Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

So, if the topic is about buying things based on the artist...

It was my love of Joe Prado's art that got me to buy the new Warlord series, and I kept on it even after he was replaced by Chad Hardin and Mike Grell.

Now, it doesn't matter in terms of new stuff. If I'm protesting a book's direction it just makes it painful if I like the artist, which is the case considering Prado's been working on the Brightest Day series and my friend Nei is the colorist for Birds of Prey.

But in terms of back issues...

I definitely bought Witchblade, Fathom and the Darkness for Mike Turner's art. But I didn't follow him around afterwards.

<Per the terms of the restraining order...>

Not like John Byrne, who got me back into reading DC, after being a Marvel fan for quite some time. Had I known, at the time, what his Man of Steel reboot was doing to Legion continuity, I would have recanted this heresy!

Stranger still, I'm pretty sure I bought Cyberforce not for the writing, not for the art, but for the *colors.* Wow, they really mashed up the purples and oranges and everything was so vibrant and rich. Nowadays, it's probably junk by current standards, but back then it was dazzling and new and eye-catching.

I have to say this...

Remember how I said I dropped Brightest Day even though Joe Prado and Nei Ruffino are working on some of the books?

Well, now Nei's books are the ONLY new ones from DC besides Tiny Titans I will buy.

Regarding Byrne. Personal viewpoints aside, and I never really cared about his inane ramblings, he has done some great work over the years.

One of the main reasons is Terry Austin. his inks over Byrne's pencils were some of the first art teams that I realized were a team. Byrne was much better with Austin than without him in my opinion.

Changing topics here, something I was thinking about last night ties into something Outdoor Miner asked me on the Wonder Woman thread. When I was reading Scalped Volume #6 (if you don't read it, you probably smell like feet ) and all I kept thinking about was "wow, there is some crazy #$%& about to go down and nothing will ever be the same". Many Vertigo titles and Independent titles have that type of tentpole event happen often in their runs because the series are always evolving and often times leading towards a conclusion down the road. And I feel it heightens the tension in a huge way that helps enhance the overall read.

However, I don't think this feeling is limited to Vertigo titles and Independent titles. I think longterm DC and Marvel comics can have that same sense of change and evolution to keep the excitement going but without totally flipping the status quo or changing the very nature of the comic book.

I'll point out Daredevil, one of the great Marvel franchises and a comic book which has always flourished when it was in the midst of an era of great change, where you felt like anything goes. Very recently, Brian Bendis did an excellent long run and Ed Brubaker followed it up and that sense was very prominent. And those issues were damn excellent! New writer Andy Diggle is on board and it's not quite apparent yet if that same feeling will remain (though it appears we'll find out shortly). Lardy has criticized the latest run for kind of being on the fence--not making a decision to go for it or play it safe. I see where he's coming from.

Someone who says "going for it" could destroy the franchise will have plenty of examples to use to show that is often the case in comic books. But I think Bendis and Brubaker's very recent Daredevil runs provide an equally compelling arguement for how you can 'go for it' and change things while very much keeping the spirit of the series intact.

What I'm wondering, in a much larger discussion (where I clearly do not have the answer), is whether there is a fine line to walk in this case? If its on a title by title basis? If a 'fine line' is actually the antithesis of the very idea of allowing comics to evolve and change?

I said in the Wonder Woman thread "I want to feel like these stories JMS is going to write are going to matter" and Outdoor Miner asked very seriously, is that important? I thought about it this morning and realized that for me personally and for Wonder Woman specifically, that yes, it does, in order to draw me in and make me care about Diana.

Yet, if someone came in and made huge changes to a franchise that I didn't like, and I felt the creative team was just not giving the readers excellent material, I probably would argue against it. See: the Threeboot Legion; many others will point to Spider-Man's Brand New Day.

Then there is what I would consider an entire other approach where the series is completely derailed in favor of what is essentially a brand new series that only really carries on the brand name: such as when Kyle Raynor took over as Green Lantern. I feel that type of change is so wholesale that it kind of becomes an outlier in the discussion.

Well, thoughts? Like I said, at the end of the day, I have no real answers and I'm a complicated, contradictory sonuvagun who will decide each title based on how I feel that day about that character so there is no broad stroke. But its an interesting discussion.

I think with the Big Two the goal should always be to tell the best stories you can with the character. Unfortunately, as I've said before, these are corporate-owned brands that are more valuable than ever because of all the success they're experiencing in the movie theatres. So the corporations will not allow their commodities to be significantly altered in the comics for any real length of time. In a way the movies have been a curse because change was not always as taboo as it is now. (It's kinda ironic, though, because the movies tend to kill off villains and other characters in the films when they never stay dead in the comics! )

So we concentrate on telling really good stories. I'll return to Geoff Johns as an example who has told excellent stories by exploring the GL mythos and adding some creative and natural flourishes to them. That Green Lantern has never been more popular is quite a testament to him. And if you look at it closely, he's not being sensational...no death of Hal or Carol or John, etc., just telling good stories. (Yes, there's some sensationalism with all the Blackest Night marketing and stuff, but I'm focusing primarily on his character work and storytelling here.)

Daredevil was a good example where the change has seemed deeper and more long-lasting. I think Marvel could do this more with DD because he's more of a "fringe" character in their universe. Yes, he had a movie, but it wasn't all that successful. He's a character you can change and lessen the likelihood that the "reset" button will be hit on him some day because he's not a big player in the Marvel Universe.

Nevertheless, I'm skeptical as to how far Marvel will go. This "head of the Hand" arc has shown me that there's a line Marvel is afraid to cross. If so, I'd prefer they'd never gone that route with the character. On the fringe or not, Murdock is still a profitable character for Marvel, so I fear they're currently jumping the shark by showing that there's a point where they will be ready to blink. I fear that around the corner will be a kind of reboot of the character to get him back to a more comfortable and familiar spot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not onboard to see firsthand.

On the flipside there are characters that are so below the radar that the Big Two just kind of go too crazy and show little to know restraint on into poor taste. Titans comes immediately to mind. All those characters have just become pin cushions for DC over the year. It's just disgusting, really. Need some dead bodies? Here's a few Titans to dismember.

As for Wonder Woman, nothing about this feels like it'll stick, but at least they're doing something to call attention to her. It's probably the first such thing they've done since that whole Artemis storyline. That was an interesting storyline and did have some longterm effects, namely Artemis is still around. If we have some defining moments for the character and some elements that spill over beyond, it may very well be worth it. Diana's never really at the forefront of comics buzz despite her iconic status, so this JMS storyline could possibly be the best thing to happen to her in a long time. Time will tell.

Let's not forget that many of the feaux status quo changing storylines did give us things that stuck: Death of Superman gave us Kon-El, Steel and the Cyborg Superman. Emerald Twilight begat Kyle Rayner. Knightfall spun off an Azrael series that lasted 100 issues.

Maybe something cool will come out of this for Diana? It's funny the costume is so controversial as it attempts to cover her up a little. One already positive thing is lots of people are suddenly talking about her. When's the last time that happened?

Yeah, it goes without saying but for the record, telling good stories is always paramount over everything else. The rest is just something to make life on Legion World and discussions with comic book fans more interesting.

It all hinges on whether the story is good or not. The best changes in the world with bad storytelling end up being things you wish you'd never seen (recent JLA line-ups confirm this). Meanwhile, a change you might not have liked but done in a really great way can be incredible--I'm sure many felt that way about Bucky's recent return.

I'm thinking more of just general type things.

On Diana, I agree--there's been more buzz in the last two days than in the entire time I've been on the internet these past 12 years or so.

That's a huge pet peeve of mine, that Superman, Spiderman, etc. are no longer characters, but 'properties' or 'brands,' and that no change, even something as superficial to the character (but anathema to 'the brand') like a costume change, can be, at best, temporary.

I think Spiderman looked better in his black costume. Couldn't last. Messed with the brand. I like the idea that Professor X, having mutant healers *living in his house* and an alien space princess girlfriend with hyperspace travelling ships, cloning technology, regeneration tech, etc. might get out of that chair and *stay out of the chair.*

But the chair is 'iconic' to Chuck, so it's always back in the saddle again, cowboy. The red and blue is 'iconic' to Spiderman, so the only change that has snuck in long-term is the cold, quiet death of the underarm-webs. (Much like the yellow circle around the Bat-emblem, the only lasting change to Batman's look that has shown any signs of surviving.)

Aquaman, IMO, looked way better in his blue and white costume, but it's back to the old orange and green. Beard? Hook-hand? All back to normal. Thor's beard? Nope, that's gone, too.

Meanwhile, characters like Brother Voodoo can go through radical changes, because their 'brand' was never all that well established anyway. Ben Grimm can never be cured, for long, because his rocky appearance is 'part of his brand,' and the Hulk can spend years grey, smart, red, etc. but will always be a green moron at the end of the day.

And, as much as I hate this logic, it does seem that the characters that change up their look the most do indeed 'damage their brand' and have the most trouble establishing a niche for themselves. Donna Troy has changed so many times, the Legion has changed so many times, Monica Rambeau has changed so many times, that they feel like they've been cursed to never be able to command the same audience that the 'icons' can.

For all the changes that Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Hawkman, etc. go through, compared to Clark and Bruce, perhaps some of that is what makes it so much harder for them to succeed? Perhaps that sort of thinking is what has induced DC to bring back decades dead Barry, because he's 'iconic' in a way that Wally or Bart never were? Ditto the return of Hal, and the sidelining of Kyle and John, both, IMO, vastly more interesting characters.

I don't know if that's a real problem, or a perceived problem.

It's not like Geo-Force has ever changed his costume / powers / backstory / personality, and he's pretty much still a nobody, for example. Perhaps his 'brand' just sucks and *needs* a bit of change?

Oddly enough, I've really found myself missing the yellow circle a LOT lately! Seems like they could've brought it back when Dick donned the costume. Would have kinda made sense, actually. Maybe they'll bring it back when Bruce becomes Batman again?

Am I the only one who misses it?

I miss it in a big way too! And you're so right, it was the perfect time to bring it back. Certainly when Bruce resumes as Batman they have a good opportunity.

To me it's just as important a part of the costume as anything else. I miss it.

Does us missing it mean we're anti-progress? Or was the yellow oval the more progressive feature because the oval-less look was the original? I'm SO confused!

Whatever the case, all I know is we're RIGHT!

@#$% YEAH!

DC has just announced another Batman ongoing. Marvel is giving Wolverine his umpteenth solo series. Sounds like both have room to play with their big characters.

With iconic characters getting more and more series, there's nothing to stop either company from giving us change, letting a chracter experience some growth/developement. As long as Batman has BATMAN, what's to stop them from giving him a different look, a love interest, or new attitude in LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT?

Marvel's Ultimate line gives them all kinds of chances to mess with the status quo. The new EARTH ONE graphic novels should be used for just such a chance (or used to keep the brand, letting the on-going mess with continuity.)

The branding issue has become more and more a hinderance, not just in comics eithe. Let's face it, we've got 3-5 more Twilight movies coming at us, good or not. The latest PREDATORS mvie couldn't end without setting up a sequel. Much as I love me some CLONE WARS, I know neither Anakin or Obi-Wan are going to be seriously affected.

Comics truly have such great potential compared to all other mediums. Give us shiny happy Batman and the Dark Knight, along with a Dynamic Duo. We had ALL STAR SUPERMAN showing a very different Man of Steel than we saw in SUPERMAN. If Marvel wanted to capitalize on Spidey's black suit, they could hire say Frank Miller, to tell a story set earlier in his hisotry, using the main book if they'd like, or a mini or second series.

Grand scheme of things, if the changes being made aren't good, readers will leave a title. Bendis' run had some drastic changes, but none of them made me like DD better. Brubaker did a better job of messing with DD's life, but even then I couldn't get interested in them enough to buy the title regularly. Diggle's doesn't sound promising enough to get me back. You know me Cobie, I'm all for changes to the stats quo. But if it doesn't interest me, book might lose a reader.

Thing to keep in mind tho'

HELL YES you're right!

Bat-Oval offically returns with Bruce. Just to confirm how right you all were.

Really?

<span style="font-size: 25px;">AWESOME!!!</span>

New Bat-Suit (From the DCUBlog)

<span style="font-size: 25px;">SUPER AWESOME!!!</span>

Meh. I grew up on stories of the Batman later referred to as the 'Earth 2' Batman, so I was used to the black-on-grey bat, with the 'yellow circle' bat being the new Coke I didn't much care for.

I'm not a huge fan of Frank Millers work, but I liked him getting rid of the yellow circle.

The new cape, 'though, looks hawt. It captures the over-the-top-ness that McFarlane used to use, while look more 'bat-like' than his work.

And hey, piping. Gotta have piping. Possibly even some crown-molding.

So, as I wait for a crucial trade to arrive to resume my reviews, I've gotten to reflecting on a recent realization brought on by working on my retro-review of Bronze Age Superman: namely, there is not one era of Superman that I can honestly say I like!! In my review, I termed it "The Emperor's New Spandex", and I think it's newly relevant given how history has recently been repeating itself, with the gimmicky (and arguably obnoxious) Silver Age=Geoff Johns era giving way to the earthbound (and arguably dull) Bronze Age=JMS-and-whoever-follows-him era.

Personally, I think the core of the problem has always laid in Superman's varying personalities over the years. From the two-fisted tough guy of the Golden Age, to the calculating cad of the Silver Age, to the wishy-washy modern guy of the Bronze Age and beyond, it's hard for me to get past the iconic status and get a firm fix on Superman, let alone find him sympathetic.

Now, in my opinion, and please excuse the self-promotion, the key to getting Superman to work is to play up the incorruptible purity of his heart, as I tried to in my fanfic "Truly Super." But even there, it's from the point of view of one of Superman's costumed colleagues, Green Arrow, so the icon still looms large. And in my retro-review of "Underworld Unleashed", at the time I praised the use of Captain Marvel's incorruptibility as the key to Neron's defeat as the best use ever of that character in the DCU. But upon reflection, it should have been Superman in that role.

Purity of heart is really the only thing that can possibly keep Superman relevant, and I'm not saying he should inhabit a whimsical never-never land like Captain Marvel, I'm saying he should inhabit the everyday world, but stand for everything decent and noble in humanity. This world needs such a role model more than ever. That no writer has twigged that in almost 75 years is baffling to me.

But what do the rest of you think? HAS Superman ever had an extended run with more than glimpses of his potential?

Enormous freaking response deleted by my shiny new keyboard, which I HATE!

Grr.

Anywho, short(er) version.

Superman (Shazam, etc.) are characters that have immense power, and yet show restraint, moderation and good judgement in their use of that power, instead of just flagrantly abusing it and imposing their will on those weaker than themselves (as they would in a more Authority / Ultimates style universe). At one level, comic books are a power-fantasy. And, to that particular subset of the fanbase, a character with great power, who *chooses* to only use it in a mature, grown-up and responsible fashion is frustrating and boring and 'boyscout.'

We live in a world where talking heads on TV joke about how prisoners deserve to get raped, how torture is justified, how certain people deserve to be poor or homeless or jobless, because they are lazy or stupid, etc, etc. I’ve been flat-out called naïve and unrealistic *by Christians* for attempting to live my life by the teachings of Jesus, and Superman is certainly no Jesus, but, in living by a certain code, and demonstrating respect for life, law, liberty, etc. he’s, to a certain subset of the fans, utterly 'unrealistic' and 'naive.’ (Because, if he wasn’t, if his deliberate and moderate actions were seen as mature and responsible and wise and eminently American in character, then they might have to re-evaluate their perception of themselves as ‘grown ups’ and ‘patriots.’)

Super 'heroes' like Wolverine, Jackie Estacado, etc. share the stage with characters like the Suicide Squad, Youngblood (hell, most Image characters), Deadpool, the Punisher, the Sentry, etc. and the popularity of these ultra-violent line-crossing 'edgy' characters only makes Captain America, Superman, etc. look 'naive' or 'unrealistic' or 'boring' by comparison, and by the evolving 'standards' that we see on TV.

While many of us are quite capable of appreciating and even being inspired by a hero that stands for something or has some sort of principles or standards, an audience that has grown up on cop shows in which only the cops who bend the rules or intimidate the suspects or the prosecutors who engage in backroom shenanigans or government agents who ‘Gitmo’ their prisoners ‘get the job done,’ someone like Captain America or Superman ends up seeming like a big wuss, for actually living up to the standards and principals of their country, faith, etc. instead of conveniently tossing them aside to ‘get the job done, by any means necessary,’ and then making excuses for why it had to be done ‘because they would have done it to us!’

In the last decade or so, DC has flirted lasciviously with the ‘bad Superman’ concept, to placate the fans who want to see him cut loose and just do whatever the hell he wants with all that incredible power, even if they’ve done it by proxy, with characters like Black Adam, Superboy Prime and the Exterminator. I suspect they know that they are playing with fire, and that once they take the actual Superman character down this road, there will be no coming back. Some of the newer generation might even think that would be cool, while others might consider the thought of even Superman becoming just another violent thug as abhorrent as the idea of a gun-toting Captain America.

I actually kind of loved the last page of Legion of Three Worlds, for this. Geoff extended a mighty middle finger to the Prime fanboys, demonstrated *exactly* what he thought of their ‘knock some more heads off!’ ‘ Prime rocks!’ and ‘I hope he kills a bunch of those losers!’ posts on the messageboards. They got exactly the ‘Superman’ they wanted, unrestrained, showing off his power, and he was outed as a petulant immature emotionally-insecure loser, which somewhat annoyed his biggest fans, who claimed (rightly) that Geoff crapped all over them. I suspect that, as long as Geoff is a big name at DC, we won’t be seeing more than these sorts of by-proxy (Black Adam, Prime) or temporary stints at a ‘dark’ Superman, that he wants to keep at least some of these characters less ‘realistic’ and more filled with inspirational and *heroic* qualities.

Set, you make an outstanding case for a genuinely heroic Superman, and I agree with everything you said, so please don't be offended, but I must point out that my question was:

Has there ever been an extended Superman run of true quality that offered more than glimpses of his potential?

Don't know if you'd consider All-Star Superman "extended", but it's huge on quality.

"All Star Superman", regardless of its relative merits, is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the month-in-month-out, multiple titles, shared-DC-Universe Superman.