Aldo reads DC's New 52 (So you don't have to)

Justice League Dark #1 W: Peter Milligan A: Mikel Janin

Yes, the title of this book is stupid. But if DC want to call their supernatural line 'Dark' then it's up to them and so the title is what it is. What we should instead be considering is how good it is - which is pretty good. It's the most successful of the Justice League titles, probably not least because it lets Peter Milligan play with Shade The Changing Man again.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/6202962539_4826b8e7d7.jpg

But it's not all about Shade. We establish why the regular Justice League can't do it:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6165/6203477470_ba36fb4fe5.jpg

then it's in with the NOT QUITE VERTIGO League.

I think that's maybe the biggest problem this book has is that it's a big team and they're all essentially 'new' characters in that non-Vertigo readers won't be that familiar with them - without even going near the fact that Vertigo is still sort of ongoing so we have two Constantines running about (or do we?). And because of the size of the team the book doesn't really get going.

In its favour though, it still gets going much better than the other JL books - especially Justice League - and pulls off what it tries to with an appropriate level of Vertigo quirkiness.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6001/6202962585_ccd597855e.jpg

So a curate's egg then and one that maybe only gets credit for being better than its peers, but worth buying for the moment.

The Savage Hawkman #1 W: Tony S Daniel A: Philip Tan

New Universe, New Old Hawkman. Carter Hall dons the wings of Nth Metal once more, although for the vast majority of this book he seems to be desperate to forget it all and just get on with his regular job.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6007/6203034509_27ef8b31d8_z.jpg

I was prepared to give Tony Daniel some latitude, because I enjoyed the writing on Detective, but this is pretty much a mess. Firstly, it features an 'enemy from the dawn of time' (which, as people might have read on other threads, is exactly what I hated the most one of the things I found particularly objectionable about Russell T Davies' Award Winning Doctor Who tm) and secondly because the dialogue is this bad:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6166/6203033879_360bb424de_z.jpg

Even Philip Tan's artwork, which I've liked in the past, is reduced to a smear on these pages with little more than expressions of colour and motion which although it could conceivably be A THING is not his intention I'm sure.

I'd rather be reading this Hawkman:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6203549844_d8f842a79d_z.jpg

I'll see it to #3, but it's not much better than either of the JT Krul books.

Superman #1 Writer & Breakdowns: George Perez Pencils & Inks: Jesus Merino

Words. So many words. And more words. And exposition. And words.

It's no real wonder Perez has to do breakdowns on this because it's just so cluttered with dialogue and explanation. I would show you, but my t0rr3nt hasn't worked for this either which is probably just as well as the weight of text would most likely crash the ILX server.

And that's why the book isn't any good. It's too wordy and too cluttered and just doesn't work. George Perez will be on this longer than me, and he's announced #6 is his last.

Teen Titans #1 W: Scott Lobdell P: Brett Booth I: Norm Rapmund

Another formation story, but with added brattiness. I'm getting totally sick of origin stories but this just about pulls it off by virtue of the sheer likability of the characters - or at least Kid Flash and Red Robin - against clunky dialogue and tortured breakdowns, specifically once Wonder Girl turns up.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6203266467_5ceee5dd59_z.jpg

This is much better than Red Hood, but that's not exactly setting it a challenge. But is it better than Batfink?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6157/6203782174_f529c020c0.jpg

NO.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6012/6203782206_a1f0d8fb72_z.jpg

But there's enough good will generated in the Kid Flash section to keep me reading for now. A solid C.

Voodoo #1 W: Ron Marz A: Sami Basri

Hooray! Another female exploitation comic!

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6141/6203824724_727d7bfd0a_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6140/6203824792_1a1fbe2df4_z.jpg

Except I don't, because although the setting of this (a strip club) is kind of badly chosen there's no evidence it's going to continue beyond this issue. And purely on that basis I'm going to give it a free ride. Let's just call this the Cheesecake Issue and get over it. Because the investigator plot and panels like this make me want to believe this can be good:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6163/6203309287_4e8809e08e_z.jpg

Let's just forget 80% of this existed and move forward.

So, at the end of month 1 the tally is as follows:

The Good

Action
Animal Man
Justice League International
OMAC
Swamp Thing
Batwoman
Demon Knights
Legion Lost
Suicide Squad
Batman - yes, I know I have changed my mind about this
Legion of Super Heroes
Nightwing
Wonder Woman
All Star Western
Aquaman
Flash
I, Vampire
Justice League Dark

The Undecided

Justice League
Batgirl
Batwing
Detective
Men of War
Stormwatch
Batman & Robin
Frankenstein
Grifter
Red Lanterns
Superboy
Birds of Prey
DCU Presents
Green Lantern Corps
Supergirl
David Finch's Batman The Dark Knight
Blackhawks
Firestorm
Green Lantern New Guardians
Savage Hawkman
Teen Titans
Voodoo

The Cut Already

Green Arrow
Static Shock
Deathstroke
Green Lantern
Mister Terrific
Resurrection Man
Blue Beetle
Catwoman
Superman

The Car Crash

Hawk & Dove
Captain Atom
Red Hood and the Outlaws

The thing about Voodoo is that the character was a stripper before she got pulled into WildCATs so they're just working with the source material there.

In which case, no problems with it. Still not completely engaging though.

Is there an upper tier of "goods" that rate as must reads just yet?

OMAC, Batwoman, Suicide Squad, Batman, Wonder Woman, All Star Western, Aquaman, I Vampire IMO.

I think in Voodoo's solo series she was a mystery-solving stripper, so it may not be going away? I never read it tbh, I was always a Stormwatch/Authority dude rather than WildCATs/Gen13

The last page implies, to me at least, that the stripper plot is done.

Interesting to hear about I, Vampire - lame title, I wouldn't have even thought about it.

i couldn't finish it. was too boring.

Jonah Hex in Gotham! Amadeus Arkham!

SATURDAY!

Didio says on Facebook that none of the Crises ever happened.

MONDAY!

After it is pointed out that several of the already-published #1s alone refer to prior Crises, such as Bruce Wayne being thrown back in time at the end of FC, Didio announces that, fuck, I dunno, maybe some of them have happened, we'll figure it out as we go along, I haven't read them, just because we said we were planning this for a year doesn't mean we actually worked anything out in advance, I guess the writers can decide what did or didn't happen as they need to in writing their individual books, JESUS this is what I get for answering a question on Facebook BEFORE I'D HAD MY FUCKING DINNER you JACKALS

THURSDAY!

The grotesquely pandering promo guff in the back of new issues, written to their intended 18-35yo male audience as through they're infinitely dumber than the actual 8-15yo audience that Dick Giordano's columns were in 1984, announces a new JUSTICE SOCIETY series by James Robinson and Nicola Scott that TAKES PLACE ON EARTH-2, starring Earth-2 Huntress. That's the daughter of Retired Earth-2 Batman and Evening Gown Earth-2 Catwoman. Who was created in 1977 and erased from history in 1985. AHOY, NEW READERS!!! They also breathlessly suggest that you study the new Huntress miniseries, by original 1977 creator Paul Levitz, for exciting clues about how this retroactive coil of insular arse-inspection is going to tie into the exciting all-new rebooted universe, true believers!

Oh god this is the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks

I can't even make a joke about how stupid that is.

wait, this really happened? seriously?

lololol

UPDATE!

Action Comics: #1 - OK, #2 - maybe OK? #3 - art fill-ins by Brent Anderson, #4 - art fill-ins by Gene Ha, back-up fill-ins by writer Joshua Hale Fialkov and artist Matt Camp

#2 is now out, and has, I dunno, a third of its pages drawn by Brent Anderson. Oddly, they look like the opening ones, not a desperate rush at the end.

DC have now announced that Andy Kubert will be drawing all of #5 and #6.

That makes ONE issue out of every SIX that the artist assigned to THE ICONIC FLAGSHIP TITLE OF THE ENTIRE COMPANY has managed to complete. Or will, according to current re-re-re-re-vised projections. Given Didio and Lee's claims that they were planning this for about a year before launch, that ends up being ONE ISSUE IN EIGHTEEN MONTHS.

“When Editor Matt Idelson asked if I would be interested and/or able to fit into my schedule two upcoming issues of Action Comics with Grant, I couldn’t say no,” said Kubert. “I don’t know of any other artist that would have."

Here's three: Rags Morales, Brent Anderson and Gene Ha.

oh I forgot! #2 was also meant to be, I guess, 28 or 30 pages because of the $3.99 PRINT AND DIGITAL pricetag? Only 20 pages of story here. HOLDING THE LINE AT TWENTY CENTS A PAGE! THE NEW DC: THERE'S NO SHAMING US NOW.

(There's some "bonus" sketches and notes by Morrison, Morales and Ha of character designs for future issues, strongly indicating that this was not intended to be the content for this issue.

Morrison also alluded to the smooth reading experience we can expect from the Kubert issues in this interview:

...suddenly came this dictat that now everything had to be monthly and they want to keep to that so it’s just the case that if your artist can’t meet that then somebody else will finish up the pages. So it’s kinda, for me it hits the long term collections of it to have things done like that but at the same time it brings back a lot of the freshness and improvisation of doing comics again and just responding to that and also sometimes you know they’ll be like we need a two part filler here – okay I’ll just come up with something, and it might not necessarily fit it in to the middle of this but okay, you need a filler.

keerist

I started the reviews yesterday but after ILX ate my post on Action for the third time I gave up. I guess I'll try again tonight.

Superman Action Comics W: Grant Morrison P: Rags Morales & Brent Anderson I: Rick Bryant & Brent Anderson

GMoz is the best writer involved anywhere in the Nu DCU. He knows this. Dan DiDio knows this. How do we know Dan DiDio knows this? This:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6237/6227255873_69fc5383ed_z.jpg

WTF? Has Superman had a stroke? And how come his head is tiny?

But you know, the writing in this is brilliant. I mean seriously great and never less than captivating. Even if the art does rip off the Invisibles (as the original Invisibles page with Mr Quimper that looks like this is on my wall I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about here).

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6059/6227255019_37cc95f25e.jpg

The whole sequence with Superman in chains and, most tellingly, Lex's behaviour - his insistence on referring to Supes as "it" in particular - is stunning and some of the best comics being written just now. But the most exciting this about the issue is the proof GMoz reads ILX:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6117/6227255737_82b8a712d0.jpg
L-R: Tuomas, Deadshot.

Don't miss out on this book.

you'd think that if you're going to have grant morrison relaunch your flagship comic with your most important iconic character, you'd get a great artist to work with him. but (as with Batman RIP) I'm constantly shocked by the shitty caliber of art they give him. i have to imagine at this point that it's intentional, like maybe they figure they should save their great artists to sell the shitty written books and use morrison to help sell a poorly drawn book.

I think Morrison's too big a name to be "used" that way.

how else do you explain DC's consistent pairing of him with terrible artists? (with the obv exception of Quitely)

I thought most of the RoBW artists were pretty ok! What other titles has he had specifically bad ones one? iirc there were some sketchy ones in the early part of his Batman run

Morrison's name pre-sells a book, so they can (foolishly imo) play Musical Art Chairs in an attempt to keep it on schedule. But it's not a case of "here's a title with a volatile unpredictable artist or art team -- let's put GM on it so it will sell better." Morrison is the horse, not the cart.

Oh, ok. I didn't quite mean it like that. More like, "Well, GM is writing this book so we don't have to bother with great artists since he'll sell it on his name alone"

I thought that was it -- we're pretty much in agreement then.

Animal Man W: Jeff Lemire A: Travel Foreman

You know what? It's not just GMoz that gets stiffed with artists I can't stand, Jeff Lemire does to. I know people said last month that ymmv and they liked him but for me

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6118/6232164700_857593126f_z.jpg

I mean seriously?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6049/6231646225_097f4f2a70.jpg

WTF is this shit?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6112/6231646379_5ee4399079_z.jpg

The writing is pretty great though, even if it is a rewrite of the post-GMoz A-Man plot. The Red is back, and has some mentallist avatars in the real world. Meanwhile, Buddy and Maxine are off looking for a giant hidden tree to eat them.

You heard me. I just wish I could get over the art.

one of the major problems for DC since abt 1970 is their generally 2nd-rate artists, once you get beyond the few big name dudes like j.h.williams - ie marvel's second and third string guys are generally way way better than DC's second and third string guys (ts: sal buscema vs dick dillin!) in part, it's just institutionalised intertia/idiocy/corporate arrogance: back in the 60s, DC really did think that marvel were outselling them because marvel's comics had 'bad art' compared to the sleeker, more sophisticated and exceptionally BORING post-Dan Barry style of the DC mainstay guys (kirby, romita and colan, to name 3 key silver age marvel artists, were never allowed anywhere near DC's major superhero titles when they worked for DC in the 50s and 60s. gil kane, another guy who switched from dc to marvel, always moaned about the inking he received at DC from ppl like joe giella and bernie sachs, which robbed his pencils of so much of their expressive power.)

I always thought of DC as having art that was generally poorer than Marvel's, but I was never really able to pin it down.

I think the problem with pairing Morrison with a "name" artist is that Morrison is known for turning his scripts in late, and most of the biggest artists at the moment do the same with their art, so the combination of the two is too volatile for a flagship title like Action Comics or Batman. Just look at what happened with the last two issues of Final Crisis, with Seven Soldiers #1, with New X-Men, etc. The last time Morrison managed to produce an monthly title with a truly good regular artist was with Phil Jimenez on The Invisibles, 15 years ago.

Just look at what happened with the last two issues of Final Crisis, with Seven Soldiers #1, with New X-Men, etc.

Those were all late-script problems?

I think FC and SS were a combination of late script and slow artist. New X-Men might've been solely because of Quitely... But the point remains: marrying Morrison and any of the name superhero artists of today does not result in a comic that would run on schedule, at least not without fill-in artists.

You don't need to be a "name superhero artist" to not be shit.

Morrison is known for turning his scripts in late

Is this true? I mean, I have heard this about a number of writers, and possibly Morrison, but it's not coming to mind at the minute.

Yeah, I don't really buy this yet, especially since Tuomas immediately qualified it when I asked. Maybe he could cite some sources?

It's definitely a thing, and has been going back to The Invisibles - Phil Jiminez actually left because Morrison wasn't able to keep monthly, therefore reducing Jiminez' income. However, the fact that it sometimes happens means people immediately blame any and all delays on GM being late, rather than the artist being late, or the publisher dicking with things, etc.

On DC’s historical second-rate artists – to some degree this has a strong argument behind it, but there’s also a definite taste counterarg (as a kid I found Kirby weird and repellent, but generally loved the entire tone of Weisinger-era reprints, down to the sedate storytelling and non-dynamics of Swan and Mooney. And to this day the first year of Spider-Man is the only Stan Lee I’ve ever rly been able to bear reading. [I’ll try Fantastic Four sometime, maybe.]). But who are the avatars of DC who really did think that marvel were outselling them because marvel's comics had 'bad art'? Most of the heads of depts. were old farts who’d never known whether anything was good or not, they just knew their jobsworth and how to buckle their belts above their navels iirc.

But the time period Ward’s citing was when Cinfa was EIC or publisher, and out of anyone who’d been promoted from artist to exec from the DC ranks, you’d think he would have a good grasp on dynamic anatomy and exciting panel layouts being a positive in superhero comics? And Adams had revitalised Batman by here, I think?

Anyway, I’m reading Ostrander’s Suicide Squad for the first time at the moment, and oh man does this fit in with Ward’s endemic theory – the artist is just awful, basically, but you can pretty much tell who people are and where they’re standing, and by god he cranks it out monthly. 20 issues in and he’s had no fill-ins yet, I think. (though the inkers have changed, and he inked one issue himself, to his advantage.) The other DC ongoing of the time I’m familiar with (JL/I) had needed about five fill-ins from three different artists by now. Admittedly, all four were good to excellent, so.

Marvel art isn't necessarily much better from the period once you get off the first tier though - I once recklessly bought a pile of books from ebay in a Warren Ellis Completist frenzy (I may have been drunk) like Hellstorm and Druid and by Christ they looked terrible.

sic, i'll try and find a bit more of a concrete reference for all this when i'm not at work, hurriedly tapping this out - my memory tells me that it's something i've picked up from mark evanier, somewhere. again, evanier may also be the 'source' for my gut feeling that infantino never really liked or understood the kirby aesthetic - although yeah, he clearly LOVED adams and made him the unofficial style template for his era as EIC. in general, i would say that infantino's tastes still ran to the illustrative - nestor rendondo! - and the elegantly designed over and above the dynamic and powerful (although again, kirby and ditko were, in their own ways, just as much masters of design as infa...) as you say, it's also a matter of taste - my perference has always been for the artist-led 'marvel style' over the editor-led 'full script' DC method.

i also wanted to introduce the subject of MONEY into all this, but then i realised that i know almost nothing about modern-day contractual rewards at marvel and dc for their corporate-comic bks - is there even a royalty system still in place? back when the royalty system was first introduced in the 80s, the fact that most marvel comics outsold most dc comics certainly helped marvel to attract or keep the 'better' artists, and my suspicion is still that marvel prob pays better than dc, on the whole.

Anyway, I’m reading Ostrander’s Suicide Squad for the first time at the moment, and oh man does this fit in with Ward’s endemic theory – the artist is just awful, basically, but you can pretty much tell who people are and where they’re standing, and by god he cranks it out monthly. 20 issues in and he’s had no fill-ins yet, I think.

When I first read scanned copies of SS I too thought McDonnell's art was awful... But when the first trade came out and I reread it on paper for the first time, it didn't look so awful anymore (possibly because the colours look much better than on the low-quality scans). Sure, McDonnell's character work is totally generic, but at least he has a solid grasp of anatomy, perspective, and visual storytelling in general. By the time 1990s came, all that was often missing even from flagship Marvel and DC titles. IIRC the final issues of SS suffer from this kind of Leifeldian art that makes McDonnell look like Kirby.

I'm reading the originals! (picked up half the run for 50c each at lunch one day, then got drunk a week or three later and bought almost all the rest at 60% off and free int'l shipping from Mile High.) I would substitute "insecure but just barely evident" for "solid," I think. But we should probably find a better thread. (It's definitely hugely preferable to, say, dude from Morrison's JLA, the sort of thing you're talking about. But even then, you had eg JH Williams on Chase, and John McCrea being allowed to half-underground, half-bigfoot monthly on DCU stuff for about seven years straight...)

Can definitely see Infantino not comprehending Kirby - brute power vs elegance!

I was about to say - the period of "Grant Morrison can write a flagship title" started with JLA and terrible Howard Porter art - I can definitely imagine the takeaway lesson being "GM's writing sells by itself".

(also on the subject of DC vs Marvel I was thinking the other day that although I have a lot of issues with Bendis, there really is no comparison between him and DiDio/Johns as regards having a coherent plan for how to shake things up rather than just wanking dead superheroes back to life)