Comics, etc.

When Winnick threw the Kentucky Fried Villain at Ollie, I pretty much reached my snapping point there. If you doubt my love of the character, my cat's name is "Oliver". And I didn't name him after a Dickens character.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

If someone were going to read just one Green Arrow trade, which one should it be?

I'd go for the first or second one of the current series. Really, I'd start with the first. It's awesome.

There isn't a current "Green Arrow" series anymore is there? I think it ended last year in favor of the new "Green Arrow and Black Canary" ongoing. I'm on the fence with this new one. It's more Winnick writing, which has some good and a lot of bad to it, but I'm absolutely in love with the art by Cliff Chiang.

That said, I'm with you on the Kevin Smith relaunch, which was good fare. Onomonopeia was a fantastic new villain. And Meltzer followed it up with an equally strong run.

Did you read into the later volumes like 8 and 9 when he's training and teamed up with Batman?

Fedaykin98 wrote:

If someone were going to read just one Green Arrow trade, which one should it be?

Longbow Hunters, 'nuff said

I JUST bought that yesterday. After Ultimates that's the next on the stack.

Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:

Did you read into the later volumes like 8 and 9 when he's training and teamed up with Batman?

Doesn't ring a bell. Was this later or post Meltzer? (Or pre-Smith?) Somewhere in there I gave up comics (again) because I was just becoming a parent for the first time and when I came back to the hobby Green Arrow didn't make the cut for what I could afford. These days I'm reduced to just one or two titles a week, occasionally three. I try to just pick 5-10 titles a month where the story arc looks interesting or I like the team producing it... and I try to avoid getting sucked into crossovers at all costs.

For the rest, Rokk's Comic Book Revolution does a pretty good job of keeping me up to date with what's happening in other titles (or filling in crossover blanks, like with Messiah Complex).

The Batman Green Arrow stuff is still Winnick. It's the later runs closer to current. (There isn't a GA comic anymore it's just GA/BC) But it's GA getting beaten up, going to train on a deserted island and coming back to kick the living crap out of the bad people of Star City.

I might have the order a little odd but it's definitely later in the series.

Oh and fyi Hemi, I haven't read any Green Arrow ever. I'll report back once I have.

Would be a good idea. I plan to have Logan sit in for me when I am on my honeymoon.

- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.

Xbox Live: Fedaykin98

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Oh and fyi Hemi, I haven't read any Green Arrow ever. I'll report back once I have.

Longbow Hunters is back in the early 90's. Mike Grell wrote and drew it. A little more gritty than your standard fare, but not Dark Knight Returns gritty. Basically, Ollie goes to plain, broadhead arrows after some traumatic events. No boxing glove arrows in this one.

I feel better now that you are sporting a Cap that's not being punched in the face. The other one was funny but mildly unsettling.

As ridiculous and convoluted as the whole Spider-Man "Brand New Day" thing is... I gotta say that I picked up the first issue. The art was decent, and I'm going to give this thing a shot.

I just picked up the first two trades of the New Avengers. Tomorrow I gotta call my comic guy and see if he got in the Iron Man: Execute Program I got him to order and then I'll probably cool my jets so I can actually read through all of this stuff.

If anyone is interested in those issues and the Ultimates 2 stuff I'm reading I'll put up some impressions later.

Who am I kidding? I'll put them up whether you're interested or not.

SommerMatt wrote:

Whether iconic characters CAN die really depends on the structure of the universe.

You say this like there's one Peter Parker or Clark Kent who goes between these various comics. It's a created character and there are always, no matter what comic company, the possibility for more than one version of them. And in DC/Marvel there ARE more than one version, full stop. So Peter Parker AKA Spider-Man of the 616 (Core Marvel) Universe can die in any number of ways. My contention is that this action has no effect whatsoever on the Peter Parker AKA Spider-Man of the movies, or the animated series, or the Ultimate Universe, or the What If comics, or the Spider-Girl series. The possibility for marketing, gaining readers, et cetera (happy Word?!) is still there and kicking; doing something permanent or semi-permanent to the character does nothing there.

However, not accepting the permanence of that and not accepting the consequences of death being easily mutable in the universe you've done this in hurts the idea of a cohesive world beyond these individual comics. And that's a big part of the draw of Marvel and DC, that all these characters exist and can form the Avengers/Justice League/whatnot. I think that's the failure of editorial when they bring all these heroes back, especially the B and C-listers who never had a huge following in the first place. So we have every two-bit villain wannabe who ever put on a mask coming back from the dead and super-science coming out of the woodworks in Marvel's New York but the world they exist in is supposedly unable to cure an elderly woman who was shot?

You know I was always bothered that they would even try to kill the big boys off in the first place. There are plenty of comics out there that deal with the uncertain fates of their characters. Sin City, 100 Bullets, and Hellboy to name a few that I actually read.

Sometimes I just want to sit down and read something where I know the good guys are going to win. It's going to be close, but, the villians will fail, the people are saved, and the sun rises again to a new day.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the heroes winning all the time in some books. Just don't expect the readers to stick around 24/7. My need to see good men suceed is very much based on how I'm feeling about my real life, as I'm sure it is for most people. I know it probably sounds like suicide from a marketing stand point but I think there are enough readers that will come back to the standbys so that they don't have to keep playing the "Will they die?" card in our faces all the time.

I'm perfectly fine with sticking to the "will they lose?" card when I'm reading Batman and keeping the noir death suspence quarantined to those titles that have advertised that kind of mood from the beginning.

In that respect, even if I'm not the biggest Captain America fan, I still thought it a disapointing decision to kill him.

As far as characters aging/dying goes, I thought this column by Erik Larsen was right on with my personal beliefs on the matter:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/co...

A small quote that gets across lots of what I've been trying to say here:

Erik Larsen wrote:

But I get where you're coming from. You read a Batman story-- the Joker broke out from Arkham Asylum, he killed some people and then Batman showed up, caught him and locked him up again, end of story. You're growing tired of the routine. But that doesn't mean the Joker must die. It doesn't mean things have to change. That Batman needs to get older. It just may mean that you need to move onto reading some other book. This is more of a problem with you than with Batman. Batman shouldn't need to change because you're getting older.

Chiggie-- despite you baffling Stark love, I agree with just about everything you said above

I'm with you too, Chig.

Would be a good idea. I plan to have Logan sit in for me when I am on my honeymoon.

- Legion, taking "keeping it in the family" to a whole new level.

Xbox Live: Fedaykin98

It's all how well the author does at suspension of disbelief that affects my take on character death. I do agree with Chiggie though, I wouldn't force my take on other comic fans, It just doesn't jibe with me anymore because that's not my taste. Much in the same way, as stated, that I loathe the veritable "Omega-Level Mutant" concept. But a lot of people do seem to enjoy watching near-gods gallivanting around, in which case, more power to them.

As much as a love Larsen I'm not sure he understands that you can reprint the good old comics if you really want kids to read them. His opening argument is that Batman and other characters should be maintained for future generations and aging would destroy that. But these future generations don't read comics. They still know who Batman is, sure, but that's from movies and television shows not comic books. To many kids Green Lantern is black because John Stewart was the GL of Justice League and JLU cartoons while Spider-Man never knew Gwen Stacy because the movies didn't go into that. Those are the toys they bought and the characters they grew up with and I think we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise. Just looking at where comics are available is telling; I used to buy mine from the 7-11 when I was a kid and I've not seen a comic outside of a Boarders or specialty shop in years. But Erik's essay did have a good options:

Erik Larsen wrote:

Then there's this option: Have all the characters get older. Have them all change and all progress and have the Ultimate line and the All-Star line become the young, vital versions of these characters. But you'll be running into the same problems in the future unless you're able to let go and allow the Ultimate and All-Star versions stay stuck in time.

And that's my argument. Do that. Because the alternative that Larsen seems to be saying is best is to keep all the characters in suspended animation telling the same stories over and over again. And comic books don't have enough turnover in readership for that to be viable anymore.

Gotta agree with that too. Also, I don't think having an opinion on the matter means you're forcing it on anyone. It is what it is: an opinion. It's not like Marvel or DC have any of us on their speed dial.

I also think having your core universe develop if you're a Marvel or DC doesn't mean your characters can't have staying power that lasts multiple generations. My personal argument for aging is that the passage of time in a comic can still be excruciatingly slow. If a decade means two years to the comic universe, well, Spidey's been around for what? 40 years? So we're talking about the character having aged about eight years since it's inception, which would have him in his mid to late twenties. (Which is pretty much precisely where the character appeared to be at.) Yeah, eventually you'd have to deal with characters, eventually, retiring or passing the mantle. But there are good stories to be told in that and I think blindly adhering to status quo in this day and age will cost the publishers more readers than they gain for it as a couple of you illustrate when you talk about "outgrowing" core characters. And if every 20 years or so you re-launch an Ultimate style line to help keep the character origins alive, (EDIT) I don't think there's more harm in that than in trying to infinitely maintain the status quo.
---Todd

bnpederson wrote:

...while Spider-Man never knew Gwen Stacy because the movies didn't go into that.

Uhhh... you did see Spider-Man 3, right?

Erik Larsen wrote:

Then there's this option: Have all the characters get older. Have them all change and all progress and have the Ultimate line and the All-Star line become the young, vital versions of these characters. But you'll be running into the same problems in the future unless you're able to let go and allow the Ultimate and All-Star versions stay stuck in time.

And that's my argument. Do that. Because the alternative that Larsen seems to be saying is best is to keep all the characters in suspended animation telling the same stories over and over again. And comic books don't have enough turnover in readership for that to be viable anymore.

Where I'll disagree with you is in the assumption that not allowing permanent death somehow means that you're forced into "telling the same stories over and over again."

SommerMatt wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

...while Spider-Man never knew Gwen Stacy because the movies didn't go into that.

Uhhh... you did see Spider-Man 3, right? :)

No actually. I saw the first two but I just didn't feel the need to plop down money on the third. I also skipped the third Matrix, I'm weird like that.

And I was focusing on Larsen's essay more than this thread in that topic. Larsen's argument was against aging and killing off characters in favor of maintaining the status quo (Batman fights Joker, Batman wins, Joker goes to jail) as I read it.

bnpederson wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

...while Spider-Man never knew Gwen Stacy because the movies didn't go into that.

Uhhh... you did see Spider-Man 3, right? :)

No actually. I saw the first two but I just didn't feel the need to plop down money on the third. I also skipped the third Matrix, I'm weird like that. :P

To be fair, even if you had seen it, Gwen Stacy was pretty much a throwaway character in Spider-Man 3. If they do a fourth movie they'll need to do a better job of playing her up (or not include her).

ubrakto wrote:
bnpederson wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

...while Spider-Man never knew Gwen Stacy because the movies didn't go into that.

Uhhh... you did see Spider-Man 3, right? :)

No actually. I saw the first two but I just didn't feel the need to plop down money on the third. I also skipped the third Matrix, I'm weird like that. :P

To be fair, even if you had seen it, Gwen Stacy was pretty much a throwaway character in Spider-Man 3. If they do a fourth movie they'll need to do a better job of playing her up (or not include her).

Or better yet, not do a fourth one at all.

i like the idea of comic books but could never get into them because..well..they are just too short. I read very quickly and to spend so much money and then have to wait for the next installment...yuck.

Now that you can go back and buy some things in graphic novels I'd like to get into it a bit more.

Graphic novels/collections are definitely the best way to go, especially if you don't care about discussing it on an Internet message board. I'm sure there are plenty of suggestions out there for you, I'd toss out Superman: Secret Identity and my aforementioned Common Grounds as good non-canonical places to start. Still, nothing beats the value of a big paperback.

ubrakto wrote:

It's not like Marvel or DC have any of us on their speed dial.

Speak for yourself. I talk to Queso, et al on a daily basis. They're always begging me for ideas. Wait...do hand-puppets count? My therapist says they do.

Seriously though, I was just speaking to my local Comics Shoppe and Emporium proprietor on the topic of readership this weekend. He was lamenting the difficulty of the business these days. He moved to Texas from Florida and said his business mostly comes from guys in their late 20s on up. The younger kids either can't afford to lay out the cash required for a comic habit or they spend their money elsewhere (games, cds, dvds, strippers, beer...). I have noticed that collecting comics is pricey these days. I spend a minimum of $15 every time I walk in his shop (once a week), and come out with only four or five books. Back in the day when I first picked up comics, they were what...25 cents? Maybe 50? My wife is already looking at me askance every time I say I have to pick up my order for the week. The only people that can afford to buy and read comics any more are the people that have invested twenty years or so in the characters, and we're getting tired of the same old crap.

Hrm...I forgot where I was going with this. Need more coffee.

That's where the trades come in. If a mini series is 6 issues or more, it's usually the same cost or cheaper for the trade. If it's an ongoing series, the trade better have 5-6 issues, otherwise it's cheaper to buy the original issues.

I used to have much more money to spend on comics (before marriage and child). A weekly trip for me to the comic shop was at least $50. I had Previews and turned my orders in two months in advance. Now, I typically get all of my trades once a year when I go to the Wizard World Texas show. Multiple dealers have trades at 50% off. I grab $200-300 worth of trades and I'm set for a while. I didn't get to go this year because of work, so next year's haul should be pretty decent.

Damn...that seems like a lot to drop at once, but it would probably be better than a slow bleed of $100 or so a month all year long. I'll have to check into it...

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I'm just gonna mention that after reading a couple volumes each of Fables and Invisibles, I don't really care for either.

Aw, Fed. Say it ain't so. I just burned through everything that's in Trade Paperback for Fables and liked at least as much as Sandman. Then again, maybe you didn't like that one either, so I guess it's not really a measure of quality.

My cousin's a complete Vertigo fanboy, so he's been funneling Trade collections to me on a rotating basis. So far, I've really dug Fables and Sandman, I would've liked Preacher a whole lot more if I were about 10-15 years younger, Transmetropolitan was interesting, but not really my thing, and the Ministry of Space short was great. He also loaned me a few volumes of the different Ultimate storylines, and someone should really put a cap on the number of times Mark Millar can use the words, "stupid", "moron", and "shut up". I'll start the Lucifer line next.

Hemidal wrote:

I used to have much more money to spend on comics (before marriage and child). A weekly trip for me to the comic shop was at least $50.

I used to do the same thing until I switched to an online service (I use DCBS) which cut my costs by at least half. I mainly stick with trades now, I really need to go through my long-boxes and clear some stuff out.

I just watched Blair Butler's Fresh Ink podcast from last week, she had good things to say about The Sword and The Umbrella Academy - anyone read either of these?