To the faint of heart: Geoff Johns just made The Killing Joke and Identity Crisis look warm-and-cuddly.
Memo to self: Get over the cliffhanger. How could what follows be any fun?
DC: DROPPED.
-- Ryan
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
A question...
Why would it ever occur to anyone to do an animated Teen Titans TV series as a sitcom, replete with Nickelodeon-esque "snappy" humor, as well as dialogue based in (and maybe influencing) what "pre-teens" think is trendy, and all drawn in a blocky, sub-Hanna-Barbera/Nicktoons style? Once they've passed on, Marv Wolfman and George Pérez are gonna have a lot of rolling-in-their-graves to catch up on!
But what's even more inexplicable is that I actually don't mind watching the show. I think it's just because of familiarity. "Hey, that's Cyborg! Hey, that's Koriand'r! Hey, that's Raven! I know who they are!" ...but, well, that said, should I make an association with this...
...whenever I set eyes upon this?!
Whether or not I "should", the act of the matter is that I do... leaving us with the real question: what kind of mixed-up world do we live in, where a production making such a radical -- and not particularly tasteful -- departure in nature from the source material is even a remote possibility, let alone a full-blown reality?
-- Ryan
But what's even more inexplicable is that I actually don't mind watching the show. I think it's just because of familiarity. "Hey, that's Cyborg! Hey, that's Koriand'r! Hey, that's Raven! I know who they are!" ...but, well, that said, should I make an association with this...
...whenever I set eyes upon this?!
Whether or not I "should", the act of the matter is that I do... leaving us with the real question: what kind of mixed-up world do we live in, where a production making such a radical -- and not particularly tasteful -- departure in nature from the source material is even a remote possibility, let alone a full-blown reality?
-- Ryan
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Man of Steel: My (Assorted) Thoughts
Numerous people have insisted to me that Superman is a hopelessly "lame" character. ("A sucky-ass character", one of my fellow grad students once insisted.) I always counter that they very well might feel differently if they were to be acquainted with the mythology surrounding Kal/Clark/Supes that's persisted in the comics .
In the medium of animation, both Batman's and Superman's mythologies have been done justice -- and for that, we will always hold Paul Dini and Co. in our highest esteem.. But daytime animated TV series don't have the clout of box office record-breaking live-action Hollywood summer blockbusters. So, thanks to director Christopher Nolan, the general, non-comics-reading-(but-incessantly-video game-playing, at least in terms of the current younger generations) public has embraced what, IMHO, is a deftly-executed distillation and amplification of the concerned mythology.
... but, until now, alas, of Superman, the same cannot be said. The first two movies with Christopher Reeves in the title role, Superman (1978, dir. Richard Donner) and its sequel, Superman II ( 1980, dir. Richard Lester, who infamously replaced Donner partway through production) have their merits, but they are dated in terms of technical limitations and pop culture sensibilities. Dir. Bryan Singer's Superman Returns overtly tried to replicate the performances and the tone of the Donner film ...and when I saw it on opening day, the crowd regarded it as a joke.
Having accomplished the veritable magnum opus that is his Dark Knight trilogy, all indications are thatt Christopher Nolan has set about determined to do for Superman what he did for Batman ... and in my assessment, having the movie last Friday afternoon, he's damn well done it. Here, Nolan is not in the director's but the producer's chair, and credited as a co-writer on the screenplay -- indicating that he wasn't a hands-off studio producer, but creatively, his voice is a major one in the realized film.
From the larger-than-life presentation of Krypton in the opening scenes to the coda to the more introspective relating of Clark being conflicted with his dual identity and the mystery of the world on which he was born and his biological parents, the understanding of the characters and the mythology is acute. And the big-stage scope that the film's creators were aiming for and pretty much achieved; in terms of pathos and stakes (they're VERY high), the conceit of the film exudes "ancient, immortal gods". Or, in other words, the overused term "epic" actually applies here.
This movie's versions of Thomas and Martha Kent, as well as Perry White, are virtually the Superman equivalent of Nolan's Alfred and James Gordon: the nature of the characters, their inherent strong morals, and the importance of their relationships with the protagonist as a mentor, lifelong and cherished confidant, and/or parental figure are understood and taken very seriously. One brief but crucial interaction between Clark and Thomas Kent actually had me in tears ... not just a lump in my throat and/or my eyes watering up, but tears actually streaking down my face.
As I knew that a retelling of Superman's origin story was in store, I was worried that the movie would be tedious. But it managed to -- by using a non-linear narrative, with lots of flashbacks and "flash-forwards" -- make it fresh and suspenseful, taking our expectations into account. Once things were well underway, though, it became apparent that a VERY standard part of the Superman premise was absent ... and almost as soon as I realized this, I correctly predicted how the movie would end. *bows* :D
Also surprising was the "standard" Superman characters -- both friends and enemies -- that weren't present. At this point, I think it's well-known that the story's villain is General Zod. There's no trace of Braniac or Bizarro ... not even Lex Luthor! (...that, besides one visual reference that I was proud and excited to spot). In fact, this perfectly parallels Batman Begins: instead of just jumping right to the Joker/right to Lex Luthor, a villain not well-known to the general public, the focus is on a villain that traditionally in the comics has been an exceptional threat to the hero in question and whose genocidal tendencies are all the more insidious because of the respective villain's uncanny intelligence.
Thus, my hunch is that Nolan plans in the sequel -- if there is one, which seems more likely than not -- to have Luthor take and dominate the stage, just as the Joker did in The Dark Knight.
One negative criticism: though I realize that audiences would be disappointed if the movie was short on rock-'em-sock'em action scenes, they really could've been trimmed a bit -- and not been so repetitive. (How many times do we really need to see Superman, in flight, crash into Zod, throwing them both halfway across the state? Do that many buildings really need to fall?) The bombastic, flashy, almost goofy fight scenes can probably be attributed to director Zach Snyder more so than Nolan, given Snyder's filmography.
Actually, in the prolonged action scenes, another parallel to Batman Begins is apparent. In the first half of both movies, the title character's "Hero's Journey" (thanks, Christopher Vogler) and the thrust of the mythology is built up ... only to have the "payoff" be a sort-of generic "saves the city/world"-type ending. In retrospect, in Batman Begins' case,Nolan was "taking it easy" and not getting ambitious before really taking things up a whole bunch of notches in the succeeding two films. My hunch is that he's doing the same thing here, intending this to be the first in a trilogy, the arc of which he already has planned. Basically, he's sticking to a formula that has more than proven to work for him. Can't wait for the (likely) sequels!
-- Ryan
In the medium of animation, both Batman's and Superman's mythologies have been done justice -- and for that, we will always hold Paul Dini and Co. in our highest esteem.. But daytime animated TV series don't have the clout of box office record-breaking live-action Hollywood summer blockbusters. So, thanks to director Christopher Nolan, the general, non-comics-reading-(but-incessantly-video game-playing, at least in terms of the current younger generations) public has embraced what, IMHO, is a deftly-executed distillation and amplification of the concerned mythology.
... but, until now, alas, of Superman, the same cannot be said. The first two movies with Christopher Reeves in the title role, Superman (1978, dir. Richard Donner) and its sequel, Superman II ( 1980, dir. Richard Lester, who infamously replaced Donner partway through production) have their merits, but they are dated in terms of technical limitations and pop culture sensibilities. Dir. Bryan Singer's Superman Returns overtly tried to replicate the performances and the tone of the Donner film ...and when I saw it on opening day, the crowd regarded it as a joke.
(Adventure Comics #283, April 1961 -- first appearance of General Zod, Man of Steel's villain.)
Having accomplished the veritable magnum opus that is his Dark Knight trilogy, all indications are thatt Christopher Nolan has set about determined to do for Superman what he did for Batman ... and in my assessment, having the movie last Friday afternoon, he's damn well done it. Here, Nolan is not in the director's but the producer's chair, and credited as a co-writer on the screenplay -- indicating that he wasn't a hands-off studio producer, but creatively, his voice is a major one in the realized film.
From the larger-than-life presentation of Krypton in the opening scenes to the coda to the more introspective relating of Clark being conflicted with his dual identity and the mystery of the world on which he was born and his biological parents, the understanding of the characters and the mythology is acute. And the big-stage scope that the film's creators were aiming for and pretty much achieved; in terms of pathos and stakes (they're VERY high), the conceit of the film exudes "ancient, immortal gods". Or, in other words, the overused term "epic" actually applies here.
This movie's versions of Thomas and Martha Kent, as well as Perry White, are virtually the Superman equivalent of Nolan's Alfred and James Gordon: the nature of the characters, their inherent strong morals, and the importance of their relationships with the protagonist as a mentor, lifelong and cherished confidant, and/or parental figure are understood and taken very seriously. One brief but crucial interaction between Clark and Thomas Kent actually had me in tears ... not just a lump in my throat and/or my eyes watering up, but tears actually streaking down my face.
As I knew that a retelling of Superman's origin story was in store, I was worried that the movie would be tedious. But it managed to -- by using a non-linear narrative, with lots of flashbacks and "flash-forwards" -- make it fresh and suspenseful, taking our expectations into account. Once things were well underway, though, it became apparent that a VERY standard part of the Superman premise was absent ... and almost as soon as I realized this, I correctly predicted how the movie would end. *bows* :D
Also surprising was the "standard" Superman characters -- both friends and enemies -- that weren't present. At this point, I think it's well-known that the story's villain is General Zod. There's no trace of Braniac or Bizarro ... not even Lex Luthor! (...that, besides one visual reference that I was proud and excited to spot). In fact, this perfectly parallels Batman Begins: instead of just jumping right to the Joker/right to Lex Luthor, a villain not well-known to the general public, the focus is on a villain that traditionally in the comics has been an exceptional threat to the hero in question and whose genocidal tendencies are all the more insidious because of the respective villain's uncanny intelligence.
Thus, my hunch is that Nolan plans in the sequel -- if there is one, which seems more likely than not -- to have Luthor take and dominate the stage, just as the Joker did in The Dark Knight.
One negative criticism: though I realize that audiences would be disappointed if the movie was short on rock-'em-sock'em action scenes, they really could've been trimmed a bit -- and not been so repetitive. (How many times do we really need to see Superman, in flight, crash into Zod, throwing them both halfway across the state? Do that many buildings really need to fall?) The bombastic, flashy, almost goofy fight scenes can probably be attributed to director Zach Snyder more so than Nolan, given Snyder's filmography.
Actually, in the prolonged action scenes, another parallel to Batman Begins is apparent. In the first half of both movies, the title character's "Hero's Journey" (thanks, Christopher Vogler) and the thrust of the mythology is built up ... only to have the "payoff" be a sort-of generic "saves the city/world"-type ending. In retrospect, in Batman Begins' case,Nolan was "taking it easy" and not getting ambitious before really taking things up a whole bunch of notches in the succeeding two films. My hunch is that he's doing the same thing here, intending this to be the first in a trilogy, the arc of which he already has planned. Basically, he's sticking to a formula that has more than proven to work for him. Can't wait for the (likely) sequels!
-- Ryan
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Overstreet's World of Comic Books
All right -- have my laptop back. The Man of Steel review is still forthcoming. In the meantime, here's something I've been meaning to get around to for a LONG time now...
Have any of you guys ever seen this? It's a veritable relic from the days when "Comic Con" (the San Diego one) hadn't yet been co-opted by Hollywood, and when pretentious "academics" and hipsters weren't dictating that comics have finally become an art form with the "advent" of "graphic novels". And seeing that it bears the Overstreet brand, you know it's going to be well-represent the Old Guard...
...but the first time that I watched this, I was floored by what I hadn't expected: that funny animal comics in general, and Carl Barks specifically, would actually be given their due. At 34:34, the focus is suddenly entirely on Barks, and stays that way for the next several minutes.
Said several minutes includes interview footage of Barks, in which it becomes apparent that he's the sweetest man who's ever lived. And then, BAM!, at 40:12 ... Bruce Hamilton! The interior of Gladstone's office! Sue Daigle at work! Stuff I never thought I'd lay eyes (or ears) on.
-- Ryan
Have any of you guys ever seen this? It's a veritable relic from the days when "Comic Con" (the San Diego one) hadn't yet been co-opted by Hollywood, and when pretentious "academics" and hipsters weren't dictating that comics have finally become an art form with the "advent" of "graphic novels". And seeing that it bears the Overstreet brand, you know it's going to be well-represent the Old Guard...
...but the first time that I watched this, I was floored by what I hadn't expected: that funny animal comics in general, and Carl Barks specifically, would actually be given their due. At 34:34, the focus is suddenly entirely on Barks, and stays that way for the next several minutes.
Said several minutes includes interview footage of Barks, in which it becomes apparent that he's the sweetest man who's ever lived. And then, BAM!, at 40:12 ... Bruce Hamilton! The interior of Gladstone's office! Sue Daigle at work! Stuff I never thought I'd lay eyes (or ears) on.
-- Ryan
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Update...
Still without my laptop. Been stubbornly trying to write and oost a Man of Steel review via my cell phone, but the device's quirks have proven quite obstructive.
Gonna try to get to a library tomorrow to complete my review using a desktop PC. (Those tend to like Blogger. Androids do not.)
(Frustrated, 'cause I really want to discuss the movie. Bear with me.)
-- Ryan
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"dah-dun-dah-dun-dahhhh dun-dah -- you know I'm not dead! ..."
Well, at times I feel dead inside, anyway, but rest assured,this blog is still alive ... or at least, so I intend it to be.
Anyway, here's the deal: I'm finishing up my final semester of grad school. (I've "earned" a Master of Fine Arts ... advice: do what my sister did, and go to law school.) For the past year or so, I've been (thanks to grad school being "a horrible life choice" -- thanks, The Simpsons) in a rut. This blog has suffered. But my intention is to soon have something resembling a normal life, and in theory, that will entail blogging on a more regular, steady basis.
I'm writing this from my phone, as my laptop is not working. So, minding said predicament, here's some hastily-written "assorted thoughts" as to what I've recently been reading:
Showcase Presents The Legion of Super-Heroes Vol. 2 -- No shortage of Silver Age cheesiness, but as the stories become more and more melodramatic, with each successive issue, you can actually see Paul Levitz' psyche being formed. In the meantime, I'm learning how to distinguish Colossal Boy (when regular-sized) from Star Boy (when we can't see his giveaway chest emblem) sans any coloring. Also, hate to say it, but at least at this point in time (early `60's, Edmond Hamilton (who?) was > greater than Jerry Siegel.
UPDATE: In the first half of this volume, I found Hamilton's batting average to be higher than Siegel's ... but after reading the "Computo the Conqueror!"-"Weirdo Legionnaire!" slam-bang two-parter from Adventure Comics #340-341 (January-February 1966), it's apparent that in `66, he still had formidable chops.
Lieutenant Blueberry Vol. 1: The Iron Horse-- If you're curious about this lauded "Moebius" European guy, and like reading adventure comics (specifically, ones in the western genre, and with echoes of Barks' and Rosa's Klondike flashbacks, and especially the American frontier-set chapters of Rosa's "Life and Times"), and get nothing out of artsy-fartsy stuff, DON'T read Azarach and DO read every Blueberry comic "album". (That's what people into comics used to call high-grade editions of comics, printed as actual books ... before people not into comics -- or more aptly people who think that if they're going to be into comics, they should have something more pretentious to call them than "comics" -- started caling them "graphic novels", and the works, spanning several decades, of countless talented creative people were and remain unacceptably snubbed on a massive scale.)
Uncle Scrooge in Color -- NOT the eqivalent of Mickey Mouse in Color, and in retrosoect, a forerunner to how tacky Hamilton would get in catering to "collectors" during the Gladstone II era ... but still, it's nice to have high-quality reprintings of Barks' two Western picture books, and even if the included Geoffrey Blum articles are reworkings of several of his Carl Barks Library pieces, they're still authoritative and inspiring, doing Barks' justice as only Blum could.
-- Ryan
I'm writing this from my phone, as my laptop is not working. So, minding said predicament, here's some hastily-written "assorted thoughts" as to what I've recently been reading:
Showcase Presents The Legion of Super-Heroes Vol. 2 -- No shortage of Silver Age cheesiness, but as the stories become more and more melodramatic, with each successive issue, you can actually see Paul Levitz' psyche being formed. In the meantime, I'm learning how to distinguish Colossal Boy (when regular-sized) from Star Boy (when we can't see his giveaway chest emblem) sans any coloring. Also, hate to say it, but at least at this point in time (early `60's, Edmond Hamilton (who?) was > greater than Jerry Siegel.
UPDATE: In the first half of this volume, I found Hamilton's batting average to be higher than Siegel's ... but after reading the "Computo the Conqueror!"-"Weirdo Legionnaire!" slam-bang two-parter from Adventure Comics #340-341 (January-February 1966), it's apparent that in `66, he still had formidable chops.
Lieutenant Blueberry Vol. 1: The Iron Horse-- If you're curious about this lauded "Moebius" European guy, and like reading adventure comics (specifically, ones in the western genre, and with echoes of Barks' and Rosa's Klondike flashbacks, and especially the American frontier-set chapters of Rosa's "Life and Times"), and get nothing out of artsy-fartsy stuff, DON'T read Azarach and DO read every Blueberry comic "album". (That's what people into comics used to call high-grade editions of comics, printed as actual books ... before people not into comics -- or more aptly people who think that if they're going to be into comics, they should have something more pretentious to call them than "comics" -- started caling them "graphic novels", and the works, spanning several decades, of countless talented creative people were and remain unacceptably snubbed on a massive scale.)
Uncle Scrooge in Color -- NOT the eqivalent of Mickey Mouse in Color, and in retrosoect, a forerunner to how tacky Hamilton would get in catering to "collectors" during the Gladstone II era ... but still, it's nice to have high-quality reprintings of Barks' two Western picture books, and even if the included Geoffrey Blum articles are reworkings of several of his Carl Barks Library pieces, they're still authoritative and inspiring, doing Barks' justice as only Blum could.
-- Ryan
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
(Some of) my (specific) thoughts on DC's Archives and Showcase volumes...
Lately, one of my various -- heh -- assorted thoughts has been, "Hmm, what keeps me from posting is that I expect myself to always write formal reviews. And that actually flies in the face of the blog's title."
So, I'm going to try something new: posting (some of) my assorted thoughts. I kind have a feeling that in doing so, this blog would become "what it's supposed to", you know what I mean? ;)
Anyway, I don't intend to have the thoughts that I'll share to be too assorted. I'll stick to specific subject matter, but casually. And the subject of today's post is ... well, see the subject line. That's what it's there for. :P
First off, I want to establish that, as someone with a strong interest in DC Comics continuity and history, and in comics history in general, I'm very grateful for DC's longstanding commitment to publishing multi-volume, complete, chronoligical collections of seemingly as many series from its 70+-year history as it can. It's not much of a surprise that that there's volume after volume of Superman and Batman material. But they've seen to give Doctor Fate, Rip Hunter, Blackhawk, and Enemy Ace their due, too. U.S. fans of duck and mouse comics can only d ream of such thoroughness and availability.I think they each have a relatively limited print run, but I would think that in the long run, that just results in fewer sales. (And, hell, Fantagrahics and IDW's newspaper strip collections use more paper and even more high-end production values, but they average $25-30 each!
But, that said, there is one snag to DC's approach to their archival publishing efforts that bothers me.
Instead of their being only the low-budget-but-bulky Showcase collections or only the lavish-but-scantier Archives publications, the co-existence of an ongoing output under both bannerheads (in many cases, duplicating the same content), I'd consider it really ideal if from the outset, they'd found a middle ground and stayed there. (Yes, all this material is available, but I'm complaining anyway -- I must be spoiled ...) What would be the nature of that middle ground? Mid-priced, color paperbacks ... like the Chronicles collections that DC has committed a select few of its "heavy hitters" to. (Some of these mirror the content of their Archives counterparts. But in the case of Green Lantern, there's an Archives version, a Showcase version, and a Chronicles version, each starting with 1959's debut of the Silver Age/Hal Jordan version of Green Lantern. And each project is officially still ongoing, awaiting subsequent volumes ... but, depending on various factors, having made it to completely different points in the series' run!)
If there were only a Chronicles-esque version of everything collected to date under any of these brands! Did DC actually have some studies conducted that determined that it'd be more profitable to do it in the market-clogging, content-witholding way they've been proceeding for years now? Hell, Fantagraphics and IDW's newspaper strip collections use more paper stock and are produced more lavishly produced than each of DC's Archives books. But the latter are $50 a pop, while the former average $25-30! I think that each entry in the Archives has a relatively limited print run ... but even then, I would think that in the long run, the way they're doing it would result in fewer sales than would the way I'm arguing that they should be doing it. (As if I know anything.)
Perhaps the operating philosophy is that DC's Golden Age material (which the majority of the Archives publications are devoted to) deserve such treatment. (And believe me, I agree! But not everyone can buy an original Picasso, either, if you follow me.) So, in the meantime, they're trying to compromise with two co-existing historically-documentative publishing programs. Admittedly, in certain ways, that's been a boon to fans and collectors, when you consider that to date, there's no shortage of material that's exclusive to either project. Without the Showcase compendiums, I would never have read the complete run of the original Doom Patrol, every Spectre story from the `60's and up through the early `80's, and wouldn't currently be working my way through Roy Thomas' innovative All-Star Squadron run. And there's no Showcase collection of the Golden Age adventures of the Justice Society of America, but one can own their comlete original run, spanning the first 57 issues of All-Star Comics, in an exquisite 12-volume component of the Archives output.
But, still, in all too many cases, one is faced with the choice between a badly -- sometimes inscrutably -- printed cheap version (upon flipping through my copy of the 500-plus-page Showcase Presents Superman Vol. 1, a friend commented, "It's like a giant coloring book!") or a vampiric-to-consumers deluxe edition. Really seems like a lose-lose situation.
But, at the same time, if The Complete Topolino Archives (English edition) Vol. 1 were released and its retail price was $49.99, I think that the rice is the last thing I'd be complaining about. Hmm ... so, does that mean that as a DC fan, I don't know how good I have it ... or that as a U.S. duck-and-mouse comics fan, I've been screwed over so many times, I have Stockholm Syndrome?
-- Ryan
So, I'm going to try something new: posting (some of) my assorted thoughts. I kind have a feeling that in doing so, this blog would become "what it's supposed to", you know what I mean? ;)
Anyway, I don't intend to have the thoughts that I'll share to be too assorted. I'll stick to specific subject matter, but casually. And the subject of today's post is ... well, see the subject line. That's what it's there for. :P
First off, I want to establish that, as someone with a strong interest in DC Comics continuity and history, and in comics history in general, I'm very grateful for DC's longstanding commitment to publishing multi-volume, complete, chronoligical collections of seemingly as many series from its 70+-year history as it can. It's not much of a surprise that that there's volume after volume of Superman and Batman material. But they've seen to give Doctor Fate, Rip Hunter, Blackhawk, and Enemy Ace their due, too. U.S. fans of duck and mouse comics can only d ream of such thoroughness and availability.I think they each have a relatively limited print run, but I would think that in the long run, that just results in fewer sales. (And, hell, Fantagrahics and IDW's newspaper strip collections use more paper and even more high-end production values, but they average $25-30 each!
But, that said, there is one snag to DC's approach to their archival publishing efforts that bothers me.
Instead of their being only the low-budget-but-bulky Showcase collections or only the lavish-but-scantier Archives publications, the co-existence of an ongoing output under both bannerheads (in many cases, duplicating the same content), I'd consider it really ideal if from the outset, they'd found a middle ground and stayed there. (Yes, all this material is available, but I'm complaining anyway -- I must be spoiled ...) What would be the nature of that middle ground? Mid-priced, color paperbacks ... like the Chronicles collections that DC has committed a select few of its "heavy hitters" to. (Some of these mirror the content of their Archives counterparts. But in the case of Green Lantern, there's an Archives version, a Showcase version, and a Chronicles version, each starting with 1959's debut of the Silver Age/Hal Jordan version of Green Lantern. And each project is officially still ongoing, awaiting subsequent volumes ... but, depending on various factors, having made it to completely different points in the series' run!)
If there were only a Chronicles-esque version of everything collected to date under any of these brands! Did DC actually have some studies conducted that determined that it'd be more profitable to do it in the market-clogging, content-witholding way they've been proceeding for years now? Hell, Fantagraphics and IDW's newspaper strip collections use more paper stock and are produced more lavishly produced than each of DC's Archives books. But the latter are $50 a pop, while the former average $25-30! I think that each entry in the Archives has a relatively limited print run ... but even then, I would think that in the long run, the way they're doing it would result in fewer sales than would the way I'm arguing that they should be doing it. (As if I know anything.)
Perhaps the operating philosophy is that DC's Golden Age material (which the majority of the Archives publications are devoted to) deserve such treatment. (And believe me, I agree! But not everyone can buy an original Picasso, either, if you follow me.) So, in the meantime, they're trying to compromise with two co-existing historically-documentative publishing programs. Admittedly, in certain ways, that's been a boon to fans and collectors, when you consider that to date, there's no shortage of material that's exclusive to either project. Without the Showcase compendiums, I would never have read the complete run of the original Doom Patrol, every Spectre story from the `60's and up through the early `80's, and wouldn't currently be working my way through Roy Thomas' innovative All-Star Squadron run. And there's no Showcase collection of the Golden Age adventures of the Justice Society of America, but one can own their comlete original run, spanning the first 57 issues of All-Star Comics, in an exquisite 12-volume component of the Archives output.
But, still, in all too many cases, one is faced with the choice between a badly -- sometimes inscrutably -- printed cheap version (upon flipping through my copy of the 500-plus-page Showcase Presents Superman Vol. 1, a friend commented, "It's like a giant coloring book!") or a vampiric-to-consumers deluxe edition. Really seems like a lose-lose situation.
But, at the same time, if The Complete Topolino Archives (English edition) Vol. 1 were released and its retail price was $49.99, I think that the rice is the last thing I'd be complaining about. Hmm ... so, does that mean that as a DC fan, I don't know how good I have it ... or that as a U.S. duck-and-mouse comics fan, I've been screwed over so many times, I have Stockholm Syndrome?
-- Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)