragic character. Yeah, he was cool and badass and rich, but I never in my life wanted to be him. I loved Batman TAS because he was a good character, not someone I was in awe of. In fact, the best moments of the show for me were his most vulnerable, with one quick example being the JL episode where Ace died.
whatsinaname
Member
I am a fairly recent reader of comics as well. I've read very little of Morrison's work, so haven't got much to say on his cape books or his other works that seem to be a bit more self-aware and concentrated on the narrative of comics. (Animal Man is in my backlog, plan to get the Pax Americana hardcover when it is released.)
What do you think of his books where he "plays it straight". Comics that are just good characters, ideas and storytelling. Some have been a bit of a miss for me but those that I did like, I loved (e.g., We3, Doom Patrol) and wouldn't hesitate to use the adjective Great.
Yeah, I'm definitely interested in that. I've been thinking about Multiversity as a whole since Ultra Comics dropped last month and my overall reaction seems to be a lot more mixed than a lot of other people here. There's a lot to like but also a lot of stuff that just didn't land.
I kind of want to recommend The Filth to you, which is probably his most nihilistic work. It's also arguably his densest comic too, taking his tics and directing them in the opposite direction, so otoh you might just come out the other end feeling completely the same about him as you do now.
Tyrant Rave
Banned
I thought Pax Americana was fascinating in how it was structured and all, but I don't think it's Morrison's greatest work. I agree with frye in that it is definitely some of Quitely's best work however. He definitely made the whole thing work through his layouts and paneling.
I love Morrison's work because I feel like he really pokes at the medium and kind of wonders what makes it work. He examines everything from the structure of an individual issue to the entirety of the industry and big corporations in Multiversity alone. Besides that, I think he's great at just highlighting existing characters and bringing out and focusing on what makes these characters to special to us. Things like Superman stopping a girl from committing suicide goes a long way for me.
My first exposure to his work was Batman & Robin and I really loved how he handled Dick as Batman and Damian as Robin. He made the whole dynamic feel fresh and exciting again. He did a fantastic job at showing Dick trying to fit into Bruce's shoes while kind of discovering he's not Bruce and he never will be. It felt like the perfect evolution for the character and completely natural. It was brilliantly done.
I love Morrison's work because I feel like he really pokes at the medium and kind of wonders what makes it work. He examines everything from the structure of an individual issue to the entirety of the industry and big corporations in Multiversity alone. Besides that, I think he's great at just highlighting existing characters and bringing out and focusing on what makes these characters to special to us. Things like Superman stopping a girl from committing suicide goes a long way for me.
My first exposure to his work was Batman & Robin and I really loved how he handled Dick as Batman and Damian as Robin. He made the whole dynamic feel fresh and exciting again. He did a fantastic job at showing Dick trying to fit into Bruce's shoes while kind of discovering he's not Bruce and he never will be. It felt like the perfect evolution for the character and completely natural. It was brilliantly done.
It was a great post, I hope I didn't come across as dismissive. 99.9% of my posts are from my phone or tablet, so I actually need to steal my wife's laptop and do a lengthy write up.
I totally agree with your thought on Batman re: Ace in that JLU episode, that is one of my favorite stories from the old DCAU, it really tugs at the heartstrings. I dunno if you're reading Justice League or not, but during the arc with Jessica Cruz first getting the Power Ring, Johns used a similar approach with Batman to help her overcome her fear. It wasn't as strong of a moment as the cartoon episode, but it's always nice to see that side of Batman come through.
If I were to pick his best work of what I've read, it'd be Batman 663, where it's more prose than comic. It's really the first I feel he goes into the minds of the characters and tries to figure out what makes them tic to an effective degree.
I've only read part of his Batman run, so I want to wait on judgement, but I think it's okay so far. The first arc where damian is introduced, I felt was the first time his "I have this Crazy idea. MAN BAT NINJA's!" insanity worked for me, though I wish he used it better, as they ended up just being like normal mooks, except Manbat mooks. The whole Talia relationship is wierd and I don't know if I'm comfortable with Batman being raped being shrugged off as nothing major like that. But I haven't read it beyond the first arc and that Joker comic, so I don't want to say too much.
I'm a big outlier when it comes to how I regard All Star Superman, but I don't want to go into it now. It'd take too much time for me to completely type out. Probably more than Pax did. Another time maybe.
I don't like being preached to. It doesn't matter the message. I just don't think that's what art is for. If that's just Morrison trying to preach Nihilism to me instead of Idealism, then it'll probably get the same reaction. If you have comics where you feel Morrison is just genuinely trying to depict the nature of life in someway, you can recommend me that.
Not at all, you're good. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I've actually been wanting to read some JL books, but I don't know whats good (trying to keep it new52 related before I branch out to the older stuff)
Have you read We3?
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Comic Gaf I'm currently in line about to see AoU. These nerds next to me smell nice.
No, just All Star Superman, Flex Mentallo, some of his Batman run, his action comics run, and A Serious House on a Serious Earth. I keep getting recommended that one though.
Filthy Slug
Crowd screaming like hounds at the heat of the chase/ All the colors of the rainbow flood my face
What do you feel he's trying to preach to you in the stories you've read? Like, what do you think is being force-fed to you in All-Star Superman, Batman, and Flex?
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Yeah, I didn't end up ordering any comics for this month. I did for June though!
Tyrant Rave
Banned
Man, you keep doing you, but I'm kind of stunned you can like the Clown at Midnight but not ASS. I think Clown at Midnight is my least favorite thing that I've read by him.
I know you're all about that Cyborg life brah.
slightconfuse
Banned
I hated the filth so much . Just did nit click with me at all . It felt off for a Morrison comic.
I feel like super gods is a must read to understand where Morrison comes from his work. It's a great look into his mind
I feel like super gods is a must read to understand where Morrison comes from his work. It's a great look into his mind
- Status