FICTIONAL PRIVILEGE AND COMPETENCE

Spider-Man is my all-time favorite superhero; possibly my all-time favorite fictional character. He's a guy driven by guilt to always do the right thing, no matter the personal cost. Peter Parker, in most of his iterations, is a kid or a young adult; a student, a freelance photographer; a guy with barely two nickels to rub together, ever trying to make ends meet. And I wouldn't want him any other way.

But at the same time, that's usually not a character I want to read about (or watch on TV, in the movies, etc.). I love characters like Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark, and so on. They have millions -- or, nowadays, billions -- of dollars and they live in palatial estates. Moon Knight, in many of his incarnations, falls into this realm as well. I'd even add the Avengers and X-Men to this category, too. They're not all obscenely wealthy, but they're comfortable and they live in big mansions. The Avengers even have a loyal butler!

There was an era for Daredevil where Nelson & Murdock were considered the best attorneys in New York and operated out of one of the upper floors of a huge skyscraper. This has always been my favorite period for the character. Angel is one of my favorite X-Men because he's the richest among them. Oliver Queen is far more interesting to me when he's wealthy than when he lives in a tenement. I like Danny Rand better as the head of a company than as a hero for hire (and thanks to the recent NetFlix series, I suspect the former will be his default setting going forward).

HOW TO DO A TRANSFORMERS COMIC RIGHT

So we're done with Dreamwave's TRANSFORMERS: GENERATION ONE comics. I still maintain that James McDonough and Adam Patyk have come the closest to a perfect translation of the Transformers to the printed media, but they still had some misses in the process. To varying extents, Sunbow Animation, Marvel Comics, and IDW Comics have pulled it off as well, but the perfect TRANSFORMERS series would be a mix of elements from all these various continuities.

Several years ago, around the time IDW's comics started to lose me, I wrote the below, detailing just what I think the ideal TRANSFORMERS: GENERATION ONE comic book franchise would be. I had no blog back then, of course; this was something for my own entertainment, to get it out of my head.

But now, since I just wrapped up my reviews of the closest-to-ideal G1 comic book continuity I've seen, I figure I'll present the following, with minor edits since I first wrote it in 2011, for your pleasure:

DITKO VS. ROMITA

A few weeks back, in my post on SPIDER-MAN: BLUE, I mentioned that I preferred John Romita's wall-crawler over Steve Ditko's. Here's why:

To most fans -- especially the historians among them -- there is no contest. Steve Ditko created or co-created Spider-Man, Aunt May, J. Jonah Jameson, Gwen Stacy, Flash Thompson, Dr. Octopus, the Green Goblin, Electro, the Lizard, the Vulture, Kraven, Mysterio, and so many more. Ditko gave us the "Master Planner" saga, and Spider-Man lifting the rubble off his shoulders. Without Steve Ditko, Spider-Man, his allies and his enemies would not exist.

But without John Romita, those same characters would not exist as we know them now. Romita's lasting contributions as far as original characters is much smaller than Ditko's, but he did give us Joe Robertson and the Kingpin, at the very least. Mostly, however, he re-used Ditko's villains on a regular basis.

But, all that said -- and taking Ditko's contributions for granted as the starting point -- I much prefer John Romita on Spider-Man. Romita's artwork is far more attractive to me. All Ditko's characters are very... quirky looking, to say the least. Ditko's Spider-Man lives in a dirty, mundane world. Romita's inhabits a glamorous universe where every man is dashing and handsome, and every woman is beautiful and sexy. It may not be as "realistic" as Ditko's interpretation, but it's a lot more pleasing to look at.

THE ROAD TO ONSLAUGHT

A love letter to the X-Men of the mid-nineties.

A few weeks back, in my review of WOLVERINE AND GAMBIT: VICTIMS, I noted that "...VICTIMS takes me back to high school and the year between 'Age of Apocalypse' and 'Onslaught', one of my favorite points in X-Men history." This bold statement elicited a comment from reader wwk5d, who said: "Interesting. That is probably one of my least favorite points."

I get this a lot, and I've seen the sentiment expressed often from many quarters. But it's just not the case for me. And don't get me wrong; I'm certain nostalgia plays a huge role in my opinion here. So much so that I'm going to ask you to bear with me as a provide a little backstory to hopefully explain where I'm coming from when I describe my affection for this era.

Although I had dabbled in the X-Men dating back to the Claremont/Lee X-MEN 1-3, I didn't become a regular X-reader until age fourteen with 1993's X-MEN #20, the issue whose cover teased the dramatic return of someone wearing a billowing purple cape. It wasn't Magneto, as readers were meant to believe, but Psylocke's former body possessed of a different character's consciousness (it's a long, long, long, long story -- and, perhaps tellingly as it pertains to the rest of this post, I was positively enraptured at that time by the mystery of Psylocke and her "twin", Revanche). In any case, the bait-and-switch tactic worked beautifully on me and from that issue forward I continued to pick up Fabian Nicieza's X-MEN every month.

SPIDER-MAN BY ROGER STERN: AFTERWORD

Counting my split of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #60 into two installments and the White Tiger serial as its own review, I've written a series of more than sixty posts on Roger Stern's Spider-Man, covering the gamut from his early days on SPECTACULAR to his beloved run on AMAZING, including some annuals, a couple guest spots in AVENGERS, and the coda in HOBGOBLIN LIVES and its sequel, "Goblins at the Gate", plus the more recent "Something Can Stop the Juggernaut". That's a lot of material. Other writers have produced more Spider-Man issues than Stern -- Stan Lee, David Michelinie, and Brian Michael Bendis spring to mind off the top of my head -- but few have captured the character, his supporting cast, and his trappings as well.

I figured that, while all these issues are relatively fresh in my mind, I might as well mention some of my favorites. Five seems like a nice, round number. These aren't in any sort of ranking order other than chronological; they're just my personal top five issues from throughout Roger Stern's time with Spider-Man. Some of them probably seem like the safe or obvious choices, but it occurs to me that certain things are obvious for good reason:

CREDITS WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

Been a long time since I posted a nice hyperbole-laden rant here, so let's get right to it:

Since joining Marvel Unlimited, I've reviewed a few modern Marvel comics, the most recent being 2012's WOLVERINE AND THE BLACK CAT: CLAWS II, last month. As always, I typed out the issues' credits at the start of the post. For CLAWS II, the credits read like this:

Writers: Jimmy Palmiotti & Justin Gray | Artist: Joseph Michael Linsner
Colorists: Dan Brown & Nick Filardi with Ian Hannin | Letterer: Jeff Eckleberry
Production: Maya Gutierrez | Assistant Editor: Jake Thomas | Editor: Mark Paniccia
Editor-in-Chief: Axel Alonso | Chief Creative Officer: Joe Quesada
Publisher: Dan Buckley | Executive Producer: Alan Fine

Does this look wrong to anyone else? The creative team is encapsulated entirely on two lines, followed by three lines of editorial, production, and, most mystifying of all, executive titles! This is insane. Compare the above credits with AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #236, from earlier that same week:

BOB HARRAS

A (hopefully) fair and honest defense of one of the more polarizing editors in Marvel's long history.

THREAT OR MENACE?

Four years ago yesterday, Bob Harras was appointed DC Comics' editor-in-chief, so this feels like an appropriate weekend for a post I've been thinking about for some time. But I don't read modern DC comics, so this isn't about Harras in his role there. I don't know what DC is up to these days, and it's possible the guy I'm about to ruminate on no longer exists. See, this an article on "vintage" Harras. And not Harras the writer, either, whose work I've seen very little of -- but specifically Harras the Marvel editor on the X-Men franchise and later the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics from 1996 to 2000 (incidentally, he's the only person to date ever to hold the EiC position at both of the "big two" publishers).

Occasionally around the internet, I've posted comments on Bob Harras ranging from mildly complimentary to frothingly defensive. Harras is no Jim Shooter, but he's certainly viewed with a great amount of disdain from many corners of comic book fandom. He catches flack for everything from pushing Chris Claremont to quitting the X-Men (an accurate criticism) to causing Marvel's mid-nineties bankruptcy and masterminding Spider-Man's "Clone Saga" and the "Heroes Reborn" event (all complete falsehoods; Harras was handed the keys to the company after every one of those things was well underway -- he did, however, spearhead the resurrection of Norman Osborn which ended the Clone Saga).

But all I can say is, I like the guy. I met him once, at Comic-Con in 1999, and he was very friendly. I told him how much I had enjoyed the Black Knight's lightsaber and he thanked me for the compliment. He also participated in the creation of my all-time favorite Con souvenir, which I described a while back.

MUSINGS SPURRED BY CANNON

I know we all have our ideas of what would make great TV shows. The thing is, most of mine are really good ideas. Case in point: why do we not have a TV show, something like a pulp style series from the thirties or forties, with tons of sex and violence, on a pay cable network? Doesn't this seem like a no-brainer?

In my review of Wally Wood's CANNON the other day, I said, "...maybe it's my reptilian brain at work overriding good taste, but I've always enjoyed a story about a rugged man who kills with impunity and beds women with regularity." I cited the Bond films as an example of this genre. Another would be the Cinemax series BANSHEE. BANSHEE is somewhat acclaimed, and apparently quite successful. And it overflows with hard, brutal violence and softcore sex scenes. These are things people like to watch. Look to GAME OF THRONES for another example. Or BLACK SAILS, which quickly became a personal favorite during it's first season this past winter. I'm sure there are plenty more, but I don't watch a ton of pay cable shows.

My question, then, is: Why don't we have a series like the above, catered to grown man-children who love superheroes but who are old enough to enjoy explicit material? (And I unashamedly include myself in this demographic!) I don't want to watch such a series about Batman or Spider-Man. They're all-ages characters, not meant for strong language and overt sexual situations. Putting them into these sorts of situations is wrong. But if an outright fantasy series like GAME OF THRONES can capture the imaginations of millions of mainstream viewers, why couldn't a Batman-esque series?

THE TIME OF THE SEASON

I assume everyone has this quirk, to some extent, and as the winter turns to spring around here, I find myself thinking about it more: There's something in the realm of entertainment that you like, or even love, but you only want to enjoy it in certain weather or at a certain time of year. I'm not talking specifically seasonal things, like watching HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS in December. I mean something along the lines of, to use an example I've provided before, only wanting to read Batman comics in the winter. Batman just feels like a character you should read when the trees outside are dead and the weather is miserable. Bonus points if it's raining (or even snowing, but that's not something I ever encounter where I live).

I assume part of this feeling has something to do with repetition. I find that hour-long dramas are better when viewed in the fall than almost any other time of year, which makes sense since that's when the TV season traditionally starts. But I've found that cable dramas, like GAME OF THRONES, MAD MEN, and JUSTIFIED, feel more correct to me in the springtime -- again, because that's when most of them premiere. But even if the series isn't currenlty airing -- say I just want to pop in a Blu-Ray to watch an episode -- I still would favor the springtime weather. I also prefer to watch most of my cable dramas while it's still light outside, and again I'm not certain just why that is.

COMIC BOOKS, THEN AND NOW

Note: This post uses the general term "comics" throughout to mean specifically Marvel superhero comics.

Okay, look -- I don't mean for this to turn into a "get off my lawn" rant, but there's a good chance it will. I am 34 years old -- apparently the target audience for today's superhero comics (which is ludicrous to begin with) -- and I fully, honestly believe comics were better when I was younger than they are now. I don't necessarily mean from a technical standpoint, of course. While I admit I tend to prefer many of the artists of my youth to the ones of today, there are plenty of great artists doing excellent work nowadays. And computer coloring and lettering, when done well, blow most of the old stuff out of the water.

Art by Jim Lee (left, 1991) and Dale Keown (right, 2011).
Note the much brighter, more exciting, and visually appealing
colors on the left piece vs the drab, boring hues on the left.

ON MATTERS OF (RE)COLOR

PART ONE: COMMON SENSE
I love Marvel's current collected editions department. Really, I do. They put out quality books with top-notch production values and graphic design work. I'm proud to have their products on my bookcase. So when I go off on my rant here, just remember that I'm railing on one relatively minor aspect of something that I otherwise love pretty much unconditionally.

Left: AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #238, 1983
Right: SPIDER-MAN: ORIGIN OF THE HOBGOBLIN TPB, 2011

EARTH 616

You may note that during my Captain Britain reviews, I never use the term, "Earth 616". The reason is simple -- I hate it.

"Earth 616" is the designation that was given during the Dave Thorpe/Alan Moore Captain Britain stories to the Earth where the "real" Marvel Universe resides. I believe Moore has alternately taken credit for the number and said that Thorpe coined it. To my recollection, I don't recall it appearing in a Thorpe story, but it's possible I'm wrong. At any rate, I really feel that if it weren't for its association, deserved or otherwise, with Alan Moore, "616" would not see nearly as much use as it does.

But the point is, the term bothers me because it just sounds silly -- I (figuratively) roll my eyes when I see or hear someone refer to the "main" Marvel Earth as "Earth 616," "616," or, stupidest of all to my ear, "the 616." Just call it the Marvel Universe! No one will stop and ask you if you mean Earth 12, Earth 457, or Earth 8532. I promise we all know exactly which Earth you're talking about. Trust me.

Even if fandom doesn't necessarily agree with my above sentiment, I'm gratified that Marvel does. I've said before that I have little use for modern Marvel, but one area where we see eye-to-eye is the stupidity of "616". Several of Marvel's editors, from Joe Quesada on down, have stated their distaste for the term, as well as their confusion as to why anyone would even want to use it.

So: sorry if I've offended anyone who uses the number. This is only my personal opinion. You will never see the term "616" used on this blog beyond this post. And yet somehow, even without that indicator, you will still know which universe I'm referring to at any given time.

ALAN MOORE

Since I'm currently covering Alan Moore's run on CAPTAIN BRITAIN, this seems a good time to toss out my own personal thoughts on the guy. And I have to say, I don't get his influence. I fail to understand why so many in the comic book fandom -- not mention so many industry professionals -- worship at his altar.  He's written some decent stories and some bad ones.  If someone offered me a Moore comic or something by Roger Stern, Kurt Busiek, or Chris Claremont, I'd choose the latter, because while perhaps -- perhaps -- not as technically accomplished as Moore, I know I like their stories better than his.

I'm aware of exactly when I decided Moore wasn't my cup of tea, too... though I didn't even know who he was yet.  I read the "classic" Superman tale, "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?", when I was about seven years old, and it disturbed the heck out of me.  That depressing snuff story had no place in a comic aimed at children.  The fact that it was disguised as something a kid could enjoy thanks to the throwback covers and Curt Swan artwork only added to the offense.