Green Arrow: Year 1 #1

[Volk1]

SPOILERS!



Where are all the Ollie Queen fans?!:confused:

Can't do a thorough synopsis because I already let a pal borrow the issue, but Oliver is pretty much the poster-boy of the rich playboy and adrenaline junkie who takes risks because he has nothing else to do. We start off with him and his associate Hackett mountain climbing (like Mt. Everest or something) .

After a near fatal accident, Hackett tells Ollie that Ollie's empty, that he's searching for something meaningful but can't find it in his life.

Back in Star City, there's an auction being held. Howard Hill's famous bow-and-arrows are up for auction. Bidding starts at $1,000. Ollie bids "One Hundred Thousand Dollars!!!" :) . He gets them.

Hackett and Ollie are now taking a yacht to Fiji where Hackett has a shady business deal going on. Ollie wasn't supposed to go but after he makes a fool of himself at the auction (being drunk, making fun of the rich and the cocaine snorters at the same time, tripping on the microphone wire) he feels like he needs to leave the country for awhile.

Little does he know, Hackett has duped him: the offshore accounts, the mysterious Asian bussinesswoman (whethere or not they exist is still up in the air) but after Ollie realizes this he tries to overtake Hackett. He fails.

Ollie being still green to the fighting business - all he has is the bow and arrow. Hackett - being an ex Royal Marine - takes him out but does not finish him off because he's "not that cold. But the sea is." He dumps the unconsious Ollie overboard............


GREAT STUFF. Andy Diggle's dilaogue is top-notch, with the interactions between Oliver and Hackett heart-felt, witty, and relatable all at once. Oliver comes across as fun but an insecre individual as well.

Jock's art pretty solid here too. I especially liked the mountain climbing sequence. Can't wait to see the lush jungle environment...

This is a must for any Green Arrow fan.

This limited series is 4 issues only so get your issue #1's now!!! :)

[Jack Zodiac]

Very great issue, and a fun "year one" for Ollie Queen. Beautiful art, too. In fact, I had absolutely no problem with the book whatsoever, save for one minor thing.

Ollie's, what, twenty-one here? Early twenties? Let's assume this book take place in the early Nineties, since Hackett mentions the Costner "Robin Hood" movie. A page or so later, Ollie says that Howard Hill taught him archery as a kid and were friends of his parents. Hill was making movies in the Thirties, and he died in the Seventies. If Hill taught Ollie how to shoot, he would've been a seventy-something year old man teaching a four or five year old.

[Paul Dee]

I liked this issue - looks really promising.

The art was great too in it's odd way - there's a real lack of detail in his backgrounds but it seems to work somehow.

Any idea why DC's site is saying this is a 6-part story?

[Chase]

Very great issue, and a fun "year one" for Ollie Queen. Beautiful art, too. In fact, I had absolutely no problem with the book whatsoever, save for one minor thing.

Ollie's, what, twenty-one here? Early twenties? Let's assume this book take place in the early Nineties, since Hackett mentions the Costner "Robin Hood" movie. A page or so later, Ollie says that Howard Hill taught him archery as a kid and were friends of his parents. Hill was making movies in the Thirties, and he died in the Seventies. If Hill taught Ollie how to shoot, he would've been a seventy-something year old man teaching a four or five year old.

Howard Hill died in 1975. I don't know the precise age of Green Arrow, but, I agree, he would have been very young during his time with Howard Hill.

Anyway, I don't like the way they drew Ollie, but I loved the dialogue. Great stuff. ^_^

[Ryan Day]

Any idea why DC's site is saying this is a 6-part story?

Because it is a six-part story. Diggle & Jock both mention it in interviews, and DC has issues 5 & 6 listed.

The cover is wrong, believe it or not.

[glennsim]

Very great issue, and a fun "year one" for Ollie Queen. Beautiful art, too. In fact, I had absolutely no problem with the book whatsoever, save for one minor thing.

Ollie's, what, twenty-one here? Early twenties? Let's assume this book take place in the early Nineties, since Hackett mentions the Costner "Robin Hood" movie. A page or so later, Ollie says that Howard Hill taught him archery as a kid and were friends of his parents. Hill was making movies in the Thirties, and he died in the Seventies. If Hill taught Ollie how to shoot, he would've been a seventy-something year old man teaching a four or five year old.

(sigh) I didn't even think about that. Maybe John Byrne is right - the internet is BAD!

[jv2k]

I liked the story. Ollie seems like an obnoxious billionaire playboy who cares about nobody but himself.

As for Howard Hill. In the DCU he got hit with a blast of magic that made him live longer than he did our earth.

[alabama assassin]

i got it today and enjoyed it. on the cover it says that it is a 4 issue miniseries, but elsewhere i have seen that it is 6????????? i just read, in the last month, every trade paperback starting with longbow hunters through crawling through the wreckage. i enjoy green arrow so much more than batman's stories, due to the humor and family atmosphere (conner, mia, roy, dinah)

[cyclops2500]

Very great issue, and a fun "year one" for Ollie Queen. Beautiful art, too. In fact, I had absolutely no problem with the book whatsoever, save for one minor thing.

Ollie's, what, twenty-one here? Early twenties? Let's assume this book take place in the early Nineties, since Hackett mentions the Costner "Robin Hood" movie. A page or so later, Ollie says that Howard Hill taught him archery as a kid and were friends of his parents. Hill was making movies in the Thirties, and he died in the Seventies. If Hill taught Ollie how to shoot, he would've been a seventy-something year old man teaching a four or five year old.


It could have been less training and more an old man showing a little boy how to use a bow and arrow.

[Ovid]

It could have been less training and more an old man showing a little boy how to use a bow and arrow.
Yeah. That's what I figured. And if Ollie's already in his late twenties by the time this starts up, then that makes even more sense - he'd have been closer to 8 or 9.

Anyway, although this is in continuity, I don't think it's a great idea to twist your head around it too much. I just really enjoyed the story and art for what it was. Mind you, I'm not much of a continuity fan anyway and I absolutely adored the Losers so I was a happy bunny reading it. I wrote a review here (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=42557). Comments very much appreciated. :)

[Jack Zodiac]

See, like I said, really minor thing, but it stood out considering the Costner rip one page prior to Ollie talking about Hill teaching him. And I could've cared less about that, because the rest of the issue was great.

[lawman]

See, like I said, really minor thing, but it stood out considering the Costner rip one page prior to Ollie talking about Hill teaching him. And I could've cared less about that, because the rest of the issue was great.
Haven't read the issue yet -- and honestly, I don't see the need for this mini, since Grell's Wonder Year mini redid Ollie's origin in modern terms just fine, thank you, but I digress -- so I'll reserve judgment on the story for now and just comment on the continuity point.

First of all, I think it's probably best to treat any reference to "Prince of Theives" as one of those topical references that usually wind up being disregarded in comics, for good or ill. It's pretty hard to swallow the idea that the entire modern era of DCU history postdates the first Bush administration.

But regardless of that...

It's been established for 20 years now, ever since Grell started writing him, that Ollie is several years older than most other DC heroes of his "generation." He turned 43 in the pages of Longbow Hunters, remember? We know that story is still in continuity, and it's safe to suppose that in terms of DCu time it occurred within a year of the Crisis. So without delving into questions of exactly how long ago that was, it's probably safe to say that Ollie today (but for the complications of death and resurrection) would be about fifty, give or take a little.

IOW, he was born in the 1950s. Howard Hill didn't die until 1975. Problem solved. Ollie clearly can't be as young in the scenes in question as you supposed.

[ZacharyLovesYou]

Fun issue. Not knocking me off my feet, but this first issue is going to keep me reading. I hate, hate Ollie's stupid hair/facial hair, but oh well. If that's my biggest nitpick, they're doing something right. haha

[brundlefly]

I just really enjoyed the story and art for what it was. Mind you, I'm not much of a continuity fan anyway and I absolutely adored the Losers so I was a happy bunny reading it.

Word; I loved that book. Once I heard that Diggle and Jock were reteaming for this, I added it to my pull list (and I'm not that big a fan of Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, really). Their portrayal of Ollie had me flashing back to Jensen from The Losers, complete with scruffy beard/goatee. Good first issue, looking forward to the rest of this mini.

[CYOTI]

Haven't read the issue yet -- and honestly, I don't see the need for this mini, since Grell's Wonder Year mini redid Ollie's origin in modern terms just fine, thank you,
I disagree Wonder Years did well in exploring his early years after the island, but frankly it dropped the ball in regards to his time on the island. I think Year One aims to rectify that error.

[glennsim]

Haven't read the issue yet -- and honestly, I don't see the need for this mini, since Grell's Wonder Year mini redid Ollie's origin in modern terms just fine, thank you, but I digress -- so I'll reserve judgment on the story for now and just comment on the continuity point.

First of all, I think it's probably best to treat any reference to "Prince of Theives" as one of those topical references that usually wind up being disregarded in comics, for good or ill. It's pretty hard to swallow the idea that the entire modern era of DCU history postdates the first Bush administration.

But regardless of that...

It's been established for 20 years now, ever since Grell started writing him, that Ollie is several years older than most other DC heroes of his "generation." He turned 43 in the pages of Longbow Hunters, remember? We know that story is still in continuity, and it's safe to suppose that in terms of DCu time it occurred within a year of the Crisis. So without delving into questions of exactly how long ago that was, it's probably safe to say that Ollie today (but for the complications of death and resurrection) would be about fifty, give or take a little.

IOW, he was born in the 1950s. Howard Hill didn't die until 1975. Problem solved. Ollie clearly can't be as young in the scenes in question as you supposed.

But that stuff hasn't been referenced in any way in a LONG time now, so I'm not so sure it can definitely be considered in continuity.

More recently, in Identity Crisis, we had Green Arrow giving a lecture on how important it is to maintain your secret identity, something he blatantly DIDN'T do in the Grell years. And given a choice between a 20 year old series and the biggest thing from a couple years ago, I'm betting DC is going with the more recent interpretation.

[lawman]

But that stuff hasn't been referenced in any way in a LONG time now, so I'm not so sure it can definitely be considered in continuity... I'm betting DC is going with the more recent interpretation.
Yeah, Glenn, I'm familiar with your preference for the idea that any element of canon not specifically confirmed on-panel in the last two years doesn't necessarily count anymore. Chalk it up to philosophical differences. For reasons we've discussed before, I disagree: if we're to care about the characters and the world they inhabit, I think it's important to retain as much backstory as possible... and while allowing that specific retcons may be required by new stories, they shouldn't be used casually without accounting for their repercussions.

At any rate, in the case at hand, acknowledging the canon you question about Ollie's age actually solves a story problem in the current mini, re: Howard Hill. Seems like a win-win solution to me.

[Ovid]

if we're to care about the characters and the world they inhabit, I think it's important to retain as much backstory as possible...
Well, I don't think that's true. As I pointed out in another post over in the 'What's DC doing wrong?' thread, it's Jane Austen's skill as a writer that makes me care about Elizabeth and Darcy, not a putative series of previous books. The endless accumulation of detail that passes for characterisation in these shared universes isn't in fact necessary for my (or, I'd hazard, any reader's) emotional engagement. It's the ability of the writer and artist that matters.

This discussion also points up another fallacy of continuity obsession. Can anyone show me an on-panel, in-continuity reference to the DCU Howard Hill dying in 1975? Or the Costner movie coming out in 1991? If not, then how do you know the reference points you're using to pick apart the continuity are in fact where you say they are? Even small changes make a difference. If DCU Hill died in 1978 and Costner's movie came out in 1989, and the series takes place shortly after that with Ollie in his late twenties, then suddenly Ollie can be in his teens when Hill trained him. QED.

You can come up with all sorts of tortured arguments, which is why I don't worry about it. :cool:

[glennsim]

Yeah, Glenn, I'm familiar with your preference for the idea that any element of canon not specifically confirmed on-panel in the last two years doesn't necessarily count anymore. Chalk it up to philosophical differences. For reasons we've discussed before, I disagree: if we're to care about the characters and the world they inhabit, I think it's important to retain as much backstory as possible... and while allowing that specific retcons may be required by new stories, they shouldn't be used casually without accounting for their repercussions.

At any rate, in the case at hand, acknowledging the canon you question about Ollie's age actually solves a story problem in the current mini, re: Howard Hill. Seems like a win-win solution to me.

I'm of two minds on this. I'd actually prefer canon to go back further than a few years, but on the other hand I wasn't a fan of "old Ollie".

At any rate, if DC considered the Grell book canon, they wouldn't have published Identity Crisis (or at least would have put GA on the other end of the argument, or had him keep his mouth shut). I actually wrote a letter to DC complaining about this, and got a note back from Meltzer saying "sorry you didn't like it." No apology for the specific mistake, just sorry I didn't like it in general.

DC doesn't seem to care about anybody who's been reading for more than 5 years, except when they want to drag out something as a shout-out to older fans, and even then they generally get the facts wrong - which they seem to think is OK, because nobody REALLY remembers all those details...

[Ryan Day]

This discussion also points up another fallacy of continuity obsession. Can anyone show me an on-panel, in-continuity reference to the DCU Howard Hill dying in 1975? Or the Costner movie coming out in 1991?

An excellent point! Perhaps Superman saved the life of a doctor who could have extended Hill's life by a couple years. Although I like to think that if there really were superheroes in the world, one of them would have stopped Kevin Costner from starring in Robin Hood in the first place.

Anyway, I find these details interesting, but unimportant. Comic book time doesn't make any sense, no matter how you look at it. It's really not worrying about; it's all going to be overwritten within a decade.

[lawman]

Well, I don't think that's true. As I pointed out in another post over in the 'What's DC doing wrong?' thread, it's Jane Austen's skill as a writer that makes me care about Elizabeth and Darcy, not a putative series of previous books. The endless accumulation of detail that passes for characterisation in these shared universes isn't in fact necessary for my (or, I'd hazard, any reader's) emotional engagement. It's the ability of the writer and artist that matters.
In an ideal world, perhaps, every writer would be able to tell you exactly what you needed to know about the character(s) in every story, no more and no less, in an elegant, evocative, and non-intrusive way. When comics are consistently written by a roster of authors in same league as Jane Austen (or, hey, Neil Gaiman), by all means let me know.

Until then, an essential tool of comics storytelling (as in most other serial fiction, as well) is to leverage emotional attachments readers have accumulated based on past stories about the same characters (and, thus, knowledge of the events in those stories). It therefore behooves a writer to remain consistent with those past stories, which remain "present" as part of the current story's emotional subtext, unless they have a damn good reason for doing otherwise.

This discussion also points up another fallacy of continuity obsession. Can anyone show me an on-panel, in-continuity reference to the DCU Howard Hill dying in 1975? Or the Costner movie coming out in 1991? If not, then how do you know the reference points you're using to pick apart the continuity are in fact where you say they are?
In the absence of specific information to the contrary, it's always been safe in comics to assume that references to "real world" figures and events are intended to elicit a sense of verisimilitude and thus, logically, match up factually against the versions familiar to readers from the real real world. It's part of how comics maintain the illusion that they're taking place in the here-and-now despite all the fantasy elements flying around fast and furious. This goes back to at least World War II, which was obviously a major element in comics of the time. ("Specific information to the contrary" would include things like, e.g., the 2000 presidential election, which in the DCU put Lex Luthor in office rather than George W. Bush.) The alternative is to burden the writers with the job of worldbuilding from the ground up, from scratch, which is something even most prose SF writers try to avoid.

You can come up with all sorts of tortured arguments, which is why I don't worry about it. :cool:
You can, but I prefer Occam's Razor. And I do "worry about it," if only because I can't completely turn off the logical part of my brain even when reading fiction.

[Jack Zodiac]

An excellent point! Perhaps Superman saved the life of a doctor who could have extended Hill's life by a couple years. Although I like to think that if there really were superheroes in the world, one of them would have stopped Kevin Costner from starring in Robin Hood in the first place.

Anyway, I find these details interesting, but unimportant. Comic book time doesn't make any sense, no matter how you look at it. It's really not worrying about; it's all going to be overwritten within a decade.

Christ on crutches, guys, I said it was a ridiculously minor thing I only noticed. I wasn't even all that bothered by the idea of it, it was just an odd thing to see considering how young Jock's making Ollie look. If Ollie looked like a thirty-something billionaire playboy here, I wouldn't have batted an eye about Hill showing him how to shoot, but he looks and acts like he's in his mid-twenties.

So there, there's my more valid complain. The story's excellent and the art's beautiful, but Jock makes Ollie look too young.

[lawman]

I'm of two minds on this. I'd actually prefer canon to go back further than a few years, but on the other hand I wasn't a fan of "old Ollie".
Well, I do agree with you on the former part, but OTOH I always did like "old(er) Ollie." Tomato, tomahto.

At any rate, if DC considered the Grell book canon, they wouldn't have published Identity Crisis (or at least would have put GA on the other end of the argument, or had him keep his mouth shut)...
Actually, I think that's a pretty easy fanwank. Ollie is well aware that the period when he operated without a secret ID led to one problem after another, including the complete collapse of his private life and, also, constant hounding by the government that ultimately led to his death. It's understandable that with hindsight he'd be less keen on the idea.

(Which brings to mind the related problem that, AFAIK, the current GA series covered the resurrection of Green Arrow but never really bothered to address how he explained to the world the return of Oliver Queen, who was certainly known to be dead as far as the government was concerned. I'd love to see some explanation for that, especially inasmuch as he went on to become enough of a public figure to win elective office in his original hometown.)

DC doesn't seem to care about anybody who's been reading for more than 5 years, except when they want to drag out something as a shout-out to older fans, and even then they generally get the facts wrong - which they seem to think is OK, because nobody REALLY remembers all those details...
But they're trying to eat their cake and have it too, since they're doing those "shout outs" pretty much all the time in recent years. No newcomer could possibly have followed what was going on and who was who in Infinite Crisis; I've been reading DC comics for most of my life and I found parts of it confusing. I wrote just upthread about Martian Manhunter. The recent Mystery in Space mini-series is another example. So is Morrison's Batman run. So is most of what's happening in Countdown. Need I go on? In that context, "getting the facts wrong" is frankly inexcusable, although depressingly common.

(That's not to say that some writers aren't doing a better job, though. Gail Simone knows her stuff, for instance; both Birds of Prey and Atom are built on stuff established years ago, yet manage simultaneously to feel new and fresh and to keep readers filled in about all the necessary backstory, without needless errors. The biggest glitch I've noticed from her is claiming that Lady Blackhawk was active during WW II, a blatant retcon but at least not one that causes any serious problems.)

[lawman]

Anyway, I find these details interesting, but unimportant. Comic book time doesn't make any sense, no matter how you look at it. It's really not worrying about; it's all going to be overwritten within a decade.
You know, the day I really accept that and internalize it is probably the day I stop reading comics. (Which, from a publisher's POV, is a good reason to change it.) If I'm consciously aware while reading a piece of fiction that it doesn't make sense and the events being related matter so little that even the writer considers them disposable, then it's pretty much impossible to find it entertaining.

[jadrax]

You know, the day I really accept that and internalize it is probably the day I stop reading comics. (Which, from a publisher's POV, is a good reason to change it.) If I'm consciously aware while reading a piece of fiction that it doesn't make sense and the events being related matter so little that even the writer considers them disposable, then it's pretty much impossible to find it entertaining.

Well yes, but I think you will find that's not actually a problem to vast majority of people, as it's not just comics that do this, it's Films, Television, Fiction the whole gamut of entertainment. Continuity is just not deemed as important by many people.

And of course, unfortunately for you and people who do care, it's never actually going to change. Because it's simply not worth putting the huge amount of effort required in to doing it.

[Ovid]

In an ideal world, perhaps, every writer would be able to tell you exactly what you needed to know about the character(s) in every story, no more and no less, in an elegant, evocative, and non-intrusive way. When comics are consistently written by a roster of authors in same league as Jane Austen (or, hey, Neil Gaiman), by all means let me know.Not Gaiman, but Will Eisner was in Austen's league on his strongest days, IMO.

Your argument seems to be that continuity is an acceptable alternative to good writing. Assuming for the sake of argument that that's a widespread assumption amongst comics buyers, then isn't that just a recipe for, well, crap, albeit trivia-laden crap?

In other words, isn't it a recipe for Infinite Crisis?


In the absence of specific information to the contrary, it's always been safe in comics to assume that references to "real world" figures and events are intended to elicit a sense of verisimilitude and thus, logically, match up factually against the versions familiar to readers from the real real world.Well, the objection to this issue demonstrates that your assumption isn't safe at all. And verisimilitude means similar to the truth, not exactly the same as. My post was trying to show how assuming a couple of very minor differences between the DCU and the real world could solve the continuity problem brought up earlier. A DCU where Hill died in 1978 and Prince of Thieves (starring Sean Bean, because the original star Kevin Costner had been mysteriously injured by a rogue batarang) was released in 1989 is still very similar indeed to the real world.

I do "worry about it," if only because I can't completely turn off the logical part of my brain even when reading fiction.You have to turn it off to a certain extent - it's called suspension of disbelief. Personally, I find it much easier to believe that in an alternative universe Hill might have lived a few more years, hale and hearty, than that a man could fly.

Christ on crutches, guys, I said it was a ridiculously minor thing I only noticed.:LOL:

You know, the day I really accept that and internalize it is probably the day I stop reading comics. (Which, from a publisher's POV, is a good reason to change it.) If I'm consciously aware while reading a piece of fiction that it doesn't make sense and the events being related matter so little that even the writer considers them disposable, then it's pretty much impossible to find it entertaining.See above re 'suspension of disbelief'. Obviously there are inconsistensies and inconsistencies. If Batman is dressed like a bat in one panel of a fight scene and like a swan in the next, then that's too inconsistent. But if you're going to read about something in a shared universe, with decades of history on which literally hundreds of creators have worked and continue to do so, then I'd suggest it helps to have a high tolerance for contradictory detail, especially between books from long ago.

[UniqueFrequency]

finally got this a week after the store ran out. it was pretty interesting! nothing HUGE happened, but i felt like the pacing was perfect and Jock's art really brought the story out well. will pick up the rest of this.

[lawman]

Well yes, but I think you will find that's not actually a problem to vast majority of people, as it's not just comics that do this, it's Films, Television, Fiction the whole gamut of entertainment. Continuity is just not deemed as important by many people.

And of course, unfortunately for you and people who do care, it's never actually going to change. Because it's simply not worth putting the huge amount of effort required in to doing it.
Actually, I think that's not so true. Compare the attention to detail and development of long-term story arcs in today's serial TV dramas vs. those 20 or 30 years ago or more. It's been a sea change. IMHO technology has been a big factor: the availability of DVDs to spot inconsistencies, and the Internet to discuss them, has raised the bar for writers and producers.

I suppose that doesn't necessarily change the general applicability of Sturgeon's Law -- 90% of everything is still crap -- but the standard for what qualifies as "the good stuff," for those of us who care, is arguably improving.

[lawman]

Not Gaiman, but Will Eisner was in Austen's league on his strongest days, IMO.

Your argument seems to be that continuity is an acceptable alternative to good writing...
I certainly hope not. What I'm saying is that it's one tool in a writer's toolbox, and when the writer is less than brilliant, he shouldn't casually discard that tool. The brilliant ones can do as they please and still make things work (and certainly Eisner is another great example, an exception that proves the rule). The bad ones will still produce crap no matter what tools they use. In the vast range in between, though, it makes a difference.

You have to turn it off to a certain extent - it's called suspension of disbelief...
Of course. But what we're talking here is about how much suspended disbelief a story demands of you as a reader, how much effort the writer is asking you to make to fill in logical gaps he shouldn't have left in the first place. There's a difference between fantasy elements that diverge from our reality because a story depends on them, and inconsistencies within a fictional reality that could and should be avoided.

[kalorama]

You know, the day I really accept that and internalize it is probably the day I stop reading comics. (Which, from a publisher's POV, is a good reason to change it.) If I'm consciously aware while reading a piece of fiction that it doesn't make sense and the events being related matter so little that even the writer considers them disposable, then it's pretty much impossible to find it entertaining.

Second that. At first glance I was bit taken aback at first by Ollie's "look," thinking to myself that he would have been way too old to be sporting the long hair, sandals, and soul patch look at the time it was actually in vogue (to the degree that it ever was). Then I caught myself and though "Oh screw it, it's just a story. Roll with it."

That said, I wasn't terribly impressed. I found Jock's art to be kind of flat and dull. I liked his work on losers, but it was a different kind of story.

As for the writing ... I've always thought Ollie's origin really lacked any punch. It didn't seem to have the kind of compelling impetus behind his decision to put on a costume like Spider-Man or Batman or many others. Obviously it's only the first issue, but despite the modern-day brush up, this version seems like it's treading mostly the same ground. (With the likely, pretty well telegraphed, twist that Ollie's stolen money will be used to finance a drug operation, thus fueling his later outrage when he finds out Roy is hooked).

It wasn't really bad, it just wasn't anything particularly engaging.

[phantom1592]

As for the writing ... I've always thought Ollie's origin really lacked any punch. It didn't seem to have the kind of compelling impetus behind his decision to put on a costume like Spider-Man or Batman or many others. Obviously it's only the first issue, but despite the modern-day brush up, this version seems like it's treading mostly the same ground. (With the likely, pretty well telegraphed, twist that Ollie's stolen money will be used to finance a drug operation, thus fueling his later outrage when he finds out Roy is hooked).

It wasn't really bad, it just wasn't anything particularly engaging.

Actually that was one of the things that I always loved about Green Arrow. He DIDN"T have a great reason to be a hero. He did it because it was fun. He was good with a bow and he was a rich guy out for kicks. And of course the damsels in distress ;)

I always thought the Year One annual was great.

One thing I hope they touch on (and maybe some of the long time readers already know) but what made Ollie "change" from the swashbuckling thrillseeker to the more serious avenger of justice and the downtrodden that we all know. I've seen the early ollie and I've seen the later one, but I never actually saw what it was that caused the change.

[lawman]

One thing I hope they touch on (and maybe some of the long time readers already know) but what made Ollie "change" from the swashbuckling thrillseeker to the more serious avenger of justice and the downtrodden that we all know. I've seen the early ollie and I've seen the later one, but I never actually saw what it was that caused the change.
Well, in the original (pre-Crisis) version, Ollie's change of perspective came when he was framed by a business rival, John DeLeon, and lost his fortune; the costume change came at the same time, although there was no specific in-story reason (but, hey, Neal Adams wanted to redesign him!). The new characterization developed further when (A) he hit it off with Black Canary after she moved to Earth-1 and joined the JLA, and (2) he started traveling around with Green Lantern, both a friend and a foil.

Post-Crisis, Denny O'Neil decided to go back and revisit his own work -- and other writers got their hands in, too -- with the result that things actually became more ambiguous. Ollie was kidnapped by a third-world dictator quite early in his costumed career and this led him to give up (at the very least) his munitions business, and spend some time living in the 'hood; apparently, however, he resumed his billionaire lifestyle and at least a semblance of his carefree guise once he took in Roy and joined the JLA. Some time later, he had a girlfriend killed by an old enemy, at which time he changed his costume and developed a more serious attitude. For a while it seemed that the whole John DeLeon things had been retconned away entirely, but it was later reaffirmed to have happened, and from that point on things proceeded pretty much as before (except, of course, that Dinah had been in the JLA with him all along).

[DavidAllred]

Count me in the "Yea" column. It was an intro issue for a six part arc. The backstory was good, the art was amazing, and in spite of my fears of Oliver being portrayed as the giant DCU penis that he's been in recent years, at least readers got to see there really is a decent guy in there someplace.

Too bad that Winick gets to continue his character assasination after this is all said and done.

My biggest fear is the Diggle interview in which he tells us that we will see why Ollie got all pissed off at Roy for using heroin. My instinct says Diggle will have Ollie get hooked for a little bit while on the island. That sucks for me, but I'll take it I guess.

After all, you can't be against drug addicts unless you've been one. Right.