Morrison's JLA [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

matewan1990

02-20-2006, 05:52 AM

Morrison's JLA was a'ight. Solid superhero fare, but nothing memorable. I think Morrison actually had a little too much respect for the characters. You read a Grant Morrison comic for BIG F'N CRAZY IDEAS, but his JLA felt a little too safe.

Porter gets a bad rap. I wouldn't call him one of my favourites, but he's a solid enough artist.

I loved Morrison's JLA, much more than Mark Waid's (and I love nearly everything Mark Waid has done) and as much as any other writer who handled the team.
But, I think you're right when you say Morrison had too much respect for the characters. I think he learned from this experience and made his New X-Men all it could be when he was writing it, by not respecting the characters so much that it affected his stories.
Morrison's JLA, when read together, has the feeling of a big, epic superhero adventure. His New X-Men was on a grander scale and was better.
I didn't follow Morrison's JLA run until it was in trade paperback. After the really bad JLA run during the last 50 issues of the second volume, I was completely done with the Justice League and passed on Morrison's version, only picking up the occasional issue here and there.
I don't think there are any other writers who imagined the JLA as the pantheon of gods that Morrison saw.
I think that shows in that Morrison's characters were always larger than comic-book-life, whereas everyone else's versions of the characters were a notch or three below that.
And I also agree that Porter gets a bad rap. His art wasn't as polished and was a little too chiseled at that time, but he was young and his art eventually, by the end of his run, grew to be very good.
His current work is great and I thought Porter's Flash stories (with Geoff Johns doing the writing) were some of the best ever.

Absalom

02-20-2006, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Apathy Boy

Morrison's JLA was a'ight. Solid superhero fare, but nothing memorable. I think Morrison actually had a little too much respect for the characters. You read a Grant Morrison comic for BIG F'N CRAZY IDEAS, but his JLA felt a little too safe.
Well, to me, some of the arcs, like Julian September, Crisis Times Five and the 2nd half of Rock of Ages really had that extra bit of wackyness that is Morrison's writing signature.

Bat-Mite

02-20-2006, 05:55 AM

I think the Julian September story was written by Mark Waid.

dancj

02-20-2006, 05:56 AM

Once he settled in, Porter's art was well suited to the comic. It gave the comic the epic feel Morrison was going for. As for the stories, they peak with Rock of Ages, and go a bit downhill towards the end. Since you've got the first (which wasn't one of the better storylines), I'd definitely get the next three at least.

Dan

Absalom

02-20-2006, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Bat-Mite

I think the Julian September story was written by Mark Waid.
No, Waid wrote Midsummer's Nightmare, and Morrison took it from then.

Gingold

02-20-2006, 07:28 AM

No, Waid wrote Midsummer's Nightmare, and Morrison took it from then.

Yeah, but the Julian September and Adam Strange stories were fill ins by Waid while Morrison geared up for DC 1,000,000.

I remember having such high hopes for Waid's JLA after those fill ins, but it was never that good again.

I loved Morrison's run; it's what got me back into comics after a long absence, and pretty much every JLA story since has been a disapointment. He realized that if these 7 characters have their own books with all sorts of crazy shit going on, then whatever happens in JLA should be at least 7 times as crazy. Morrison made me a fan of Kyle Rayner, Steel, and Huntress, which I never would've thought possible, and wrote cool stories while being stuck by editorial with Electric Superman, substitute Wonder Woman, hookhand Aquaman, and a Batman who wasn't allowed to have fun.

I love the Zauriel/Azmodel story. Rather than doing some boring metaphysical, spiritual crisis nonsense that some other writers might try in a story dealing with Heaven and the afterlife, Morrison undertands that to the JLA, this is just another group of aliens trying to take over, so they'd better kick their asses. Crisis Times Five and WWIII are a lot of fun too, just because there's so much going on. And while not actually in the pages of the JLA comic, 1,000,000 and Earth2 were really, really cool.

Porter's not a great or particularly consitant artist, but his work is dynamic and exciting, and fit the tone of the book well.

Watery Tart

02-20-2006, 07:57 AM

guest artist like Oscar Jiminez, whose arc with the Connor Hawke Green Arrow is a lot of fun.Heh. I love this arc, if only for the part when Connor's out of arrows and going through Ollie's quiver and is like, "Boxing glove...boomerang...HOW ABOUT A NORMAL ARROW, DAD?"

KJ_81

02-20-2006, 08:06 AM

'Rock Of Ages' is really where everything clicked for me.
And yeah, Porter's art was a bit off at first (kinda Liefeldian at times) but he settles in really well.

JulianPerez

02-20-2006, 09:34 AM

Overall, I liked Grant Morrison’s run on the book; it had its flaws, certainly, but all in all it was a great way to kill time until Busiek fulfilled his true destiny and made a triumphant return to JLA!

There is nothing wrong with treating characters with the veneration that they deserve. In fact, in the current “let’s see ‘em bleed” climate of modern comics, treating characters with respect may be the most rebellious and revolutionary idea of all.

Actually, I contest the idea that Morrison has this perceived hyper-adulation for the JLA – note that the members of the Satellite years are not present: where was Red Tornado? Elongated Man? Zatanna? Black Canary? Okay, Green Arrow has a pretty good excuse, but STILL… In the VERY FIRST ARC, Granty blows the fershlugginer Satellite up.

This lack of respect for the Satellite years seems strange, because otherwise Morrison is as big an Englehart fanboy as I am – if you are to believe the phrase “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Ever notice how Morrison has characters in bizarre/fatal situations and then has everybody wisecrack through it and not respond to the situation’s surreality? Englehart invented that. In fact, it’s called “Englehartism.”

The first arc was absolutely extraordinary. People make a big deal out of Grant’s weirdness; I for one, think Grant Morrison is at his best here, when he is writing a story we’ve all seen before. The first arc was INDEPENDENCE DAY guest-starring Batman. He even gives the stories names of B-Movies; appropriate, because it all feels familiar. I can hear the Jacob’s Ladder crackling in the background.

A few things I liked about the first arc:

Note that the Martians have purple/violet/blacklight colored Martian-Vision. This is a little thing that shows a lot of thought, because it never made sense that Martians are weak against flame, yet they have heat-vision. These “blacklight” colored beams show that their Martian Vision is ultraviolet in nature.

The whole “he can hear them” moment. WOW. Superman stole the show here in this arc, despite being hobbled by a hideous mullet (which, to be fair, was not Grant’s idea); the two-panel sequence after the “only courage can light the darkness!” speech was inspiring.

“He thinks green thoughts. And his thoughts become things.” Wow. I haven’t seen purple prose with that punch since the days of Roy Thomas.

The Flower of Wrath. A good old-fashoined charmingly overengineered deathtrap.

Use of accurate physics for the Flash, and mention of “Flash Facts.” Very classy of Morrison to bring this Schwartz trait up.

John Jones becomes a sympathetic figure here. “You freak! Who cares for a THING like YOU?”

I love the design of the Hyperclan. Primaid, an albino moon-girl with a crescent moon tiara? Very nice – and I dig the name, too.

Batman’s victory over the Clan was well thought out, probable, and true to Batman’s greatest skill as a detective. This is in stark contrast to what came later, the whole “Batman beats Darkseid” victories that are just so improbable and insane that they just don’t count. After this arc, Batman was the Shatner of the JLA: it was ALLLLL about HIM. One can imagine his bitter co-star John Jones, Manhunter from Mars telling Batman behind the scenes, “You stole all my best lines, you cut me out of Issue 47 entirely…” There was something cathartic about the scene in BATMAN/SUPERMAN where Batman is told by Superman (paraphrased), “you know what, Bruce? Shut the hell up! For all your tricks and gimmicks you’re STILL ONLY A MAN.”

NOTE TO FUTURE WRITERS: Yes, the Batman victory over the Hyperclan was a cool moment, sure. But before you go and duplicate it, the reason it was a cool moment was because his victory was plausible under that set of circumstances.

Things I did NOT like about the first arc:

“It’ll never happen again.” Wow. The Clan commits MURDER, and Superman gives them a WARNING? That’s not the Superman I know.

It gave us a variation on the very, very tiresome theme that superheroes are essentially impotent. There’s always a speech that is something to the effect of “well, despite the fact we have near godlike power, we are ultimately impotent to truly repair mankind’s big problems. So, let’s just go back to what we do best: finding a guy with a Tornado Gun, and punching him!”

dazzler_slave

02-20-2006, 10:11 AM

Busiek fulfilled his true destiny and made a triumphant return to JLA!

......Umm, you're kidding right? While I love Busiek normally, his JLA run was the worst run of the current series! That's right, it was even worse than Chuck Austin's arc! I remember being so excited that Kurt was coming on the title and so disappointed by the result!

JulianPerez

02-20-2006, 10:28 AM

......Umm, you're kidding right? While I love Busiek normally, his JLA run was the worst run of the current series! That's right, it was even worse than Chuck Austin's arc! I remember being so excited that Kurt was coming on the title and so disappointed by the result!

I'm not kidding; Busiek's arc was the best stuff we've seen since Englehart, and maybe even since Gardner Fox.

I say that with all sincerity and admiration.

The appearance of classic JLA enemy the Construct, who was broken by a signal splitter to create a construct civilization (that popping sound you hear is my brain exploding), a super-moon battle station right out of space opera, the Weaponeers of Qward attacking the wake of JLA/AVENGERS, his brilliant worldbuilding on both the CSA Earth...Busiek wrote JLA and made the DC Universe stronger instead of weaker. Some writers tear down; Busiek writes by building up.

While as stated above, I liked Morrison's JLA overall, one downside was that the JLA were immortal and assured of victory. Maybe they weren't, but they sure did FEEL that way - in fact, Morrison actually made it a natural law of DC Earth along with 2 + 2 = 4 that the Justice League always, ALWAYS wins. Busiek, in eight issues, had the JLA *LOSE* fights, and suddenly there was this absolute desperation to know how the JLA would triumph, something absent from the entirety of Morrison's run: the sense of fear. Yes, this sense of fear is an illusion, but it's an important illusion nonetheless that good writing can create. The Void Hound was such an overpowering creature it's hard to imagine how ANYONE could triumph over it. The solution to the problem of the Void Hound was absolutely unexpected and reflects well on League cleverness.

Busiek has an amazing skill for science fiction worldbuilding which he shows here. On reading his take on the CSA Earth, one looks back at Morrison's "Earth-2" and one says, "Ohhhhh, so THAT'S what Morrison was trying to say!" I've said it before, and I'll say it now: Busiek's detailed view of the Qwardians in decline and of their power politics, is the best view of that civilization since Englehart's GREEN LANTERN CORPS; their society and worldview were alien. If Busiek ever decides to leave comics (Knock on wood!) there's a wonderful career waiting for him as a science fiction writer.

To say nothing of Busiek's use of the DC Universe, remembering that if the JLA fights a foe in Frisco, that that's Titans territory and it would be strange if the Titans didn't show up; ditto for the brief but thoughtful cameo by the San Fran based Power Company.

And for the record...NOBODY'S worse than Chuck Austen.

matewan1990

02-20-2006, 10:50 AM

I'm not kidding; Busiek's arc was the best stuff we've seen since Englehart, and maybe even since Gardner Fox.

I say that with all sincerity and admiration.

The appearance of classic JLA enemy the Construct, who was broken by a signal splitter to create a construct civilization (that popping sound you hear is my brain exploding), a super-moon battle station right out of space opera, the Weaponeers of Qward attacking the wake of JLA/AVENGERS, his brilliant worldbuilding on both the CSA Earth...Busiek wrote JLA and made the DC Universe stronger instead of weaker. Some writers tear down; Busiek writes by building up.

While as stated above, I liked Morrison's JLA overall, one downside was that the JLA were immortal and assured of victory. Maybe they weren't, but they sure did FEEL that way - in fact, Morrison actually made it a natural law of DC Earth along with 2 + 2 = 4 that the Justice League always, ALWAYS wins. Busiek, in eight issues, had the JLA *LOSE* fights, and suddenly there was this absolute desperation to know how the JLA would triumph, something absent from the entirety of Morrison's run: the sense of fear. Yes, this sense of fear is an illusion, but it's an important illusion nonetheless that good writing can create. The Void Hound was such an overpowering creature it's hard to imagine how ANYONE could triumph over it. The solution to the problem of the Void Hound was absolutely unexpected and reflects well on League cleverness.

Busiek has an amazing skill for science fiction worldbuilding which he shows here. On reading his take on the CSA Earth, one looks back at Morrison's "Earth-2" and one says, "Ohhhhh, so THAT'S what Morrison was trying to say!" I've said it before, and I'll say it now: Busiek's detailed view of the Qwardians in decline and of their power politics, is the best view of that civilization since Englehart's GREEN LANTERN CORPS; their society and worldview were alien. If Busiek ever decides to leave comics (Knock on wood!) there's a wonderful career waiting for him as a science fiction writer.

To say nothing of Busiek's use of the DC Universe, remembering that if the JLA fights a foe in Frisco, that that's Titans territory and it would be strange if the Titans didn't show up; ditto for the brief but thoughtful cameo by the San Fran based Power Company.

And for the record...NOBODY'S worse than Chuck Austen.

I never read Chuck Austen's JLA. Wasn't reading the series then and the name CHUCK AUSTEN on the cover made it a book I wanted to avoid.
However, I did pick up the Kurt Busiek JLA and was disappointed.
With all due respect to Mr. Busiek, who has done some wonderful stories for DC and Marvel (and Eclipse), this was not one of his better yarns.
One thing that really, really threw me off of this story was Ron Garney's art, which I think is too Marvelized to fit in at DC. I liked his Captain America. I hated Garney's JLA.
For one thing, I don't think his stories flow too well and everything looks like a pin-up shot — and that makes it hard for me to follow a story when everything is in pin-up mode.
I think Howard Porter's art suffered from that early on, but it progressed enough to look good by the Rock of Ages storyline.
I love Busiek's writing and was so excited that he was doing JLA. But, after the story dragged on for so long, I lost interest and later bought that story in trade paperback. It seemed like that storyline went on for two years! That was something that should have been wrapped up in three issues (I understand the need to make it into a trade paperback, but sometimes a story would be better told in less issues).

JulianPerez

02-20-2006, 10:58 AM

I love Busiek's writing and was so excited that he was doing JLA. But, after the story dragged on for so long, I lost interest and later bought that story in trade paperback. It seemed like that storyline went on for two years! That was something that should have been wrapped up in three issues (I understand the need to make it into a trade paperback, but sometimes a story would be better told in less issues).

Of all the writers that this statement might be true about, I can't number Busiek's JLA amongst it. Why? Because so much HAPPENS in there! We had the construct, Qward and the CSA Earth feeling like more real places than ever before, little quiet moments for characterization like Owlman beating on Johnny Quick because they're bored, the CSAers misbehaving, the power politics of Qward.

Kurt spent some of his time on worldbuilding, and this was very immersive. Here's a quick test: make a list of everything you know about the CSA earth from Morrison's "Earth-2" story. Now, make a list of everything you know about the CSA Earth from the first two issues ALONE of Busiek's CSA. The list would be weighted far more on the side of Busiek.

Busiek could be exposed to Red Busiekium and transformed into a one-eyed mime with brain damage, and even THEN, he could write a better story than Chuck Austen.

Bored at 3:00AM

02-20-2006, 11:39 AM

I remember having such high hopes for Waid's JLA after those fill ins, but it was never that good again.

.

Agreed. I particularly enjoyed Waid's Adam Strange arc. Threre's very few writers who can make Adam Strange feel as cool as he should. Waid & Diggle are two of those writers. I also liked Waid & Morrison's Orion being a barely contained firestorm of rage...and playing him for laughs. There's a little bit too much reverence for Kirby's Fourth World at times. A lot of creators forget how goofy Kirby's stories and characters were.

handOFfate

02-20-2006, 01:11 PM

Morrison's JLA was like a really long action movie. Not a lot for character development (except for Green Lantern), but lots of things blowing up and bad guys getting beaten up. Rock of Ages is great, but it can be very confusing if you're not keeping track of the six or seven subplots(not a joke). It's best read slowly, and multiple times. I'd love to see Morrison do a Green Lantern (Kyle) series. He really seemed to understand the character.

LtMarvel

02-20-2006, 01:36 PM

Morrison brought tears to my eyes when the population of Earth gets superpowered up and risks life and limb to save Superman. That was an incredible two page spread.

Chris Thomas

02-20-2006, 01:46 PM

my quick take:

morrison jla was outstanding. great action, plenty of fun. didn't take itself too seriously. also quite a few silver age jla tributes built in.

I also dug morrison's jla classified run. 3 of the best comics I've every read.

morrison's jla is an example of 'good' morrison--he sticks to decent characterization but also has great plot-driven stories. kind of like the original jla but without the required 'character and voice over having to explain everything.'

noh-varr

02-20-2006, 01:54 PM

Morrison's run kicked some much ass it's not funny (alright parts are damn funny)! It was huge superhero stories with the coolest characters in DCU. Who doesn't want to watch Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the rest kick butt month in and month out? Hell he made Kyle Ryner THE Green Lantern for me, never needing to see Hal again, the same goes for Conner making him THE Green Arrow. And yet at the same time those two characters showed respect for the heros who came before them much like how Wally did when he replaced Barry. Plus I loved seeing Steel as the Mister Fantastic of the group out of left field he pops up with a device he just made to save the day!
As for well the JLA always wins.... well don't they? If the League can't beat it, then there goes the world.

Sam

02-20-2006, 02:08 PM

Batman’s victory over the Clan was well thought out, probable, and true to Batman’s greatest skill as a detective. This is in stark contrast to what came later, the whole “Batman beats Darkseid” victories that are just so improbable and insane that they just don’t count. After this arc, Batman was the Shatner of the JLA: it was ALLLLL about HIM. One can imagine his bitter co-star John Jones, Manhunter from Mars telling Batman behind the scenes, “You stole all my best lines, you cut me out of Issue 47 entirely…” There was something cathartic about the scene in BATMAN/SUPERMAN where Batman is told by Superman (paraphrased), “you know what, Bruce? Shut the hell up! For all your tricks and gimmicks you’re STILL ONLY A MAN.”

I hear this complaint a lot, but if you actually go back and read it, a lot of it seems to have been overinflated. Some spoilerish commentary...

Prometheus whups Batman's ass and nearly kills him. Likewise Darkseid -- I'm not sure what you mean about Batman beating Darkseid, but as I recall it, Batman is annihilated by the Omega Effect. Darkseid is killed by Green Arrow and the Atom, which is even more likely, but done so cleverly as to make perfect sense.

I can actually think of very few instances in which Batman singlehandedly saves the day, other than the Hyperclan. Wait, he beat General Eiling. But he did it in a fairly sensible way there, too.

Chris Thomas

02-20-2006, 02:28 PM

I don't think this was really all about batman. I think morrison's jla batman is a character that is clearly out of his depth, but suceeds due to incredible persistance. two clear examples come to mind: batman vs. desaad and batman in jla classified arc (completely absurd plan--but what else did he have to do?)

and like the above posters notes, batman did get a butt-whippin' or two.

PercussionMasta

02-20-2006, 03:35 PM

I've recently acquired almost all of Morrison's run on JLA in issue format. I haven't read all of them yet, but the ones I have read have been a lot of fun. It seems like Morrison just beats the piss out of the JLA, which is something fun in it's own right. I was expecting New X-Men type story and scope, but JLA definitely has a different flavor. Should be fun reading the rest of them.

stealthwise

02-20-2006, 07:50 PM

I'm thinking that Morrison's run is probably worth getting at this point, maybe for another trade or two to see how much I dig it.

Morrison has a knack for making comics that people think are average, but really live up to a standard that most comics should be written at right now (All-Star Superman being a prime example).

matewan1990

02-21-2006, 05:45 AM

Busiek could be exposed to Red Busiekium and transformed into a one-eyed mime with brain damage, and even THEN, he could write a better story than Chuck Austen.

Your signature line exposes your bias toward Busiek's writing, so your opinion is really not objective.
However, I do agree that most anything written by Kurt Busiek is better than even the best stories written by Chuck Austen.
But, I do not agree that Busiek's CSA story was great. It wasn't nearly the CSA story crafted by Grant Morrison. I just think Busiek's story was dragged out as long as it could possibly be dragged out, and there were months when I didn't know if I'd already read the current issue because everything moved so slowly and Garney's artwork all looks the same. So, it was a ho-hum story to me and definitely not in the realm of great JLA stories nor in the vicinity of the really good ones.
Sorry, Kurt, because I usually like EVERYTHING you write. This one, however, wasn't his best.
I'd rank this one a notch above Byrne's Tenth Circle and far above anything Austen wrote. I didn't think anything Waid wrote was any better, though. I thought we got Waid-lite on JLA.

dancj

02-21-2006, 06:20 AM

Your signature line exposes your bias toward Busiek's writing, so your opinion is really not objective.

No-one's opinion is objective.

Chris Thomas

02-21-2006, 07:49 AM

I am going to have to agree that busiek's csa/jla was rather lame. and I also like busiek. Morrison's jla blows it away

Joe Rice

02-21-2006, 08:02 AM

I am going to have to agree that busiek's csa/jla was rather lame. and I also like busiek. Morrison's jla blows it away

Yeah, Busiek's written some great stuff and the Garney art was nice, but I couldn't get through the second issue of his arc. The preponderance on Qwardian politics put the final stab in the heart of my interest.

Expletive Deleted

02-21-2006, 08:07 AM

Here's a quick test: make a list of everything you know about the CSA earth from Morrison's "Earth-2" story. Now, make a list of everything you know about the CSA Earth from the first two issues ALONE of Busiek's CSA. The list would be weighted far more on the side of Busiek.Kurt fleshed a lot of stuff out and added some fun twists, but I'd say most of the worldbuilding was already done. Sheer tonnage of details is great, but the big stuff is more important.

And personally, I thought the presentation of said details was extremely labored. The first two issues and the last two issues were fine, but the four in the middle just went on and on and on.Busiek could be exposed to Red Busiekium and transformed into a one-eyed mime with brain damage, and even THEN, he could write a better story than Chuck Austen.No argument there. I wasn't as entertained by Busiek's story as I usually am with his work, but I outright loathed Austen's arc.

matewan1990

02-21-2006, 11:16 AM

Yeah, Busiek's written some great stuff and the Garney art was nice, but I couldn't get through the second issue of his arc. The preponderance on Qwardian politics put the final stab in the heart of my interest.

Yeah, I mean, who cares about Qwardian politics? I surely don't. The whole storyline did go on and on and on and on and on... or so it seemed. The first issue was alright ... the second wasn't as good, but I could still follow the story... the third issue lost me and I picked up the whole thing in trade paperback and saw where, if I was an editor and hadn't been told by the higher-ups to make this story as long as possible, I would have cut out two whole issues to make it flow better and be a better read. After the second issue of this arc, me reading this was like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher talk -- wah-wah-wah-wah-wah. Then, I got to the end. The end.
And I think Ron Garney's art is well chiseled, but he lacks a lot in storytelling abilities. In other words, he does great pin-ups in every single panel on every page, but I'm buying JLA, not The JLA Gallery.
I don't think I'd have liked Garney's Captain America work if it hadn't been for all the BAD artists that had led up to that point.
Kurt Busiek's Avengers: Classic.
Kurt Busiek's JLA: so-so
Like I said before, I'm a Busiek fan. But, there are things he does well and things he doesn't do well and this was one of them, in my opinion.

—And yes, Dancj, opinions can be objective.

stealthwise

02-21-2006, 11:27 AM

—And yes, Dancj, opinions can be objective.

Actually, by definition an opinion must be subjective.

glennsim

02-21-2006, 12:40 PM

No-one's opinion is objective.

True, but there's a difference between not liking a particular writer's work on a given piece vs. deciding that you don't like anything the writer likes beforehand and therefore don't give each additional project a chance.

Not saying that's what's happening, just pointing out that a bias can affect an opinion.

bannermanonemillion

02-21-2006, 04:54 PM

When did Chuck Austen write JLA?

I'm pretty sure if I saw his name on the cover, you'd have heard my screams if disbelief......

dancj

02-22-2006, 05:54 AM

True, but there's a difference between not liking a particular writer's work on a given piece vs. deciding that you don't like anything the writer likes beforehand and therefore don't give each additional project a chance.

Not saying that's what's happening, just pointing out that a bias can affect an opinion.

I won't buy what he writes, because I don't enjoy his work. I see nothing wrong with that. It would be wrong if I started slagging off the work of his that I haven't read.

In the case above Matewan1990 was acting as though JulianPerez's opinons of a given Kurt Buseik story were more subjective because he likes Buseik's work, which is nonsense

Paragon

02-22-2006, 06:35 AM

I think this is the best format for the JLA (Big guns present, with other characters spiced in.) It has that flagship feel, with the large scale that the stories generally used. For that alone the series is worth it. the JLA is supposed to be the best.

Rock of ages was the highlight IMHO.

I have only one general complaint for this run: It felt very rushed to me. I really like Morrison, and when he takes more time to develop a story the results are best.

I just think he tried to put in too much good stuff at once.

Also, to me some characters were over-uber. Everybody was sort of always waiting for Supes to come along, and Batman was just a little too over the top at times.

Other than that this series is very good.

JulianPerez

02-22-2006, 10:12 AM

I think this is the best format for the JLA (Big guns present, with other characters spiced in.) It has that flagship feel, with the large scale that the stories generally used. For that alone the series is worth it. the JLA is supposed to be the best.

I'm not certain I agree with this sentiment. While overall I like Morrison's JLA, his roster left something to be desired.

Having the founding members of the Justice League constitute the core of the group, however, was a wonderful touch, and it was great to see someone remember that John Jones, Manhunter from Mars was a founding member of the Justice League, considering that he was absent from the title for hundreds of issues at a time.

(Or maybe I'm just crazy for those 1950s space age "demi-superheroes" that were space opera and superguys at the same time, like Adam Strange, John Jones, and Captain Comet!)

There were some members of the League, however, that were introduced that have no history with the group, that add nothing to group dynamic when they aren't an outright redundancy.

The Huntress would be "exhibit A." She steps on the toes of other "costumed athlete" members of the League, including Batman, Green Arrow, and Black Canary SIMULTANEOUSLY. Without the Earth-2 concept...why does this character exist, again? Black Canary is just as good a choice, and at least she has history with the League; who can forget that story where she leaves Earth-2 for Earth-1 to be with her love, Green Arrow? (sniff)

A stoner friend of mine once said that "why did Grant Morrison mess around with some angel dude instead of bringing back Hawkman like he was supposed to?" Zauriel, particularly with the concept of the "Angel-Mind," was interesting in many ways (he's close personal friends with GOD - that's kind of trippy), but there's no topping the Hawks.

There are few characters I hate in the universe more than Plastic Man. Earlier in this thread I compared Batman to Shatner. If Batman is Shatner, then Plastic Man is Jar-Jar Binks: a pain-in-the-ass "comic relief," but comic relief in the rage-inducing tradition of Scrappy-Doo, Snarf, and the Wonder Twins. Nothing is less funny than a guy desperately trying real hard to get a laugh with inane pop culture references that all look dated now (who cares anymore about David Copperfield and Claudia Schiffer?). Batman was far funnier by accident in this run than Plastic Man was on purpose. Also, there was no excuse for his presence, because Elongated Man was a leaguer and a character a lot of people like. Why not go with a guy with history?

Barda was an intriguing choice, but she was underused and never really did anything cool. Barda, who once crushed an entire watchtower with her bare fists when asked for identification: "You pompous GNATS! I'll see you in HELL!" was the calm, more level headed of the New Gods, which is a mischaracterization. Her molecule-circuitry costume never saw utility, and the many functions of her Kirby gadget Club (antigravity, nerve beam, homing beacon, etc.) never saw any use. Heck, think about all the jokes that could come from a giant muscular woman on a superhero team ("Hey Barda, anybody mistake you for a man?" "Anybody ever mistake YOU?" Ha ha ha ha - this just writes itself, doesn't it?) At least Giffen thought to give her bunny slippers, which was very cute.

I didn't like Steel, but perhaps this is just my kneejerk, unthinking, deeply rooted loathing of anything Post-Crisis Superman. I am willing to concede he might be a great character, but I can't accept his existence at an emotional level.

Orion on the other hand, was grossly mischaracterized. In Kirby, Orion was a lonely figure isolated from others by his killer urges, an honorable but haunted fighter. Grant and Waid had him as a frothy-mouthed goon, Wolverine with a Mother Box, which is a disservice to Orion's complicated views on life and warfare. Having him be a "loner that respects only his rules" also is a mischaracterization; Orion was not only the ultimate warrior in the sense that he loved to fight like a moth loves fire, but because he did as he was told, by Highfather, the Source, whomever.

Expletive Deleted

02-22-2006, 10:22 AM

The Huntress would be "exhibit A." She steps on the toes of other "costumed athlete" members of the League, including Batman, Green Arrow, and Black Canary SIMULTANEOUSLY. Without the Earth-2 concept...why does this character exist, again? Black Canary is just as good a choice, and at least she has history with the League; who can forget that story where she leaves Earth-2 for Earth-1 to be with her love, Green Arrow? (sniff)Black Canary didn't fit the correct archetype.

With his "Big Sixteen" line-up, Morrison was going for a direct correlation between the JLA and the Greek gods. Superman was Zeus, Batman was Hades, Wonder Woman was Hera, Flash was Hermes, Green Lantern was Apollo, Aquaman was Poseidon, Plastic Man was Dionysus, Orion was Ares, Oracle and J'Onn were each aspects of Athena, Barda was Demeter, Steel was Hephaestus, Zauriel was Eros/Aphrodite, and Huntress was Artemis.

Nobody else, with the possible exception of Green Arrow (who'd already been written out of the series), would've fit.

JulianPerez

02-22-2006, 10:33 AM

Black Canary didn't fit the correct archetype.

With his "Big Sixteen" line-up, Morrison was going for a direct correlation between the JLA and the Greek gods. Superman was Zeus, Batman was Hades, Wonder Woman was Hera, Flash was Hermes, Green Lantern was Apollo, Aquaman was Poseidon, Plastic Man was Dionysus, Orion was Ares, Oracle and J'Onn were each aspects of Athena, Barda was Demeter, Steel was Hephaestus, Zauriel was Eros/Aphrodite, and Huntress was Artemis.

Yeah, that's another thing I didn't like about Morrison's League - the mythic pretention. Don't you just hate that one guy in your Humanities class that relates every single assignment to Joseph Campbell's Heroes' Journey? It's worse than those kids who somehow make every single sociology paper about 70s rock music. While Joseph Campbell is very insightful and intelligent, his way of looking at myth is just one way of looking at it, by asking what psychology has to say and asking interdisciplinary questions.

But Joey Campbell is perfect for lazy students of myth because you don't have to do any real thinking or analysis; he gives you a formula, all you have to do is plug numbers in it.

Which is exactly what Grant did: take a formula, and plug numbers into it.

God, do I ever have a feeling this is going to derail this thread entirely.

Here's the thing...Barda ISN'T Demeter! Superman ISN'T Zeus!

Kurt Busiek once said, and I agree with him, that writing heroes as modern mythology is putting the cart before the horse: just tell good stories and write them as you would characters in any other type of story, and the mythic nature of it will just take care of itself.

Expletive Deleted

02-22-2006, 10:44 AM

Eh, it's a matter of preference. I liked the layer of symbolism. Grant's run was all about the JLA as big, god-like figures. The elite. The pinnacle. Drawing parallels between them and actual mythic figures was a fun way of reinforcing that idea.Here's the thing...Barda ISN'T Demeter! Superman ISN'T Zeus!Of course not. And he didn't write them as those figures. He just used that as the rationale for picking his team of characters.

Which I don't particularly have a problem with, since he came up with decent in-story reasons for each selection and the mix of traditional and non-traditional JLA characters made for some good chemistry.

Tobias March

02-22-2006, 10:51 AM

Agreed. The use of the Greek pantheon as a model was less of a direct comparison as much as the writer was pointing out the level of power and importance held by the JLA in the world. Superman isn't Zeus, but he's got the sun fizzing away in his veins :)

dazzler_slave

02-22-2006, 10:53 AM

While overall I like Morrison's JLA, his roster left something to be desired.
I actualy think his roster was pretty darn good. Including the Big 7 was a nice change back in 1997 since we had just come off a League who's core members were Obsidian, Atom Smasher, Metamorpho and Ice Maiden. I am a huge fan of smaller characters, but it was time to shake things up. As to, the other 7 additions later on, my opinions vary.

Having the founding members of the Justice League constitute the core of the group, however, was a wonderful touch, and it was great to see someone remember that John Jones, Manhunter from Mars was a founding member of the Justice League, considering that he was absent from the title for hundreds of issues at a time.
Was J'onn really absent for hundreds of issues at a time? I mean JLOA was 261 issues, Justice League was 119 and JLA was 125. There is not much room for a major character to be missing for hundreds of issues. IIRC he was absent for a fairly long period during JLOA's run, but he was a member of Justice league for the first 60 issues or so before moving over to Justice League Task Force (Still a JL team) for its entire run. Then he returned immediately in JLA, only leaving the team for a stretch during Kelly's run. I would actually say that he is the most consistent member of the Justice League.

There were some members of the League, however, that were introduced that have no history with the group, that add nothing to group dynamic when they aren't an outright redundancy.

The Huntress would be "exhibit A." She steps on the toes of other "costumed athlete" members of the League, including Batman, Green Arrow, and Black Canary SIMULTANEOUSLY. Without the Earth-2 concept...why does this character exist, again? Black Canary is just as good a choice, and at least she has history with the League; who can forget that story where she leaves Earth-2 for Earth-1 to be with her love, Green Arrow? (sniff)
While I agree that Huntress and Batman don't really both need to be on the team, she is not as much of a left field choice as one may think. She has been a member before. She was a part time member of the JLA during the Giffen run on the title, most notably during the KooeyKooeyKooey storyline. Maybe Morrison wasn't interested in Black Canary but was interested in Huntress? Plus, she was the representative of the Greek Goddess Artemis, a role Black Canary could not have filled. Remember his 14 members represented the Greek Pantheon. As to why this character existed after Crisis, well, I guess people realized that Huntress was a good name and she had a cool look so they updated her for post Crisis continuity. There is nothing wrong with that.

A stoner friend of mine once said that "why did Grant Morrison mess around with some angel dude instead of bringing back Hawkman like he was supposed to?" Zauriel, particularly with the concept of the "Angel-Mind," was interesting in many ways (he's close personal friends with GOD - that's kind of trippy), but there's no topping the Hawks.
The answer to this one is simple. At the time, Morrison wanted to use Hawkman, but DC had said that his character was too messed up and convoluted after 3 failed incarnatons in the last 10 years that all contradicted each other. Therefore, Morrison created Zauriel as his replacement Hawkman. It wasn't until years later that Geoff Johns was able to fix Hawkman to DC's satisfaction.

There are few characters I hate in the universe more than Plastic Man. Earlier in this thread I compared Batman to Shatner. If Batman is Shatner, then Plastic Man is Jar-Jar Binks: a pain-in-the-ass "comic relief," but comic relief in the rage-inducing tradition of Scrappy-Doo, Snarf, and the Wonder Twins. Nothing is less funny than a guy desperately trying real hard to get a laugh with inane pop culture references that all look dated now (who cares anymore about David Copperfield and Claudia Schiffer?). Batman was far funnier by accident in this run than Plastic Man was on purpose. Also, there was no excuse for his presence, because Elongated Man was a leaguer and a character a lot of people like. Why not go with a guy with history?
This we agree on. I hate Plastic Man too, and would have much preferred Elongated Man, but I guess Morrison really liked him.

Barda was an intriguing choice, but she was underused and never really did anything cool. Barda, who once crushed an entire watchtower with her bare fists when asked for identification: "You pompous GNATS! I'll see you in HELL!" was the calm, more level headed of the New Gods, which is a mischaracterization. Her molecule-circuitry costume never saw utility, and the many functions of her Kirby gadget Club (antigravity, nerve beam, homing beacon, etc.) never saw any use. Heck, think about all the jokes that could come from a giant muscular woman on a superhero team ("Hey Barda, anybody mistake you for a man?" "Anybody ever mistake YOU?" Ha ha ha ha - this just writes itself, doesn't it?) At least Giffen thought to give her bunny slippers, which was very cute.
I also agree that Barda was sorely underused. The problem with a lot of her abilities that you mentioned, such as her gadgets and suit is that they have not really been used for many many years. Morrison was not the first writer to write Barda as nothing more than a strongwoman.

I didn't like Steel, but perhaps this is just my kneejerk, unthinking, deeply rooted loathing of anything Post-Crisis Superman. I am willing to concede he might be a great character, but I can't accept his existence at an emotional level.
Steel is an awesome character. He is one of the least stereotypical black characters at DC and he has so much potential. I am so glad Morrison explored some of that potential.

Orion on the other hand, was grossly mischaracterized. In Kirby, Orion was a lonely figure isolated from others by his killer urges, an honorable but haunted fighter. Grant and Waid had him as a frothy-mouthed goon, Wolverine with a Mother Box, which is a disservice to Orion's complicated views on life and warfare. Having him be a "loner that respects only his rules" also is a mischaracterization; Orion was not only the ultimate warrior in the sense that he loved to fight like a moth loves fire, but because he did as he was told, by Highfather, the Source, whomever.
Again, Orion had been written as an angry violent goon for quite awhle before Morrison used him. Take a look at the last time he was a member of the JLA (back when he thought Mr. Miracle was dead and he and Lightray took Scott's place on the team). Morrison was just continuing a characterization that had already been established.

I agree that Morrison's run isn't for everybody, but I think it was one of the best runs on JLA I have ever read. I rank it up there with the Giffen/De Matteis era, the Satellite Era and the JLA Detroit! (Kidding about that last one! :D ) He brought some incredible action and tension to the title, pitted them against some truly unique threats and completely gave the title an adrenaline boost after quite a few years of mediocrity.

JulianPerez

02-22-2006, 11:07 AM

Again, Orion had been written as an angry violent goon for quite awhle before Morrison used him. Take a look at the last time he was a member of the JLA (back when he thought Mr. Miracle was dead and he and Lightray took Scott's place on the team). Morrison was just continuing a characterization that had already been established.

This is the cookie jar defense - "hey, he was doing it TOO!" True, Orion might have been mischaracterized for some time, but that doesn't mean that it was acceptable for Grant and Waid to do it, either. Kirby gave us the definitive characterization for these characters. When you are a professional, you are obligated to do research on the characters you write.

Also...why is it the Huntress fits the Artemis warrior woman archetype, but Wonder Woman and Black Canary, two characters that are both tough chick types, DON'T?

Is it because the Huntress uses a crossbow? Seriously, is that why? Oy.

LtMarvel

02-22-2006, 12:40 PM

Dude? How can anyone hate Plastic Man?

Expletive Deleted

02-22-2006, 12:49 PM

Is it because the Huntress uses a crossbow? Seriously, is that why?It doesn't hurt.

Besides which Artemis is the proud, angry, and vengeful goddess of the hunt. That fits Huntress to a tee, I'd say.

matewan1990

02-22-2006, 03:03 PM

I won't buy what he writes, because I don't enjoy his work. I see nothing wrong with that. It would be wrong if I started slagging off the work of his that I haven't read.

In the case above Matewan1990 was acting as though JulianPerez's opinons of a given Kurt Buseik story were more subjective because he likes Buseik's work, which is nonsense

Dancj, JulianPerez's opinions are biased, because it says so in his signature line. It's the same way if you're an elected official and have to make a decision on something you're involved with. You recuse yourself because your opinion is biased.
That's all I was saying. No attacks meant.
But, you get your panties in a wad because I made one little statement about his opinion.
If my signature line says "Favorite writer: Kurt Busiek," then do you think I'm going to say "Ah, that was the worst JLA storyline ever?" No.
Here's a hypothetical: Sorry, but if you were being selected for a jury that was presiding over a case involving Kurt Busiek, and someone found the signature line to say "Favorite Writer: Kurt Busiek," do you think they'd still let you sit on the jury? No.
Point proven.

JulianPerez

02-22-2006, 03:19 PM

Dude? How can anyone hate Plastic Man?

Did I say I hated Plastic Man? Because I meant to say I LOATHE him with every fiber of my being - at least the spastic, terminally unfunny panel-hog that usurped Ralph's seat in JLA.

I must sound like a parrot that says SQUAWK! INCONSTANT CHARACTERIZATION! SQUAWK! INCONSTANT CHARACTERIZATION! over and over, and I hate to say it one more time, however...from Jack Cole to Roy Thomas, Plastic Man was a level-headed guy. He was a straight man to a surreal world, the handsome Zeppo Marx to Woozy Winks's Groucho. Where does all this "cut up" nonsense come from?

Here's a hypothetical: Sorry, but if you were being selected for a jury that was presiding over a case involving Kurt Busiek, and someone found the signature line to say "Favorite Writer: Kurt Busiek," do you think they'd still let you sit on the jury? No.
Point proven.

"You know the best part about being the best loved guy in comics? Nobody ever checks your backyard for bodies."

Wow, that'd be one hilarious case.

ME: "Hmmm...on the one hand, his fingerprints WERE on that chainsaw. On the other hand...he did write AVENGERS FOREVER."

We the People find the defendant GUILTY...

GUILTY of writing one kickass JLA arc, that is!

dazzler_slave

02-22-2006, 03:30 PM

This is the cookie jar defense - "hey, he was doing it TOO!" True, Orion might have been mischaracterized for some time, but that doesn't mean that it was acceptable for Grant and Waid to do it, either. Kirby gave us the definitive characterization for these characters. When you are a professional, you are obligated to do research on the characters you write.

Also...why is it the Huntress fits the Artemis warrior woman archetype, but Wonder Woman and Black Canary, two characters that are both tough chick types, DON'T?

Is it because the Huntress uses a crossbow? Seriously, is that why? Oy.
But see, here's the thing. At what point is it still writing a character wrong and when does it become an evolution of the character? He has been angry dude for most of the time since Crisis so I think by this point rage is a character trait for him. Just because Jack Kirby created him doesn't mean the character stays stagnant.

JulianPerez

02-22-2006, 03:43 PM

But see, here's the thing. At what point is it still writing a character wrong and when does it become an evolution of the character? He has been angry dude for most of the time since Crisis so I think by this point rage is a character trait for him. Just because Jack Kirby created him doesn't mean the character stays stagnant.

My response is twofold:

1) Orion and the other Fourth World characters are a very, very special instance because they come from a work with a single creative visionary behind it, and because they come from a story that was meant to have an ending that it never got. The Fourth World was a deeply personal Kirby work that no later writer has ever been able to capture or evoke the same feeling; the entire concept of Marvel comics is that people can write in Stan Lee's style. Even my hero, Stainless Steve Englehart, possibly the greatest superhero writer that ever lived, couldn't QUITE do it come his MISTER MIRACLE, and if Steve can't do it, nobody can. The Fourth World was something that was meant to have a beginning, middle, and end. Unfortunately, the Fourth World never got that ending.

2) I agree with you - characters SHOULD grow and change. Look how fascinating the decade-long development of Hawkeye is, for example. But Orion was much more complicated under Kirby than under Waid.

Paul McEnery

02-22-2006, 04:01 PM

Gingold

02-22-2006, 07:36 PM

The whole "pantheon" thing was never referenced directly in the comic, it just showed up in some interviews, so it's not as though it really affected what was going on in the series. "Camelot" references came up as often as the gods of Olympus bit. I think Morrison was trying to give a sense of the League as mythic, legendary type figures without it being too specific.

As for the expanded line-up choices- I liked them quite a bit. He could've simply rehashed the satellite League, but that would've been repetitive. The nice thing about the Morrison JLA was the fact that it seemed classic and iconic, yet cotemporary and fresh at the same time. I bow to nobody in my love of Elongated Man, Atom, Zatanna and Black Canary, but simply returning all those guys would have turned the book into old-timers day. And since Katar was considered "radioactive" and Ollie was dead at the time, it would've been a half-assed reunion anyway- sort of like Paul and Ringo reuniting with a couple of other guys. Instead we get a line-up that is evocative of the old League (archer, scientist, guy with wings, stretching guy, etc.), but stands on its own.

One of the coolest things about the JLA is how membership elevates the status of the heroes who become members. It was cool to see Huntress, Steel, and Zauriel play in the big leagues, and to see Plastic Man be recognized as the iconic hero that he is. Playing Plas as a Jim Carrey surrogate may not have been to everyone's liking, but I enjoyed it, and thought it brought a sense of fun to the book. (And it's likely that Plas's return to prominence in JLA is indirectly responsible for both the great Kyle Baker series and the publication of the Plastic Man Archives). I thought Barda was unfortunately underutilized, but it was cool to see her join on her own, instead of simply being "Mr. Miracle's wife".

berk

02-22-2006, 07:52 PM

But see, here's the thing. At what point is it still writing a character wrong and when does it become an evolution of the character? He has been angry dude for most of the time since Crisis so I think by this point rage is a character trait for him. Just because Jack Kirby created him doesn't mean the character stays stagnant.(edited out some irrelevant comments)

Remaining true to the essence of a character doesn't equate to keeping that character stagnant. And arbitrarily turning a character into a caricature for cynical commercial reasons does not constitute evolution. The Morrison/Waid Orion has nothing in common with Kirby's creation other than name, visual appearance and official back-story. Morrson's admitted as much himself; he wasn't "evolving" the character, he was following a misguided editorial dictat, against his own inclinations, to write Orion as a stupid, thuggish brute (mainly, I believe, to provide a contrast to more popular heroes like Superman, batman, WW, etc).

The New Gods should never have been incorporated into the DCU, in spite of their early appearances in Kirby's Jimmy Olsen. They don't work there, they don't make sense there - as that "there" is envisaged by DC s editors and (apparently) writers. But that's another question.

dancj

02-23-2006, 05:53 AM

Dancj, JulianPerez's opinions are biased, because it says so in his signature line. It's the same way if you're an elected official and have to make a decision on something you're involved with. You recuse yourself because your opinion is biased.
That's all I was saying. No attacks meant.
But, you get your panties in a wad because I made one little statement about his opinion.
If my signature line says "Favorite writer: Kurt Busiek," then do you think I'm going to say "Ah, that was the worst JLA storyline ever?" No.
Here's a hypothetical: Sorry, but if you were being selected for a jury that was presiding over a case involving Kurt Busiek, and someone found the signature line to say "Favorite Writer: Kurt Busiek," do you think they'd still let you sit on the jury? No.
Point proven.

Not at all. If Kurt Buseik is his brother, that is likely to bias whether he likes a story. If he likes Buseik because he likes his stories that's not really bias - that's just a product of his experiences enjoying Buseik's stories.

Dan

Patient Boy

02-23-2006, 09:06 AM

Not at all. If Kurt Buseik is his brother, that is likely to bias whether he likes a story. If he likes Buseik because he likes his stories that's not really bias - that's just a product of his experiences enjoying Buseik's stories.

Dan

I love Kurt Busiek's stories too, but I'm willing to admit that Kurt's written stories that were mediocre at best before, something Julian Perez doesn't seem to be able to do.

matewan1990

02-23-2006, 09:38 AM

I love Kurt Busiek's stories too, but I'm willing to admit that Kurt's written stories that were mediocre at best before, something Julian Perez doesn't seem to be able to do.

Thank you very much.
Dancj, I proved my point, but you don't seem to get it.
I love Busiek's writing. I have since his days on Liberty Project, the Wonder Woman miniseries he did with Trina Robbins and the Red Tornado mini with Carmine Infantino. Since then, I've followed Busiek's stories wherever they've appeared. He does work that's better than most other writers, but this storyline was dragged out far too long and was boring.
When I said Julian Perez's opinion didn't count because he's biased, I based that on the fact that his signature line says Busiek is one of his favorite writers. Okay, if I already admit he's one of my favorite writers, just like with my "jury" analogy, then I'm biased from the start.
Dancj, you need to look at things factually and see that what I'm saying is true. It's not an attack on someone, just a statement of fact about an opinion.
Grant Morrison is one of my favorite writers. I love almost everything he's ever written. So, when I look at his work, I look at it with a biased eye and can't honestly say I could give an unbiased opinion.
That's what I'm saying about Julian Perez's statements. I'm not attacking Julian, although he does seem to think everything Busiek writes is Shakespeare.

Joe Rice

02-23-2006, 09:57 AM

Not sure if I buy it. It sounds a bit too much like when people tell me I only like something because Grant Morrison wrote it. I hate that. It's silly. I like it because I think it is good. And Grant Morrison just so happens to almost always write things (these days) I think are good. Nothing preplanned about it or anything.

I mean, look at Julian's entire list of favorite writers. There's a pattern there. He likes a certain "old school" style superhero genre writer. That's clearly what he likes, not some single person. He likes comics to be written like superhero comics, rather, DC superhero comics from the sixties and seventies. I may think it's dull as hell, but it's a legit take on the situation and shouldn't completely negate his opinion's worth.

I mean, yeah, I think he's a crazy wrongo, but his opinion isn't any more worthless than anyone else's.

JulianPerez

02-23-2006, 11:01 AM

Kurt fleshed a lot of stuff out and added some fun twists, but I'd say most of the worldbuilding was already done. Sheer tonnage of details is great, but the big stuff is more important.

True, most of the worldbuilding had been done in the space opera seventies, and particularly under Steve Englehart's run on GREEN LANTERN CORPS (and lest we forget, it was John Broome and Gil Kane who created the concept of Qward). However, the thing about Englehart's worldbuilding was that it was intriguing enough to make one want more. The Busiek arc though, says, "hey, want more? Here you go!" It fulfills the promise that good sequels (and serial fiction) keep: that of building up. In Busiek's case, it was showcasing the Qwardians in decline, and also connecting the CSA Earth to Qward.

I'm reminded of Busiek's THUNDERBOLTS, where in the 1990s, after hearing about it for DECADES since Roy Thomas, Busiek finally shows us Kosmos, home dimension of Kang the Conqueror's Growing Men. This is why fans make better writers than "jobbers" coming to comics from other kinds of fiction: a non-Avengers fan would not understand the burning desire to know what the deal is with a society that for decades was only mentioned in dialogue.

That's what I'm saying about Julian Perez's statements. I'm not attacking Julian, although he does seem to think everything Busiek writes is Shakespeare.

With respect, this is only a fair analysis if you haven't been watching my comments. While I admire Busiek for his knowledge and respect for comics history, his use of lesser villains, and his skill for characterization, I have occasionally stated there are many things by him I did not agree was that great.

For instance, did you see the thread where I called MARVELS "the Silver Age's Greatest Hits album," and said something to the effect that "it was a style over substance retread of a story made famous by a superstar artist, and if the book had been drawn by, say, Herb Trimpe, no one would have cared at all?"

(And for the record, at least to me, Alex Ross has a loooong way to go before he can equal Steve Rude's skill at painting. Alex Ross's work tends to be stiff; Steve can put power and action in his paintings.)

Also, witness this conversation on the CBR forums, where I say Busiek was completely and totally wrong and practiced bad writing, "lapse in skill" was one of the nicer things I said:

But isn't the error being talked about here the type that pops up in superhero universes all the time? When Kurt Busiek gave the Avengers a machine that would detect any incursions on Earth from the Negative Zone, I remember one person posting a question to him, stating that this would make any Fantastic Four writer's job harder because they now had to account for why the Avengers aren't reacting every time they want a story about Annihilus or whoever coming to our world. Busiek responded saying something along the lines of, "Why should it? For the duration of their story, they can just ignore and not mention the Avengers and whatever machines they have. It's what superhero comics have always done." I remember, upon reading that, realizing that he was absolutely right.

At this point, calling the absence of other superheroes a continuity error is like calling the characters' static ages a continuity error. It's accepted convention.

Then I said:

While I respect Kurt Busiek as the most talented writer of our generation, in this instance he is completely wrong. Just because something is a fantasy element does not mean that it can come and go when it is convenient for the writer. There OUGHT to be an explanation for why the Avengers don't participate in some form in any future Negative Zone story. If you create parameters for a situation, breaking them is bad writing.

The key word here is "verisimilitude."

If a writer wrote a story where criminals use radios for underwater work, and a reader (correctly) in a letter column points out that radios don't work underwater, the writer could not just dismiss this. As a result of poor research or willfull ignorance, for a moment we were drawn out of the reality of the story because the writer forgot to take something into account or got their facts wrong.

There is objective reality, and there is "story" reality, which is just as objective from the point of the view of the events and people in the story.

The more a writer is able to make us believe that events are truly taking place the better their writing is, and ignoring such a detail draws us out of the story. Thus, it is bad writing.

My hero, and Kurt Busiek's hero too, by all accounts, is Stainless Steve Englehart, who more than anyone else believed in the Marvel Universe, took it seriously, and treated it as if it was a real place. When the Avengers felt they were going to be battling the Kree, they made an attempt to contact Captain Marvel. It had nothing to do with the story and because of events in his own book it was not possible for Mar-Vell to appear, but it was a concession made to the fact that the Marvel Universe should feel real, and though it is a small detail, it vastly improved the story's entertainment value because of Steve thought it through.

This instance is a lapse in Busiek's usual skill for verisimilitude. In that same AVENGERS run, Busiek could have ignored the question of where the Quinjets come from. After all, if all Busiek was thinking was just the story and not its context in the Marvel Universe, he could have dodged that question entirely, because the only function the Quinjets provide in the story getting the Avengers from point A to point B. No. Instead, Busiek explained in a very well thought out manner, that the Quinjets were produced at a factory in Wakanda after the license was passed from Stark-Fujikawa Electronics.

The more a writer thinks something through, the better the story is. This dismissive - and rather patronizing handwave explanation (does anybody really NEED to be told it's all "just a story?") is unfair to readers.

Here's a question, though, for Morrison fans: what debt, if any, does Morrison owe his fellow JLA scribe, Steve Englehart? I mentioned earlier in this thread that the tendency of characters to say funny/witty things and not respond to the surreality or danger of a situation was something that was practiced by Englehart, even calling it "Englehartism." I don't read interviews by Morrison; does he mention Stainless Steve at any point?

Patient Boy

02-23-2006, 11:09 AM

Fair enough.

In any case, since Orion's characterisation during Morrison's JLA run was apparently an editorial mandate that would explain why his brutish behaviour meant his ass got beat in every one of his appearances Morrison wrote, right up until World War III. Morrison did the same thing with Wolverine in his X-Men run, but at least when Wolverine got beat down he managed to kick butt while he was going down.

And I don't necessarily see anything wrong with Plastic Man's characterisation. It seems that almost every stretchable character has a straight man personality in contrast (Elongated Man, Reed Richards). There's room enough for a bit of eccentricity there.

On a sidenote, I found this on Wikipedia regarding Elongated Man. I was not aware of this.

He was partially created by Julius Scharwtz, who noted he only created the character because he didn't realize DC Comics had acquired Plastic Man in 1956.

cmndob

02-23-2006, 11:54 AM

Yeah Ralph was a ripoff character, but then so was Cap Marvel. Overall I thought Morrison's JLA was great, and have collected much of it in issue form. I thought WWIII was great, and even if the only thing he did was create Prometheus that was friggin sweet. I never felt as though his "pantheon" ideas did anything to step on the stories and knock the reader over the head with his ideas, so it only served to help his creative direction. The inclusion of next gen heroes was generally well done, and even if Orion was mischaracterized it was great to see New God lore so prominent in the mainstream. Face it, thats the only way we're going to see this stuff and Maggedon was a true badass.

JulianPerez

02-23-2006, 02:11 PM

In any case, since Orion's characterisation during Morrison's JLA run was apparently an editorial mandate that would explain why his brutish behaviour meant his ass got beat in every one of his appearances Morrison wrote, right up until World War III. Morrison did the same thing with Wolverine in his X-Men run, but at least when Wolverine got beat down he managed to kick butt while he was going down.

Yeah, didn't you notice how Orion always got beat, whether it was by a giant starfish in Hudson Bay, or Wonder Woman? He was the Worf of JLA. So very different from the Orion in "The Glory Boat," described as "a veteran of a thousand battles," who singlehandedly dropped the entire Deep Six, whose movements were described as "quick as the snapping of a cobra" who failed to be surprised by Slig: "Good, but not good ENOUGH! You have to do better than that to surprise a COMBAT VETERAN!"

It doesn't make any sense to me - why write Orion as a mindless, angry war god? The whole Kyle Rainer thing makes sense in a perverse sort of way: the reason they won't bring back Hal Jordan, the one true Green Lantern, is because it would mean admitting a mistake.

However, if writing Orion as a giant goon really was an editorial mandate, add it to the list of "really awful stuff I can't really blame Morrison for, which actually improves my respect for him because he can work with it" right along with the aforementioned presence of gel-haired glamour boy Kyle Rainer (right there, the whole Olympus thing breaks down, with Kyle as Apollo - correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Apollo the god of intelligence? the irony is tragic), Superman's hideous mullet followed by the electrical period, Aquaman's hook hand and "angry" characterization, and his inability to use Hawkman.

And I don't necessarily see anything wrong with Plastic Man's characterisation. It seems that almost every stretchable character has a straight man personality in contrast (Elongated Man, Reed Richards). There's room enough for a bit of eccentricity there.

Perhaps, but that's not for Morrison to change - especially without any explanation. When Englehart gave Deadshot a new motif and a characterization centered on rage, hate, and unsubtle uses of power, it was done in a logical way: Deadshot after all, had been in prison for a very long time and had plenty of time to be bitter.

Plastic Man had very, very weird adventures, but he was never a "Jim Carrey on Crack" character.

shyguy

02-23-2006, 05:51 PM

I normally can't get enough Grant Morrison, but I think his JLA is the weakest material of his I've read (not that I've read everything that he's written).

I liked some of his additions to the League (well, I liked Steel, anyway...), but Plastic Man drives me absolutely insane. It wouldn't have been so bad if he had actually been funny, but he was just a crass, hideously unfunny Jim Carey. It's even more unfortunate when you consider that Morrison really can be funny when he's being subtle about it and not writing the JLA equivalent of people hitting each other with cream pies.

I also agree that the whole Greek mythology thing was just groan-inducing. Actually, I'm not even sure if Morrison doing it bothers me as much as the fact that after his JLA and Waid's Kingdom Come, no writer stop talking about how the DCU heroes are gods and icons and blah blah blah. They're guys who dress up in their pajamas and hit each other, for goodness' sake!

On the other hand, I think Earth2 was way better than anything he did in the book itself. It helps that he had excellent Frank Quitely art accompanying him on that one.

I got bored with Busiek's run halfway through, so I can't say much about that.

DCKar2nist

02-23-2006, 06:04 PM

I agree bringing back the long dead earth 3 (it was e3 right?) by having them exist in the antimonitors reality was genius but I hated the way the JLA just left an earth ruled by evil villains just becuase the odds were against them.

I HATED, HATED THAT.

Bat-Mite

02-23-2006, 06:07 PM

It was Earth 3, and...

It wasn't that the odds were against them. They just couldn't win, no matter what they did! It was impossible for the JLA to fix that world, because the anti-matter universe worked in such way. In fact, it was a lot happier staying as it was.

DCKar2nist

02-23-2006, 06:17 PM

Okay last question, was it ever explained how an earth came to be in the anti-monitors old "home"?

stealthwise

02-23-2006, 06:28 PM

Okay last question, was it ever explained how an earth came to be in the anti-monitors old "home"?

I just assumed it was because the anti-matter universe (being an entire universe in and of itself, vast and filled with planets) serves as a parallel to our own universe. The only major difference in terms of mirroring is that Qward is located where Oa should be.

noh-varr

02-23-2006, 07:28 PM

It doesn't make any sense to me - why write Orion as a mindless, angry war god? The whole Kyle Rainer thing makes sense in a perverse sort of way: the reason they won't bring back Hal Jordan, the one true Green Lantern, is because it would mean admitting a mistake.

However, if writing Orion as a giant goon really was an editorial mandate, add it to the list of "really awful stuff I can't really blame Morrison for, which actually improves my respect for him because he can work with it" right along with the aforementioned presence of gel-haired glamour boy Kyle Rainer (right there, the whole Olympus thing breaks down, with Kyle as Apollo - correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't Apollo the god of intelligence? the irony is tragic), Superman's hideous mullet followed by the electrical period, Aquaman's hook hand and "angry" characterization, and his inability to use Hawkman. .

Actually Morrison isn't a fan of "the one true green lantern" Hal. He's mentioned many times he doesn't get why we need to rehash the old guy when you have a new guy who can be much cooler.
I myself loved Kyle and I was and am a huge Hal fan but I never wanted to see Hal back again. Though I like seeing new stuff. Course I'm also glad Zauriel was made instead of bringing back Hawkman, the angel was just so damn cool!

Bat-Mite

02-23-2006, 07:37 PM

I have heard some people say that Zauriel only exists because Hawkman's continuity at the time was a complete nonsensical mess nobody wanted to touch with a ten foot broomstick, thanks to Zero Hour.

Of course, this can be just rumor.

DCKar2nist

02-23-2006, 08:15 PM

What does Zauriel have to do with Hawkman? Anyway I really Liked Zauriel anyone know where he's been latley?

Bat-Mite

02-23-2006, 09:32 PM

What does Zauriel have to do with Hawkman?

Morrison wanted a guy with wings for his pantheon. Hawkman was a mess, so... Zauriel.

dancj

02-24-2006, 05:46 AM

Morrison wanted a guy with wings for his pantheon. Hawkman was a mess, so... Zauriel.

Also, Morrison wanted to actually call him Hawkman, but the powers that be wouldn't let him

dancj

02-24-2006, 05:54 AM

Dancj, I proved my point, but you don't seem to get it.

No you didn't. You made a poor analogy. When you sit on a jury you are trying to work out whether there is proof someone did a crime. Using your predisposition to someone's work is completely irrelevant to it and a definite unfair bias.

When you read a comic, you just have to judge whether you enjoyed it or not. If someone likes Kurt Busiek then they are more likely to enjoy the story. They are also more likely to list as one of their favourite writers. The big thing here is that Busiek is their favorite writer because they like the stories, not the other way round.

I could list my favourite writers as being (off the top of my head and probably missing really important ones), Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Peter Milligan, JMS, Bendis, Brubaker based on the fact that I usually enjoy their work. I'm not biased in their favour though. Each story I read is taken on its own merits and each one of these writers has done stories I don't care for.[/QUOTE]

Patient Boy

02-24-2006, 06:34 AM

The whole Kyle Rainer thing makes sense in a perverse sort of way: the reason they won't bring back Hal Jordan, the one true Green Lantern, is because it would mean admitting a mistake.

I'd always thought most people were angry with the way Hal was treated was at least partially because the Green Lantern Corps got wiped out along the way. Hal might've been the best of them, but there were 3600 others backing him up. I don't recall the concept of there being "one true Green Lantern" existing prior to the creation of Kyle.

Bored at 3:00AM

02-24-2006, 01:56 PM

I'd always thought most people were angry with the way Hal was treated was at least partially because the Green Lantern Corps got wiped out along the way. Hal might've been the best of them, but there were 3600 others backing him up. I don't recall the concept of there being "one true Green Lantern" existing prior to the creation of Kyle.

The One, True Green Lantern shtick was always Guy Gardner's thing, never Hal's. Yeah, there were plenty of times where Hal was held up as the best and brightest of the Corps, but that boat sailed the moment Parallax got hold of him.

JulianPerez

02-24-2006, 02:32 PM

What does Zauriel have to do with Hawkman? Anyway I really Liked Zauriel anyone know where he's been latley?

The last time I saw Zauriel was in the amazing Geoff Johns's JSA, where he guest-starred to guide and aid the current Hawkgirl, Shayera. They have a "why do bad things happen to good people" conversation and then team up; this was during the RETURN OF HAWKMAN story.

I liked some things about Zauriel, however, it's probably good that he lays low for a few years; at the moment, in the post-DA VINCI CODE and Anne Rice saturated society, Angels and Demons and so forth are waaaaaay too trendy to possibly write about.

On the other hand, I think Earth2 was way better than anything he did in the book itself. It helps that he had excellent Frank Quitely art accompanying him on that one.

Oh, how right you are! Frank Quietly is an astounding artist. The most interesting thing about him is that you don't notice how great he is the first time you read his work, because he draws human figures in a quirky, acquired taste manner. The second time, though, you go back...and look at his frankly, incredibly complicated backgrounds.

I also agree that the whole Greek mythology thing was just groan-inducing. Actually, I'm not even sure if Morrison doing it bothers me as much as the fact that after his JLA and Waid's Kingdom Come, no writer stop talking about how the DCU heroes are gods and icons and blah blah blah. They're guys who dress up in their pajamas and hit each other, for goodness' sake!

I've NEVER agreed with those that claim that KINGDOM COME is a "great" miniseries - heck, I don't even think it was very GOOD, either. Take the overwrought, sledgehammer-subtle pretentious imagery, and combine that with the most cliche story elements ever conceived: old superheroes coming out of retirement, superheroes that previously had incorruptible characterizations start acting out of character and making dozens of moral compromises, Batman vs. Superman, and a dystopian future world. It's possibly the single most cliche story ever written. The self-importance made the entire work essentially humorless; they were so convinced they were doing something Big and Important, they forgot to give it the humor or warmth that made us all love these characters in the first place.

And frankly, I don't agree that Alex Ross is that great of an artist or painter, either. Gil Kane, for instance, made everything he drew magnificent and grand; Alex Ross draws everything photorealistic, but instead of projecting them with grandeuor he makes Hal Jordan looks like a guy in skintight pajamas. And he draws everything very stiffly. Compare his painted cover to the aforementioned Steve Rude's.

I mean, yeah, I think he's a crazy wrongo, but his opinion isn't any more worthless than anyone else's.

Hey, don't forget to call me "The Enemy," in a totally non-ironic way, like the Warren Ellis fans. Because if anyone deserves it, it's someone that shares different opinions about children's superhero funnybooks.

I just assumed it was because the anti-matter universe (being an entire universe in and of itself, vast and filled with planets) serves as a parallel to our own universe. The only major difference in terms of mirroring is that Qward is located where Oa should be.

This is one of those head clockingly obvious ideas that one wonders why nobody ever thought of it before Morrison did.

Another such head-clockingly obvious ideas? Janet van Dyne becoming Giant-Woman.

matewan1990

02-24-2006, 09:07 PM

No you didn't. You made a poor analogy. When you sit on a jury you are trying to work out whether there is proof someone did a crime. Using your predisposition to someone's work is completely irrelevant to it and a definite unfair bias.

When you read a comic, you just have to judge whether you enjoyed it or not. If someone likes Kurt Busiek then they are more likely to enjoy the story. They are also more likely to list as one of their favourite writers. The big thing here is that Busiek is their favorite writer because they like the stories, not the other way round.

I could list my favourite writers as being (off the top of my head and probably missing really important ones), Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Peter Milligan, JMS, Bendis, Brubaker based on the fact that I usually enjoy their work. I'm not biased in their favour though. Each story I read is taken on its own merits and each one of these writers has done stories I don't care for.[/QUOTE]

You don't have a clue, Dancj. Not a single clue. You prove my statement for me with your second paragraph. Then, you completely go further and add more evidence with your third statement here.
Having a favorite is being biased.
My jury analogy is completely accurate and you trying to say it isn't is completely idiotic.

Paul Newell

02-25-2006, 04:02 AM

Settle down guys and get back to discussing the topic...Not each other.

JulianPerez

02-25-2006, 03:32 PM

The One, True Green Lantern shtick was always Guy Gardner's thing, never Hal's. Yeah, there were plenty of times where Hal was held up as the best and brightest of the Corps, but that boat sailed the moment Parallax got hold of him.

Oh, man, the internet needs another "Kyle vs. Hal" shouting match like I need a canker sore. And it ought to be perfectly obvious whose side I'd take, anyway.

However, thanks are in order to the amazing Geoff Johns for his "way out" of the Parallax nonsense: Hal was possessed. Thus, he was not accountable for his actions as Parallax and does not have to incorporate moral responsibility for his lapse as a permanent, annoying part of his characterization - Hal doesn't have to be treated as "damaged goods" and he can be written as a gutsy, fearless supercop again.

It was just, right, and worthy of praise to return Hal Jordan to his rightful place in the DC Universe. I'm as annoyed as everyone else by the "revolving door of death," but here's the thing about Hal: he should never have died in the first place. Restoring him to life was not undoing a death, but correcting a mistake, putting right something that went wrong.

SUPERECWFAN1

02-25-2006, 05:57 PM

The 1st few arcs by Grant Morrison were fantastic. He really knew how to do the big epic storylines needed for the JLA big 7. The man made this team work and flow. Its just that like a lot of his work...the final storyline seems to be a let down.

I've had this problem with Morrison's "New X-Men " and his " World War III " arc in JLA. Its like he has all these big huge ideas to close a book out and it all comes crashin down. I really think he should have spent more time on that final JLA arc. And on New X-Men he should have left at #150.

His runs are great....but sadly his final arcs are a bit of a letdown.

SUPERECWFAN1

02-25-2006, 06:05 PM

Oh, man, the internet needs another "Kyle vs. Hal" shouting match like I need a canker sore. And it ought to be perfectly obvious whose side I'd take, anyway.

However, thanks are in order to the amazing Geoff Johns for his "way out" of the Parallax nonsense: Hal was possessed. Thus, he was not accountable for his actions as Parallax and does not have to incorporate moral responsibility for his lapse as a permanent, annoying part of his characterization - Hal doesn't have to be treated as "damaged goods" and he can be written as a gutsy, fearless supercop again.

In issue #9 its pretty much showed that Hal's got a hell of a long way to go to regain his trust by the new Corps members. The " watch your back " line makes it so. No one trusts him....possessed or not his ride is begining. He destroyed the Corps due to Parallax warping his mind more or less. Using his grief but he was in the drivers seat so as we saw against the new Tattoo Man , he has a lot of sins to make up for. ;)

It was just, right, and worthy of praise to return Hal Jordan to his rightful place in the DC Universe. I'm as annoyed as everyone else by the "revolving door of death," but here's the thing about Hal: he should never have died in the first place. Restoring him to life was not undoing a death, but correcting a mistake, putting right something that went wrong.

Hal to me should have stayed Parallax and not died. He should have been the guy who had became more than Green Lantern and would show up to test Kyle Rayner on occasion. Instead DC wanted Jordan as the Spectre and they killed what was good in a great villain like Parallax.

Hal had the whole " what happens when your entire world comes crashing down ?" feeling. That scene in Green Lantern 65# or 66# ( vol.2) where he's sitting on the dead ground of whjats Coast City wrapped in his own world dreaming of what a Coast City and his role of Green Lantern was sad. Had they stayed with the man who just wanted to set things right and clashed on things with other heroes....things would have been ok. Hal had the fall from grace line and could serve as a cautionary tale to Kyle.

Bored at 3:00AM

02-25-2006, 10:50 PM

Hal had the fall from grace line and could serve as a cautionary tale to Kyle.

Had the story of Hal's fall from grace made for a good story, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, Emerald Twilight and the various Parallax stories that followed it were mostly mediocre. Bad dialogue. Giant Plot Holes. Paperthin characerization. Hal's brief tenure as a villain could have been really interesting but they dropped the ball creatively on the concept.

cactusmaac

02-26-2006, 05:03 AM

The concept of a GL going rogue and becoming a villain was interesting, but Hal had too big a fanbase - and too unsatisfactory a story - for him to be it, since the urge to redeem him negated his evilness potential.

John Stewart or Alan Scott might have fit better in the Parallax role.

marshal99

02-26-2006, 09:46 AM

I liked Hal as Parallax , a tragic figure that is nether really a real hero nor true villain. He should have remained in and out of the DCU , unfortunately ,i don't think the DC editors knew what to do with him so they killed him off in Final night and decided to put him as spectre.
I enjoyed his Parallax appearances , and that green lantern annual where he swap timelines with Kyle.

Bored at 3:00AM

02-26-2006, 10:16 AM

Doug Strange

02-26-2006, 11:11 AM

Actually, I think Hal Jordan was the best choice for the Green Lantern to go rogue because he was considered the best and brightest of the Corps. And Mosaic had already given readers a taste of what a more overly villianous Hal could be like. Jordan's arrogance and ability to bluff his way through almost any situation made him a great potential villain, but it required a degree of depth and respect for the character that Marz was either incapable of delivering or unable to deliver due to the editorial requirements placed upon him.

I chalk both Parallax & The Spectre up as missed oportunities...No, the Spectre thing was just a bad idea from the get-go. Trying to combine concepts like that just muddies the waters and dilutes both. The Hal Jordan Spectre (and Hal Jordan in general) is the very epitome of continuity run amok.

The Spectre is a strong concept on its own, Hal Jordan WAS a strong concept on his own. Combining crap like this ruins the tapestry of the DCU and turns it into a very ugly quilt. More soap opera b.s.

SUPERECWFAN1

02-26-2006, 01:04 PM

Actually, I think Hal Jordan was the best choice for the Green Lantern to go rogue because he was considered the best and brightest of the Corps. And Mosaic had already given readers a taste of what a more overly villianous Hal could be like. Jordan's arrogance and ability to bluff his way through almost any situation made him a great potential villain, but it required a degree of depth and respect for the character that Marz was either incapable of delivering or unable to deliver due to the editorial requirements placed upon him.

I chalk both Parallax & The Spectre up as missed oportunities...

Hal had that Anakin Skywalker feeling. He was the Best Green Lantern. The most revered. THE LEGEND. And he turns dark over his tragedy. It was sad and I can see where Ron Marz wanted to do a longer based storyline with his downfall...to make it more impactful.

Since the storyline is being retconned somewhat by Johns....do ya think Ron could tell us what his original storyline idea and how he'd handle the turn in Hal Jordan ? I know he had to quicken his pace because DC wanted the ball being handed to Kyle Rayner at GL #50.

Mothmonsterman

02-26-2006, 01:54 PM

stealthwise

02-26-2006, 11:15 PM

Hal had that Anakin Skywalker feeling. He was the Best Green Lantern. The most revered. THE LEGEND. And he turns dark over his tragedy. It was sad and I can see where Ron Marz wanted to do a longer based storyline with his downfall...to make it more impactful.

Since the storyline is being retconned somewhat by Johns....do ya think Ron could tell us what his original storyline idea and how he'd handle the turn in Hal Jordan ? I know he had to quicken his pace because DC wanted the ball being handed to Kyle Rayner at GL #50.

I could see the original storyline, the GL Civil War, working if it lead to the eventual corruption of Hal, but I agree, they should taken far more time for it to occur. I know that Emerald Dawn pissed me off greatly at the time, and Kyle's initial story was too rushed and contrived to interest me. I still maintain that had Kyle been killed in his first encounter with Major Force and Alex had lived that she'd have made a much more interesting GL.

JulianPerez

02-27-2006, 02:06 AM

I could see the original storyline, the GL Civil War, working if it lead to the eventual corruption of Hal, but I agree, they should taken far more time for it to occur. I know that Emerald Dawn pissed me off greatly at the time, and Kyle's initial story was too rushed and contrived to interest me. I still maintain that had Kyle been killed in his first encounter with Major Force and Alex had lived that she'd have made a much more interesting GL.

Well, if that had been the case, we wouldn't have a GREAT MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF COMICS MISOGYNY, to make the marriage-minded Weisenger Lois Lane look like a feminist icon in comparison.

I share your view of EMERALD DAWN: erasing alpha male Jordan's fearless, competent characterization retroactively with drunk driving charges, all the while having EMERALD TWILIGHT chugging down the pipeline a little later like an oversized turd squeezing through the pipes of a septic tank..all of it felt like the comics equivalent of a political smear campaign ("Hal Jordan is a drunk! I'm Kyle Rayner, and I approved this message.")

Here's the inherent problem behind the Ron Marz Green Lantern run: It destroyed; it tore down and shredded the Green Lantern Corps (possibly the most mindblowing concept in comics history - my favorites are the one that is an intelligent virus), the Guardians, the Manhunters, the Weaponeers of Qward and so forth, wrecking it all, and replacing it...with absolutely nothing. Off the top of my head, I can't name a single Kyle Rayner villain possessing any degree of memorability. I can't name a single Kyle Rayner supporting cast member. I can't name a single idea that was introduced in the Kyle Rayner years that was even marginally intriguing - wait, one idea was trippy: the Green Knight, a Daxamite Green Lantern in the Middle Ages. But, because it was too good an idea to keep, they made it simultaneously a hoax, dream, and imaginary story.

If you are going to tear something down, replace it with something equally intriguing. When Green Lantern was resurrected in the 1950s by the incredible John Broome, he didn't go for the "first comes death, then life, then power" explanation, replacing it with an oath of equal poetry (which rumor has it was actually written by science fiction great Alfred Bester). Green Lantern was given the concept of the Guardians, "energy twinning," Carol Ferris, Pieface, his three Kennedy-esque brothers, a slick Gil Kane costume that improved vastly over the original, and villains like Sinestro and Sonar.

However, there is something very uplifting to learn that Jim Owlsley, the guy responsible for EMERALD DAWN, later changed his name to Christopher Priest and started writing possibly the greatest Marvel Comic of the 1990s, his BLACK PANTHER run. If he can improve so dramatically, there is hope for everybody. Including all of mankind.

Getting back to the topic of this particular thread, Kyle was a poor substitute for any other Green Lantern in the League. Kyle's characterization started out as being "the rookie," but here's the thing about being a rookie: eventually, you stop being a rookie. I suspect Grant, and later Waid, kept playing the Rookie Card because that's essentially all Kyle had to offer besides hair gel. Eventually, if you fight an invasion by angels enough times, you stop being the one to go "whoa."

dancj

02-27-2006, 06:02 AM

You don't have a clue, Dancj. Not a single clue. You prove my statement for me with your second paragraph. Then, you completely go further and add more evidence with your third statement here.
Having a favorite is being biased.
My jury analogy is completely accurate and you trying to say it isn't is completely idiotic.

Easy tiger! It's okay to disagree without getting personal

stealthwise

02-27-2006, 02:09 PM

Well, if that had been the case, we wouldn't have a GREAT MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF COMICS MISOGYNY, to make the marriage-minded Weisenger Lois Lane look like a feminist icon in comparison.

I don't consider it to be that harshly misogynist, but it comes across as lazy writing. The old "let's have a loved one for the hero to mourn," which has been around even before Uncle Ben kicked the can.

I share your view of EMERALD DAWN: erasing alpha male Jordan's fearless, competent characterization retroactively with drunk driving charges, all the while having EMERALD TWILIGHT chugging down the pipeline a little later like an oversized turd squeezing through the pipes of a septic tank..all of it felt like the comics equivalent of a political smear campaign ("Hal Jordan is a drunk! I'm Kyle Rayner, and I approved this message.")

Actually, I meant to originally post Emerald Twilight, as I thought that Emerald Dawn wasn't that bad. It doesn't really do much for Jordan's heroic persona, but it did add some layers of complexity that didn't seem to be there. At least, that's what I thought when I read it at age nine. Now, I'd rather see it as an "Ultimate" version of the character.

Here's the inherent problem behind the Ron Marz Green Lantern run: It destroyed; it tore down and shredded the Green Lantern Corps (possibly the most mindblowing concept in comics history - my favorites are the one that is an intelligent virus), the Guardians, the Manhunters, the Weaponeers of Qward and so forth, wrecking it all, and replacing it...with absolutely nothing. Off the top of my head, I can't name a single Kyle Rayner villain possessing any degree of memorability. I can't name a single Kyle Rayner supporting cast member. I can't name a single idea that was introduced in the Kyle Rayner years that was even marginally intriguing - wait, one idea was trippy: the Green Knight, a Daxamite Green Lantern in the Middle Ages. But, because it was too good an idea to keep, they made it simultaneously a hoax, dream, and imaginary story.

If you are going to tear something down, replace it with something equally intriguing. When Green Lantern was resurrected in the 1950s by the incredible John Broome, he didn't go for the "first comes death, then life, then power" explanation, replacing it with an oath of equal poetry (which rumor has it was actually written by science fiction great Alfred Bester). Green Lantern was given the concept of the Guardians, "energy twinning," Carol Ferris, Pieface, his three Kennedy-esque brothers, a slick Gil Kane costume that improved vastly over the original, and villains like Sinestro and Sonar.

However, there is something very uplifting to learn that Jim Owlsley, the guy responsible for EMERALD DAWN, later changed his name to Christopher Priest and started writing possibly the greatest Marvel Comic of the 1990s, his BLACK PANTHER run. If he can improve so dramatically, there is hope for everybody. Including all of mankind.

Getting back to the topic of this particular thread, Kyle was a poor substitute for any other Green Lantern in the League. Kyle's characterization started out as being "the rookie," but here's the thing about being a rookie: eventually, you stop being a rookie. I suspect Grant, and later Waid, kept playing the Rookie Card because that's essentially all Kyle had to offer besides hair gel. Eventually, if you fight an invasion by angels enough times, you stop being the one to go "whoa."

I agree with all of the above. I think that DC really dropped the ball with how they handled the GL Corps and Kyle's character, but I'm glad to see them rectify their mistakes now.

Grizsly

02-27-2006, 02:40 PM

handOFfate

02-27-2006, 05:08 PM

I can't believe that people still have these long arguments about Hal/Kyle. What's done is done, and DC has gone a long way to rectify earlier mistakes. Parallex is a seperate entity, Kilowag and Sinestro is still alive, and Hal is Green Lantern again. Kyle's not a rookie anymore, and he has his own series. The Corps are back and have their own series. Seriously, this is as good as the GLs are ever going to get.

Mothmonsterman

02-27-2006, 05:58 PM

Green Lantern was given the concept of the Guardians, "energy twinning," Carol Ferris, Pieface, his three Kennedy-esque brothers, a slick Gil Kane costume that improved vastly over the original, and villains like Sinestro and Sonar.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but almost everything you just listed isn't remotely memorable to anybody but hardcore silver age Hal Jordan fans.

JulianPerez

02-27-2006, 06:16 PM

Grant Morrison's JLA holds a high place in my lists, and it really does read like a big long action movie - a perfect way to handle characters like the big seven, in my opinion, especially since most/all of them had their own series (sometimes more than one) in which their character could be explored with more depth - in JLA they were larger than life, dealing with the ultimate threats, and always pulled it off in clever ways.

I don't agree with the description of the JLA as a "big, long action movie." Action movies tend to be films where the heroes achieve victory through overwhelming applications of power: Steven Segal whips out his uzis and his aikido moves to save Alaska, for example, in ON DEADLY GROUND. In Morrison's JLA, however, the characters achieved victory by using their intelligence; there was never a battle where a character just coldcocks another and achieves victory through beating up another guy.

If Grant Morrison deserves credit, it is by making the characters act intelligently. This always provides a more satisfying resolution because it's leses likely we see it coming. The single greatest difference between comic book heroes (particularly Superman) under good writers and comic book heroes under bad writers is that heroes under good writers tend to use their noodles.

The moment I realized that Grant was absolutely in the spirit of these characters was when he had Superman figure out the identity of the Hyperclan as well as deduce the fact that the Kryptonite was psychosomatic. Way to go, Grant! He remembered that Superman is also mentally Super, not just physically.

I feel very sorry for those that did not experience the first Morrison arc when it came out, because now the ending about the true identity of the Hyperclan is blown for them. But what a moment that was.

As for your choice of the Giffen/DeMatteis League...well, obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but I found these books excreable and annoying. Characters stand around saying things out of character for them in order to get cheap laughs at the expense of beloved characters. On the topic of superhero intelligence, it was shocking to see Captain Marvel, a hero that once outsold Superman, reduced to the role of grovelling rookie. A character with Captain Marvel's gravitas deserves to be written with more dignity than that; the Big Red Cheese is smarter than that. He has the WISDOM OF SOLOMON, for Kirby's Sake!

And don't get me started on his characterization of Batman. Comics historians will recall this comic as being the exact starting point of "Bat-Dick." His underutilization of Black Canary (did she ever DO anything?) his humiliating mischaracterization of Blue Beetle as a paunchy, scheming loser - a character created by Ditko as being a daredevil, laughing crimebuster in the tradition of Spider-Man.

How did they go from the Sattelite League...to THIS?

But I will give Giffen credit for one thing: he used Guy Gardner, a character that we the reader absolutely hate...but that the characters in the book ALSO hate. This is pure genius. As opposed to Plastic Man, a character that we hate, but who everyone in the book finds so "funny" and "endearing."

I can't believe that people still have these long arguments about Hal/Kyle. What's done is done, and DC has gone a long way to rectify earlier mistakes. Parallex is a seperate entity, Kilowag and Sinestro is still alive, and Hal is Green Lantern again. Kyle's not a rookie anymore, and he has his own series. The Corps are back and have their own series. Seriously, this is as good as the GLs are ever going to get.

I'm very, very pleased to agree with you.

Geoff Johns, that genius, did the impossible and actually made me LIKE Kyle Rayner, and further, restored the imaginative concepts that were present in Green Lantern before Ron Marz tore it apart, and further, restored the character of Hal Jordan in such a way that he can once again be accepted as a heroic character.

Oh, and we've got Sinestro back. This is the cherry on the sundae here, but I've never been this excited about Green Lantern since Englehart was writing it.

Ignorant people that seek to dismiss love of great writers of the past as nothing more than nostalgia, say the Silver Age is when you are ten (which together with "hey, times change" constitute the two most annoying things ever said); actually, where Green Lantern is concerned, the Silver Age is the Age of NOW. Or at least as long as Johns stays on the book.

Life don't get much better than this. Thanks, Geoff Johns!