DC - The New Frontier #6

[The Adventurer]

And.... it's over, one of the GREATEST classic heroes mini series to come down the pipe in a LONG time. This is EXACTLY how I wish ALL super hero comics could be.

This issue brings everything to head, the Silveragers rally to stop an unstopable monster in such a way that totaly captivated me. Now THESE are heroes, heroes I want to read about.

That 2 page splash, which everyone walking on the flight deck, that needs to be made a Poster ASAP, that was inspiring, I want it on my wall.


This series is Tier 1 matterial, I'm talking Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns levels. If you havn't read it yet, do so. Don't wait for the TPB.

[tony2074]

whens the tpb coming out?

[Expletive Deleted]

It's being split into two TPBs, the first of which is out in January.

And, yes, #6 is fantastic. The use of JFK's speech at the end just pulls the whole thing together so beautifully. And it was nice to see so many characters get some of the spotlight, even if it was Hal's show. Barry, J'Onn, King Faraday, Adam Strange . . . all of 'em. I particularly liked the way Cooke tied Captain Atom's little origin moment into the battle with the Centre.

In terms of the art, I don't know which was cooler, the tarmac image or the one of Hal and the Guardians. Or the front cover. Or the final page. Or . . . Ah, hell. I can't pick.

[Joe Rice]

This comic is love.

[The Adventurer]

This must be made a Poster, or heads will roll. (http://img39.exs.cx/img39/125/dcnfwork.jpg)



I'm working to get the center line out so it makes a good desktop image.

[K'Nort]

It's not like I could have resisted, but I really shouldn't have read this first. I have five or so other purchases in which I now have no interest. Not to read today. The squabbling Outsiders would do particularly poorly by comparison.

I'm on your basic crowded crosstown bus and when Aquaman has shown up and they have that middle panel with Lois biting her lip.... I've never liked the woman but I had to stop and stare out the window for several blocks.

Really a shame the trades won't be in time for Christmas.

[Arune Singh]

I'll try to photograph something:

Darwyn gave me a piece of original NEW FRONTIER art that has never been used (fully colored and everything) with profiles of EVERY Silver Age DCU character. Coolest thing on my wall.

[Karl J. Barnes]

What I liked about this mini-series was that Cooke used ALL the heroes and the Trinty, that is Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, didn't take over the series. This was one long love note to the Silver Age. Thak You Darwyn Cooke, thank you.

[The Adventurer]

I'll try to photograph something:

Darwyn gave me a piece of original NEW FRONTIER art that has never been used (fully colored and everything) with profiles of EVERY Silver Age DCU character. Coolest thing on my wall.

That sounds Awesome, please try to get a scan or a photo. You can host the image free at The File Shack (www.fileshack.us) and link it here.

[TommyV]

It was the first thing I read this week as well and I don't even have any interest in reading the rest of my stack. My God, this is a beautiful, wondrous series - my heart broke when it was over - how can it be over? Pure magic - everything a comic book should be. I don't know what else to say.

[Arune Singh]

That sounds Awesome, please try to get a scan or a photo. You can host the image free at The File Shack (www.fileshack.us) and link it here.

I'll do what I can.

Y'know what's cool about Darwyn? He's a great, great guy. At first his confidence can seem intimidating, but he's a really laid back guy who has a great heart. He's also from the T-Dot, so that makes him cooler. :)

Personally, I think DC has put out the best two mini-series this year: SECRET IDENTITY and NEW FRONTIER. Both are the reasons I read superhero comics and the reason I don't read many current series- it's hard to match the sheer fun in this book.

So many creators give lip service to the fact that super powers should be fun, but few besides Cooke can capture that aspect.

[Toonimator]

Agreed.

Darwyn's created a wonderful book here. This and SECRET IDENTITY are tops on my list for the year.

[mgs]

Pretty cool, but did they just throw in the whole Adam Strange thing just to coincide with the new release?

[jhunt]

Pretty cool, but did they just throw in the whole Adam Strange thing just to coincide with the new release?

Hmm.. given the care with which Cooke treated this project, and given what a struggle it must have been to get an out-of-continuity tribute to the Silver Age green-lit, I'm thinking that everything in this book was put there by him, without editorial decree.

Besides, Adam Strange has Silver Age stink all over him (in the good way).

Great mini, BTW. Great great great great mini.

"Sea rescue boys?"

[Toonimator]

Pretty cool, but did they just throw in the whole Adam Strange thing just to coincide with the new release?

In one of the earlier books, Adam's considered a loony in Arkham. I don't know exactly what changed Thomkins' mind; better go look through the other issues! :)

[Dreadstar]

This coming from a grizzled old man cynical about the direction of comics today:



This goddamned comic brought tears to my eyes.

THIS, my friends, is the way "adult" comics should be.

And I want that 2 page spread in poster size.


*2* TPBS? They're dividing it up?

Not gonna buy it. I'll bet they come out with a consolidated version later. I'll wait for that. Hell, this was as good as it gets. I'll treat it the way I did the Watchment and DKR, and splurge on a hardcover, if they do it, like I did Bone.

[spike1205]

this whole series was sheer brilliance--im not even a silver age fan ...but this was amazing

[Dreadstar]

This must be made a Poster, or heads will roll. (http://img39.exs.cx/img39/125/dcnfwork.jpg)



I'm working to get the center line out so it makes a good desktop image.



YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES!

3' x 5' and it would STILL be too small.

[The Adventurer]

*2* TPBS? They're dividing it up?


Makes sense to me, each issue was 64 pages, that's THREE 22 page comics per issue, that makes the first 3 issues 192 Pages long, longer then your average six 22 pager TPB. Two Volumes means the binding will last longer, Though a Crisis sizer would have been great, but I can accept this plan.


And yeah, I'm waiting on a big hard cover version. Hopefuly with all 6 issues.

[Brian Cronin]

This coming from a grizzled old man cynical about the direction of comics today:



This goddamned comic brought tears to my eyes.

THIS, my friends, is the way "adult" comics should be.

And I want that 2 page spread in poster size.


*2* TPBS? They're dividing it up?

Not gonna buy it. I'll bet they come out with a consolidated version later. I'll wait for that. Hell, this was as good as it gets. I'll treat it the way I did the Watchment and DKR, and splurge on a hardcover, if they do it, like I did Bone.

Heh....I didn't want to admit it myself, but now that you've admitted it, I can too. :)

I read all five in order and then read #6.

And at one point, I'll admit that I got kinda misty. :D

What an amazing comic.

It was so good, that I wasn't even bothered by the weird political stuff in the book.

What an amazing comic.

-Brian

[cactusmaac]

I'm going to have to be a party pooper and sound a dissenting note on New Frontier. For me it's simply not done the job that Cooke set out for it i.e. offer a "reconstructive" response to the likes of the Ultimates and Watchmen. It's meandered around exploring the by-ways and cul-de-sacs of the DCU with characters like the Losers, the Challs, Rick Flagg and King Faraday for far too long without focusing enough on the elements which need to be addressed to offer the reconstructive response i.e. the super-heroes themselves. So far it simply hasn't hit the mark that reconstructive stories like Kingdom Come or JLA\Avengers #3 or even movies like Spider-Man 2 have done exceptionally well. I'm just not seeing enough of the nobility of these characters and I think I should have seen more.

Also I don't see how the social issues e.g. racism have much of a bearing on the story. Was there ugly racism in the superhero-hating 50's? Well sure but then it was also prevalent in the 40, 30's, 20's and every decade before that. It wasn't a new phenomenom like the Communist paranoia of the 50's which Golden Age depicted nor is it intimately connected to the events of the story like the US-USSR Cold War stand-off which Watchmen was set against.

Cooke's also failed to convince me of the greatness of Hal Jordan. I'm a comic reader who first started in about 1996 or so and have drifted in and out since then. Kyle Rayner's always been GL for me but I was hoping to see something about Jordan which inspires the devotion older fans have for the character. So far apart from the scene with Yeager, I haven't seen anything special about the guy.

That's not to say I hate the series at all. The scope, ambition and incredibly bloody hard work Cooke put into this project has to be admired at the very least. The art is fanastic throughout and the story-telling s the best I've ever seen. Everything involving J'onn, Batman and Wonderwoman has been great, especially THAT ninja sequence which any future Bat-movie director should have a serious look at. But still (and yes I know this probably is the minority opinion) NF just hasn't been the home-run I was hoping it would be and definitely pales next to Golden Age.

[Brian Cronin]

Wow...6 64 page comics...that combined would make it...oh, I know...SHORTER than Watchmen!

Notice how we didn't have Watchmen Vol. 1 and Vol. 2?

It's a bullcrap decision.

Red-dick-you-lus.

-Brian

[cactusmaac]

Wow...6 64 page comics...that combined would make it...oh, I know...SHORTER than Watchmen!

Notice how we didn't have Watchmen Vol. 1 and Vol. 2?

It's a bullcrap decision.

Red-dick-you-lus.

-Brian

I wouldn't be surprised if that was due to Cooke.

He mentioned in his CBA interview that the way the collections would be structured would financially allow him to take it on the project.

[Brian Cronin]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was due to Cooke.

He mentioned in his CBA interview that the way the collections would be structured would financially allow him to take it on the project.

Cooke also said that he wanted it to be stapled rather than bound (the individual issues) because he wanted it to be more affordable.

So since DC did THAT wrong (by dropping the binding, but keeping the high price), I don't know if they followed anything he wanted regarding the TPB either. :)

And by the by, what WOULD make more money,one TPB at $30 or two TPBs at a total of $40?

I think the former, but what do you guys think?

-Brian

[cactusmaac]

He seemed pretty happy with the arrangement in the CBA interview.

Plus why would someone buy one volume and not the next?

[Brian Cronin]

He seemed pretty happy with the arrangement in the CBA interview.

Plus why would someone buy one volume and not the next?

So you think they'll end up making more money the two TPBs route?

-Brian

[Brian Cronin]

By the by, as much as I lurved New Frontier, and I did....

I do have to admit that the political stuff was pretty silly, and the story would probably have been better without the whole "Republicans = evil" stuff.

Hell, I would have accepted "Government = evil," but "Republicans = evil" just seemed a bit silly and overly naive.

I mean, John Kennedy is the bastion of virtue that the whole series was leading up to?

Yikes.

It was kinda like political fan fiction.

-Brian

[The Adventurer]

I didn't really see the book as Political really. John Kennedy put us on the moon and opened up the new age of exploration. That's what the series was leading up too, the end of the post World War 2 era and into the modern age. It wasn't really political at all.

[cactusmaac]

For me the focus on the 50's being such an oppressive period just wasn't convincing. The world has just gone through 20 incredibly tumultous years when it seemed possible that liberal democracy would be wiped out altogether and Eisenhower's time in power was a welcome respite from all that. Sure there were troubles over McCarthy and fears about Sputnik but even Michael Moore is nostalgic for the 50's.

Heck, Kennedy's speech was born from a sense of confidence and optimism that the 50's engendered.

[IamtheRock3]

wasnt the 50's though around the time of the Red scare

and the whole comic code creation


that could be why they did it. Could see why the heroes would be well liked after that if they didnt follow the goverment. Namly what happen in the war war 2

Also wasnt this around the time where in the REAL world super heroes was losing popularity

[The Adventurer]

wasnt the 50's though around the time of the Red scare

and the whole comic code creation


that could be why they did it. Could see why the heroes would be well liked after that if they didnt follow the goverment. Namly what happen in the war war 2

Also wasnt this around the time where in the REAL world super heroes was losing popularity


Yeah, that's kinda been a recuring theme in DC continuty, the break up of the JSA and dwindeling number of heroes during the 50s and 60s is a mirroring of the real world lose of interest and Comic Code creation. Which is somethat New Frontier was definitly showcasing also.

[Brian Cronin]

I didn't really see the book as Political really. John Kennedy put us on the moon and opened up the new age of exploration. That's what the series was leading up too, the end of the post World War 2 era and into the modern age. It wasn't really political at all.

C'mon, Adventurer, this book was HIGHLY political.

And I think the book comes out as anti-Republican/pro-Democrat.

The second-to-last issue, they speak of how we need a great leader to get us out of this.

The beginning of #6 talks about how one man was to change all this.

And then the book ends, in a big happy ending, coiniciding with John Kennedy's election.

The NAME OF THE BOOK comes from Kennedy's speech!!

Like I said earlier, I'd be a bit more comfortable if the book was just anti-government...that's something, at least.

But Cooke instead decides to go just anti-Republican, and that's pretty silly (cactusmaac mentions a lot of the reasons why).

Still, I really liked the book, and if getting a book this amazing means letting Cooke use the book to state his political views, then I am 100% in favor of letting him do it.

-Brian

[IamtheRock3]

So basicly the idea that it anti political basicly hawkins back to using kenndy stuff for quotees


Well Kenndey was one of the greates president. Liking Kennedy is not being liberal. Just like liking Einsenhower is not being conserivtive. And Coinciding with kenny election..he DID start the spacer program so it does make sense

Also I think it took place in the 50 for the reasons I said above in this thread

[revolver86]

I must agree that this book is in Watchmen/DKR territory and if you haven't picked up this book or don't intend to pick up the trade then you are crazy!

BEST MINI-SERIES EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tynne]

I didn't really see the book as Political really.

It wasn't political as long as you ignore the fact that Cooke portrayed pretty much every military action the U.S. did post WW2 as being motivated only for reasons of greed and evil. No other reason.

And how a super-hero was only truly "good" and "moral" once he or she decided to reject the U.S. Administration.

Really I loved so much of this series...but the one-sided myopic preachiness was a total turn-off.

[The Adventurer]

I've read the series through 4 times, and I still don't see the Fanatical Liberal Slant everyone's pointing out. Maybe it's because I'm a bit Liberal and I don't notice it, but I saw it more as the Goverment being misguided and Heroes having to exist even in those condisions and change the world for the better. And I don't remeber Korea being portraied as an "Evil American Engagment" at all, seeing as Hal Jordan didn't want to kill anyone for any reason, not just because he was spesificly agenst the war.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I think the bombardment of Election '04 coverage has made everyone a little over-sensitive about anything remotely connected to Republicans or Democrats.

I mean, Kennedy and Eisenhower may have been Democratic & Republican Presidents respectively, but their political parties are radically different groups now. Back in the sixties, Democrats were dominant with racists in the South because they favored segregation of the races and blacks supported Republicans, the party of Lincoln. Whereas, these days Republicans dominate the South's racist vote while blacks now support the Democrats. I think it's more likely Kennedy is being used as a representative of a new era of hope, rather than a representive of Democrats. Had Eisenhower been a Democrat and Kennedy a Republican, I don't think Cooke's story would have changed one iota.

Granted, I'm sure people knocked Dark Knight Returns for being anti-Republican too.

[Pixies Chick]

I'll try to photograph something:

Darwyn gave me a piece of original NEW FRONTIER art that has never been used (fully colored and everything) with profiles of EVERY Silver Age DCU character. Coolest thing on my wall.


I have a truck I'll trade you for that. A couch? Whattaya need? C'mon, whattaya want?

**********************

I loved this series. Best mini I've ever read, and I will cherish this for always. Can't wait to share it with people I care about.

I'm about as political as they come, but I've gotta say, I'm surprised that a series about an era that ended 44 years ago has got people concerned about how it reflects on their party today. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about abandoning the image of ourselves as a weak bunch of sissies who melt if they face reality. It says we're better off seeing the challenges and stepping up to face them, not only because it's better policy, but it makes us better people. It's worth noting that the JFK speech takes place AFTER the climactic battle, not before, so it's a Republican-led military that saves the world.

If it seems like vision and courage are qualities only found in the Democratic party, I've got some Republicans I'd like to introduce you to. Sure, the current bunch of morons are running on fear and deception, but this is NOT an essential quality of the Republican party. Somewhere, there's a Republican learning to say that this war is bad and environmental degradation is folly. Embrace her. And get over your defensive paranoia. This book made John F. Kennedy's speech look good. This harms you how? We've got to get to a point when we admire each other a little more, regardless of the labels we wear.

[cactusmaac]

I think the bombardment of Election '04 coverage has made everyone a little over-sensitive about anything remotely connected to Republicans or Democrats.

I mean, Kennedy and Eisenhower may have been Democratic & Republican Presidents respectively, but their political parties are radically different groups now. Back in the sixties, Democrats were dominant with racists in the South because they favored segregation of the races and blacks supported Republicans, the party of Lincoln. Whereas, these days Republicans dominate the South's racist vote while blacks now support the Democrats. I think it's more likely Kennedy is being used as a representative of a new era of hope, rather than a representive of Democrats. Had Eisenhower been a Democrat and Kennedy a Republican, I don't think Cooke's story would have changed one iota.

Granted, I'm sure people knocked Dark Knight Returns for being anti-Republican too.

Nope. Blacks shifted over to the Democrats during FDR's days and stayed Democrat when Truman was introducing Civil Rights legislation. So you had blacks and racists both supporting the same party.

And the current GOP is still the Party of Lincoln. Heck, there's a president in charge who's dismissed as an incompetent hick and waging an unpopular war with a fervent base of religious voters (evangelicals\abolitionists) rooting for him. At the same time he's facing accusations of despotism and a highly radicalised base of anti-war protestors (the nutso anti-Bush crowd\Copperheads). Plus he's using military force to crush a threat to the United States and is focusing on fighting for liberty when a bunch of naysayers are saying Iraqis aren't ready for democracy\blacks aren't ready for freedom. Meanwhile his opponent has a dodgy war record and has to simultaneously appease both the pro and anti-war sections of the American public (Kerry\McLellan).

2004=1864.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Nope. Blacks shifted over to the Democrats during FDR's days and stayed Democrat when Truman was introducing Civil Rights legislation. So you had blacks and racists both supporting the same party.

And the current GOP is still the Party of Lincoln. Heck, there's a president in charge who's dismissed as an incompetent hick and waging an unpopular war with a fervent base of religious voters (evangelicals\abolitionists) rooting for him. At the same time he's facing accusations of despotism and a highly radicalised base of anti-war protestors (the nutso anti-Bush crowd\Copperheads). Plus he's using military force to crush a threat to the United States and is focusing on fighting for liberty when a bunch of naysayers are saying Iraqis aren't ready for democracy\blacks aren't ready for freedom. Meanwhile his opponent has a dodgy war record and has to simultaneously appease both the pro and anti-war sections of the American public (Kerry\McLellan).

2004=1864.

I stand corrected on when blacks shifted their support to the Democrats but I don't remember saying that the Republican Party was no longer the Party of Lincoln. However, thanks for helping prove my point about how over-sensitive people are about anything related to Democrats or Republicans by launching into that totally unnecessary Bush/Cheney '04 plug. ;)

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Here's what Cooke himself had to say about the whole liberal bias issue...

"Regarding King Farady....Just to help frame NF from my POV....He was one of my favorite characters, and many have oddly assumed a liberal bias to NF. I really think they were all heroes, just with different places where they draw the line. Farady is uniquely heroic in NF, not just because he sacrifices himself for the friend that saved his life, but because he had the courage to look himself in the eye and admit when he had gone astray.

And Kennedy's speech ... I had always thought that with our hindsight, it would be both inspiring and bittersweet.

And this may be of some interest to those who are looking at the parallels in NF and current events...God as my witness, NF was outlined and approved and was always meant to end with the JFK speech (hence the title) a FULL YEAR before 911. It is simply an eerie coincidence."

[The Adventurer]

Was King Faraday an offical DC character or just a character for this Mini? That's one thing I was never sure of.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Was King Faraday an offical DC character or just a character for this Mini? That's one thing I was never sure of.

King Faraday first appeared in a DC comic called "Danger Trail" sometime in the early fifties. He's been used as DC's standby spy character ever since.

[Brian Cronin]

I think the bombardment of Election '04 coverage has made everyone a little over-sensitive about anything remotely connected to Republicans or Democrats.

I mean, Kennedy and Eisenhower may have been Democratic & Republican Presidents respectively, but their political parties are radically different groups now.

Which is partially WHY the politics of the book come off as so silly...almost naive.

Had Eisenhower been a Democrat and Kennedy a Republican, I don't think Cooke's story would have changed one iota. I disagree with that bit. I think the respective parties had a LOT to do with what we saw in the series.

Granted, I'm sure people knocked Dark Knight Returns for being anti-Republican too.

That I think is a little bit different...Miller was knocking Reagan, but

A. That was a case of knocking the sitting president...knocking the sitting president can be a case of just anti-government, rather than anti a particular party.

and

B. Even if it WAS anti-Republican, it was only a couple of pages out of a much larger story. The anti-Republican stuff of New Frontier was systemic. You couldn't go an issue without an anti-Republican thing. J'onn J'onnz is in hiding because of the Republicans. Flash quits because of the Republicans. The JSA retire because of the Republicans. Hourman "dies" because of the Republicans. Wonder Woman is exiled by the Republicans for not agreeing with their evil policies. The happiest point of the book is when a Democrat takes over.

There's certainly a hero worship of Kennedy in this book, right? I mean, that seems to be pretty clear to me that, at the very least, there's a hero worship of Kennedy going on here.

You may think that doesn't mean Cooke is necesarily pro-Democrat, just pro-Kennedy...and hey, you may be right...I just doubt it myself.

-Brian

[Tynne]

I'm about as political as they come, but I've gotta say, I'm surprised that a series about an era that ended 44 years ago has got people concerned about how it reflects on their party today.

As I'm not a Republican, and I don't think anyone else identified themselves as such, I'm surprised you're drawing that conclusion.

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about abandoning the image of ourselves as a weak bunch of sissies who melt if they face reality. It says we're better off seeing the challenges and stepping up to face them, not only because it's better policy, but it makes us better people. It's worth noting that the JFK speech takes place AFTER the climactic battle, not before, so it's a Republican-led military that saves the world.

No where did I see people stating they thought the message of the speech was bad or wrong.

If it seems like vision and courage are qualities only found in the Democratic party, I've got some Republicans I'd like to introduce you to. Sure, the current bunch of morons are running on fear and deception, but this is NOT an essential quality of the Republican party. Somewhere, there's a Republican learning to say that this war is bad and environmental degradation is folly. Embrace her. And get over your defensive paranoia. This book made John F. Kennedy's speech look good. This harms you how? We've got to get to a point when we admire each other a little more, regardless of the labels we wear.

Again...no one said anything about "The Republicans are Saints, it's the Democrats who are lying cowards!"

No one.

You're assuming a lot.

I'm against lionizing or bashing either party. Both are seriously flawed and have always been so.

Cooke went out of his way to portray one party as sweetness, light, and hope...the other as demonic evil.

That's what I'm taking a dim view of.

[Brian Cronin]

I'm against lionizing or bashing either party. Both are seriously flawed and have always been so.

Cooke went out of his way to portray one party as sweetness, light, and hope...the other as demonic evil.

That's what I'm taking a dim view of.

Just for the record, that's what I'm complaining about as well. :)

-Brian

[Pixies Chick]

...The anti-Republican stuff of New Frontier was systemic. You couldn't go an issue without an anti-Republican thing. J'onn J'onnz is in hiding because of the Republicans. Flash quits because of the Republicans. The JSA retire because of the Republicans. Hourman "dies" because of the Republicans. Wonder Woman is exiled by the Republicans for not agreeing with their evil policies. The happiest point of the book is when a Democrat takes over.

There's certainly a hero worship of Kennedy in this book, right? I mean, that seems to be pretty clear to me that, at the very least, there's a hero worship of Kennedy going on here...

-Brian

[I]I'm against lionizing or bashing either party. Both are seriously flawed and have always been so.

Cooke went out of his way to portray one party as sweetness, light, and hope...the other as demonic evil.

That's what I'm taking a dim view of.

Y'all have me stunned. Darwyn Cooke writes a beautiful book about turning away from the easy path of excusing one's inadequacies through fingerpointing and labeling -- and you feel this is unfair to the Republicans? Why? Are they somehow incapable of it? What exactly would please you? Clearly demarcated, equal time evil under banners of the respective parties?

How do you come to the conclusion that Democrat are portrayed as "sweetness, light, and hope?" Which party was in office when the Korean War started? Which party controlled congress during the witch hunts? You think the little girl who betrayed John Henry learned racism from Republicans? I don't. In fact, I think her appearance is specifically to remind us that a visage of "sweetness and light" can hide a cancerous evil, and it's what on the inside that counts. Putting aside all that, why create these distortions by stating things that are not true about the book? Does the word "Republican" even show up in the book? Kennedy doesn't.

Weird. I won't try to change your opinion of DC: New Frontier, but I surely hope you haven't discouraged people from reading it. It's a beautiful reminder that when times are tough, rather than look for someone to blame, we best look within ourselves for the courage to do heroic things. I never imagined that this attitude would be seen as critical of one party. I assumed anyone was capable of it.

...And the current GOP is still the Party of Lincoln. Heck, there's a president in charge who's dismissed as an incompetent hick and waging an unpopular war with a fervent base of religious voters (evangelicals\abolitionists) rooting for him. At the same time he's facing accusations of despotism and a highly radicalised base of anti-war protestors (the nutso anti-Bush crowd\Copperheads). Plus he's using military force to crush a threat to the United States and is focusing on fighting for liberty when a bunch of naysayers are saying Iraqis aren't ready for democracy\blacks aren't ready for freedom. Meanwhile his opponent has a dodgy war record and has to simultaneously appease both the pro and anti-war sections of the American public (Kerry\McLellan).

2004=1864.

Jeez, is this a joke? It's a perfect parody of what Cooke is talking about -- in the face of some imagined slur, you've got to hyperventilate a slur, demonize an opponent, and aggrandize your party. Lincoln -- yep, he's the guy I've been confusing with Bush. Man, how sad.

[Tynne]

From your remarks, it seems you haven't truly read one thing either Brian or I said.

We aren't Republicans. We aren't saying people shouldn't read the New Frontier, or that it's a bad book.

We aren't saying that any political group is above reproach.

But...you seem dead-set convinced for some reason that such is what we are saying.

Even though neither of us have.

Either you skimmed our posts and are still drawing pre-conceived conclusions on the "these guys are whining Republicans out to bash Cooke"...or I just don't know what's going on.

You aren't responding to what we actually said, so I guess further discussion is pointless.

[Pixies Chick]

From your remarks, it seems you haven't truly read one thing either Brian or I said.

We aren't Republicans. We aren't saying people shouldn't read the New Frontier, or that it's a bad book.

We aren't saying that any political group is above reproach.

But...you seem dead-set convinced for some reason that such is what we are saying.

Even though neither of us have.

Either you skimmed our posts and are still drawing pre-conceived conclusions on the "these guys are whining Republicans out to bash Cooke"...or I just don't know what's going on.

You aren't responding to what we actually said, so I guess further discussion is pointless.

Good lord, Tynne, calm down, and please do me the favor of interpreting for me what you meant by "Cooke went out of his way to portray one party as sweetness, light, and hope...the other as demonic evil." I don't think you ought to be accusing someone else of distortion and exaggeration.

Criticism isn't bias, but your posts don't distinguish between them. Wrong and Republican are NOT the same thing. I didn't say you were a Republican. I said you were wrong.

The only way people can improve is to be willing to look within themselves and examine their foibles. To raise awareness is not an attack. Cactucmaac's post -- Now, that's an attack. You'll notice I addressed his post separately from yours.

Oh -- you didn't say that any political group was above reproach, and neither did I.

[Brian Cronin]

Y'all have me stunned. Darwyn Cooke writes a beautiful book about turning away from the easy path of excusing one's inadequacies through fingerpointing and labeling -- and you feel this is unfair to the Republicans? Why? Are they somehow incapable of it? What exactly would please you? Clearly demarcated, equal time evil under banners of the respective parties?

How do you come to the conclusion that Democrat are portrayed as "sweetness, light, and hope?" Which party was in office when the Korean War started? Which party controlled congress during the witch hunts? You think the little girl who betrayed John Henry learned racism from Republicans? I don't. In fact, I think her appearance is specifically to remind us that a visage of "sweetness and light" can hide a cancerous evil, and it's what on the inside that counts. I know it's MY problem with the book, and I think it's probably Tynne's as well. All those things you say about the Democrats are true, but THEY are not mentioned in New Frontier. The only "evil" politicians in New Frontier are the Republicans. Hence a distorted viewpoint of history. Which I think is pretty silly.

Putting aside all that, why create these distortions by stating things that are not true about the book? Does the word "Republican" even show up in the book? Kennedy doesn't. Third to last page of #6. In the credit to his inauguration speech that...you know, the entire SERIES is named after! :p

-Brian

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I know it's MY problem with the book, and I think it's probably Tynne's as well. All those things you say about the Democrats are true, but THEY are not mentioned in New Frontier. The only "evil" politicians in New Frontier are the Republicans. Hence a distorted viewpoint of history. Which I think is pretty silly.

Third to last page of #6. In the credit to his inauguration speech that...you know, the entire SERIES is named after! :p

-Brian

But, since the series was set in the fifties, when the Republicans were in charge of the government at the time, what choice did Cooke have? Was he supposed to throw in an evil Democrat just to balance things out? I mean, considering how much material Cooke managed to squeeze into this series, I think we can forgive him for not finding enough space to give equal space to the evils of the Democrats.

This is like saying that I can't do a superhero story set in 70s that shows how evil Nixon's Administration and ends with Jimmy Carter getting elected without also showing how equally corrupt the Democratic party was at the time. Its ridiculous.

And is *anybody* going to address what Cooke has said about this nonsense? Or are we going to continue to attribute motives to the author that fly completely in the face of what the author actually says?

[Brian Cronin]

Cooke's comments didn't address my problem, at least.

He said he didn't have a liberal bias.

Fine, I wasn't accusing him of such.

I was saying he portrayed the Republican party as evil, and the 50s UNDER the Republicans as a terrible time (because of the Republican government).

And portrayed the return of a Democrat to office as the shiny beacon of light that the series concluded with.

Republicans in power - sad.

Democrats in power - happy.

Do you disagree (and has Cooke ever said otherwise) with my earlier assertion that there was some heavy Kennedy hero worship going on in NF?

-Brian

[cactusmaac]

Y'all have me stunned. Darwyn Cooke writes a beautiful book about turning away from the easy path of excusing one's inadequacies through fingerpointing and labeling -- and you feel this is unfair to the Republicans? Why? Are they somehow incapable of it? What exactly would please you? Clearly demarcated, equal time evil under banners of the respective parties?

How do you come to the conclusion that Democrat are portrayed as "sweetness, light, and hope?" Which party was in office when the Korean War started? Which party controlled congress during the witch hunts? You think the little girl who betrayed John Henry learned racism from Republicans? I don't. In fact, I think her appearance is specifically to remind us that a visage of "sweetness and light" can hide a cancerous evil, and it's what on the inside that counts. Putting aside all that, why create these distortions by stating things that are not true about the book? Does the word "Republican" even show up in the book? Kennedy doesn't.

Weird. I won't try to change your opinion of DC: New Frontier, but I surely hope you haven't discouraged people from reading it. It's a beautiful reminder that when times are tough, rather than look for someone to blame, we best look within ourselves for the courage to do heroic things. I never imagined that this attitude would be seen as critical of one party. I assumed anyone was capable of it.



Jeez, is this a joke? It's a perfect parody of what Cooke is talking about -- in the face of some imagined slur, you've got to hyperventilate a slur, demonize an opponent, and aggrandize your party. Lincoln -- yep, he's the guy I've been confusing with Bush. Man, how sad.


Exactly where have I been attacking New Fronter for being anti-Republican?

I don't think its' anti-Republican at all.

Heck this is what I said over at the DC boards back when issue #3 was out.


<i>
Would you tend to agree that your New Frontier story can correctly be construed as having VERY liberal leanings and affections??? </i>

Speaking as a conservative who rolls his eyes at most comics treatments of politics, I'd say it hasn't shown any particular bias.

What I've said is that I don't buy the 50's being a particularly oppressive period. If Ike had been a Democrat and Kennedy a Republican my feeling would be the same.



That's not to say I hate the series at all. The scope, ambition and incredibly bloody hard work Cooke put into this project has to be admired at the very least. The art is fanastic throughout and the story-telling s the best I've ever seen. Everything involving J'onn, Batman and Wonderwoman has been great, especially THAT ninja sequence which any future Bat-movie director should have a serious look at. But still (and yes I know this probably is the minority opinion) NF just hasn't been the home-run I was hoping it would be and definitely pales next to Golden Age.

Yeah, a really vicious attack. :rolleyes:

[cactusmaac]

I stand corrected on when blacks shifted their support to the Democrats but I don't remember saying that the Republican Party was no longer the Party of Lincoln. However, thanks for helping prove my point about how over-sensitive people are about anything related to Democrats or Republicans by launching into that totally unnecessary Bush/Cheney '04 plug. ;)

Heh. Any opportunity to sound off :)

[Pixies Chick]

Exactly where have I been attacking New Fronter for being anti-Republican?


No, that criticism was directed at the people I quoted above. My criticism of your post is that you claimed your candidate is the successor to one of our country's great leaders, then decided to call me a racist, then you lied about the candidate I support. I did not group you with the people who were criticizing Darwyn Cooke.

Clear?

[cactusmaac]

Well that clears that up.

Cooke's a decent guy and I wouldn't attack him or his work.

[Private America]

For me the focus on the 50's being such an oppressive period just wasn't convincing. The world has just gone through 20 incredibly tumultous years when it seemed possible that liberal democracy would be wiped out altogether and Eisenhower's time in power was a welcome respite from all that. Sure there were troubles over McCarthy and fears about Sputnik but even Michael Moore is nostalgic for the 50's.

Heck, Kennedy's speech was born from a sense of confidence and optimism that the 50's engendered.

This is my only complaint about the book. Still enjoyed it though.

[Pixies Chick]

Cooke's comments didn't address my problem, at least.

He said he didn't have a liberal bias.

Fine, I wasn't accusing him of such.

I was saying he portrayed the Republican party as evil, and the 50s UNDER the Republicans as a terrible time (because of the Republican government).

And portrayed the return of a Democrat to office as the shiny beacon of light that the series concluded with.

Republicans in power - sad.

Democrats in power - happy.

Do you disagree (and has Cooke ever said otherwise) with my earlier assertion that there was some heavy Kennedy hero worship going on in NF?

-Brian

Brian, I have a very different take on this book from you. The "evil" isn't republicans - it's the Centre. Hal Jordan explained this when he sent it into outerspace: "With the centre defeated, the world's collective psyche relaxes. Everywhere, crowds of people are celebrating the rich taste of life snatched from certain death." The centre distorted perception, created paranoia, and sapped confidence. When people overcame the centre through banding together and challenging the thing they feared most, they learned they were truly heroes.

BTW - If Darwyn Cooke intended to showcase Kennedy in this book, he failed miserably. There's not one picture of him in it. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but it was the Republican-led military that won the climactic battle, and the story ends on a high note prior to Kennedy's speech, which is included in epilogue. Traditionally, the epilogue is where an author will let the reader see how everything worked out all right for the characters. He chose Kennedy's speech, which had some meaning for him. I think you're reading too much into that by assuming it's an endorsement of democrats and slam on republicans.

[Jaye]

After reading issue six, I decided to leave the whole series out on the table for a few days, in hopes my girlfriend would curiously pick it up and read it. I figured: if she doesn't like New Frontier, then she doesn't like superheroes.

Well, I am thrillled to report that she came home last night and told me that she likes it! And she has the luxery of reading them all at once, not waiting between issues. She thinks its a solid story with very clean and captivating art. Woot! Big score, thank you Darwyn Cooke!

Me, I cried when I read issue six. I found the whole series to be refreshing, and just great all around. The political stuff didn't bother me, I was too busy enjoying reading about superheroes.

I'll also be getting both trades.

-13th

[Brian Cronin]

Brian, I have a very different take on this book from you. The "evil" isn't republicans - it's the Centre. Hal Jordan explained this when he sent it into outerspace: "With the centre defeated, the world's collective psyche relaxes. Everywhere, crowds of people are celebrating the rich taste of life snatched from certain death." The centre distorted perception, created paranoia, and sapped confidence. When people overcame the centre through banding together and challenging the thing they feared most, they learned they were truly heroes.

BTW - If Darwyn Cooke intended to showcase Kennedy in this book, he failed miserably. There's not one picture of him in it. I don't want to repeat myself too much, but it was the Republican-led military that won the climactic battle, and the story ends on a high note prior to Kennedy's speech, which is included in epilogue. Traditionally, the epilogue is where an author will let the reader see how everything worked out all right for the characters. He chose Kennedy's speech, which had some meaning for him. I think you're reading too much into that by assuming it's an endorsement of democrats and slam on republicans.


From the opening of New Frontier #5.

"The system wasn't working. Walls of conformity had been constructed to identify good and bad citizens. Political and religious walls could be surmounted through capitulation but some walls, like race, excluded vast numbers based on ignorance, hate and fear. A narrow majority of Americans had awakened to the need for change. What America needed was leadership strong enough to reignite the nation's original promise of all men being created equal. It would fall to te visionaries of tomorrow to embrace the politics of inclusion."

Add that to the speech at the end of #6, and the fact that the NAME of the series comes from Kennedy...and that the negative stuff in the series takes place entirely during Eisenhower's two terms, and ends heroically when Kennedy's term begins....I think at the VERY least, there's a Kennedy hero worship going on.

I can understand the argument that it is just a pro-JFK policy, and nothing more.

I disagree with that argument...but it definitely a reasonable argument.

-Brian

[Brian Cronin]

The political stuff didn't bother me, I was too busy enjoying reading about superheroes

The series could have had scenes with Eisenhower and Nixon plotting maniacally behind closed doors to blow up the Earth, and I still would have enjoyed this series. :)

This was a damn fine superhero series.

That fact that you, me and Dread all mentioned having freakin' TEARS in our eyes says mountains about the greatness of this series....

-Brian

[cactusmaac]

From the opening of New Frontier #5.

"The system wasn't working. Walls of conformity had been constructed to identify good and bad citizens. Political and religious walls could be surmounted through capitulation but some walls, like race, excluded vast numbers based on ignorance, hate and fear. A narrow majority of Americans had awakened to the need for change. What America needed was leadership strong enough to reignite the nation's original promise of all men being created equal. It would fall to te visionaries of tomorrow to embrace the politics of inclusion."

Add that to the speech at the end of #6, and the fact that the NAME of the series comes from Kennedy...and that the negative stuff in the series takes place entirely during Eisenhower's two terms, and ends heroically when Kennedy's term begins....I think at the VERY least, there's a Kennedy hero worship going on.

I can understand the argument that it is just a pro-JFK policy, and nothing more.

I disagree with that argument...but it definitely a reasonable argument.

-Brian


I really don't see it as being an indictment of Ike.

I think Cooke's critique of American society was a lot broader than merely which party was occupying the White House at the time.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I really don't see it as being an indictment of Ike.

I think Cooke's critique of American society was a lot broader than merely which party was occupying the White House at the time.

Agreed. Likewise, a critique of American society during the sixties wouldn't be an indictment of the Democrats because JFK and LBJ were in power then. As I said earlier, despite all the election nonsense we're being overwhelmed with at the moment, there's a heckuva lot more to America's problems than Democrats or Republicans.

[Tynne]

Oh, the straight silver age super-hero stuff in the book I absolutely loved to bits!

No complaints about that. At all. :)

[Brian Cronin]

I really don't see it as being an indictment of Ike.

I think Cooke's critique of American society was a lot broader than merely which party was occupying the White House at the time.

The bad stuff occurs only during the Republican administration, and the bad stuff ends when the Democrat takes over....the whole political aspect of the series is structured around who was occupying the White House.

I will allow that perhaps Cooke was not doing a Democrat/Republican thing, but rather an "All Other Politicians"/Camelot thing...but I think the former is more likely...

-Brian

[Bored at 3:00AM]

The bad stuff occurs only during the Republican administration, and the bad stuff ends when the Democrat takes over....the whole political aspect of the series is structured around who was occupying the White House.

I will allow that perhaps Cooke was not doing a Democrat/Republican thing, but rather an "All Other Politicians"/Camelot thing...but I think the former is more likely...

-Brian

Wasn't Truman in office during some of early stuff?

[cactusmaac]

NF was set during the perod of 1955 to 1961 I think.

[Brian Cronin]

The very opening of the series is in 1945, then we meet Hal Jordan as a kid (1948?), then there is the Hourman article, which is after Eisenhower becomes president, and then the story picks up from there, in the beginning of 1953 and continues on until Kennedy is inaugerated in 1961. All the "evil" government stuff is from Ike's election on...

-Brian

[Private America]

Agreed. Likewise, a critique of American society during the sixties wouldn't be an indictment of the Democrats because JFK and LBJ were in power then. As I said earlier, despite all the election nonsense we're being overwhelmed with at the moment, there's a heckuva lot more to America's problems than Democrats or Republicans.

Good point, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a comic series from DC or Marvel that is critical of the 1960s.

[The Adventurer]

The very opening of the series is in 1945, then we meet Hal Jordan as a kid (1948?), then there is the Hourman article, which is after Eisenhower becomes president, and then the story picks up from there, in the beginning of 1953 and continues on until Kennedy is inaugerated in 1961. All the "evil" government stuff is from Ike's election on...

-Brian

I fail to see how this is a bias against Republicans. It was the McCarthy Era after all and no matter how you want to think of it, it was the fault of the Republican leadership of the time. At it wasn't just about Republicans it was the general fear of Communisim and Sabatosh, got everyone into a real conservative mood. Also you have to realize it's a Representation of Super Heroes. While the heros are here, things are good, when we drive them away they're forced to become criminals and times get bad, we let them comeback in force, and things get good again. A simily to what happened to Comic Books as a whole during the era. The Age of Super Science comics, which the Chalengers, Black Hawks, and others represent gave way to the new age of super heroes.

[Apathy Boy]

Lousy issue.

I've been growing increasingly disenchanted with this series with each issue. I would have loved the series if it had been published as a series of unrelated one-shots, a la "Just Imagine Stan Lee Creating ..." But it was not. It was published as a single story, and the more the story's central plot began to take shape, the more dissatisfied I became.

In a mini-series, every character arc should have a beginning, middle and end that fits in with the overall narrative. Cooke failed to deliver. Sure, Cooke wanted to draw the entire DC Universe. I get that. But the (very long) cameos Cooke gave to the bit characters reek of self-indulgence.

What was the point of devoting an issue to the Challengers when they played pretty much no role in the finale? What was the point of having the magical characters, Adam Strange, Green Arrow and Aquaman pop up in the final issue, other than for the fact that Cooke wanted to shoehorn them in?

These cameos just wasted space that should have gone to fleshing out the characters and the central plot. The Flash's character arc seemed to zigzag all over the place. (He was worried that superheroing felt "small?" Huh? Where the hell did that come from?) The living island needed some fleshing out too. THE GOLDEN AGE had a villain that defined the era it was portraying; THE NEW FRONTIER couldn't have done the same?

And sufferin' suzie! Is Cooke being paid by the word or something? Because issue 6 had waaaaay too much bland, expository narrative. We don't really need that much play-by-play from Hal and Barry when we can, you know, see what they're doing.

I can't think of another series that started so promising and disappointed me so much in the end.

[Pixies Chick]

The very opening of the series is in 1945, then we meet Hal Jordan as a kid (1948?), then there is the Hourman article, which is after Eisenhower becomes president, and then the story picks up from there, in the beginning of 1953 and continues on until Kennedy is inaugerated in 1961. All the "evil" government stuff is from Ike's election on...

-Brian

What about the first story? The premise is the allies are sneaking Nazi scientists out of Germany. Nasty policy, real cloak and dagger stuff, done to get the U.S. the a-bomb quicker. The article by Iris West indicates that investigation of private citizens started in 1948, which would be when Truman was in office. I'd say that means the evil was already here prior to Eisenhower. The Centre was the island that appeared in the first story, so it was there all through the series, although we didn't know what it was.

Jimmy Olson says how good it felt when the Centre was defeated, so the good times started prior to Kennedy. Put it together, and the evil started during a Democratic administration and was defeated under a Republican administration.

Not that it matters, right? Great story, well told. Very highly recommended.

[Adam Crocker]

Good point, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a comic series from DC or Marvel that is critical of the 1960s.

Get me to write it. I'm a dirty left-winger but I'm also a punk at heart, therefore I hate those dirty hippies. Oooohhhh how I hate 'em! http://www.infoshop.org/forums/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

[T Rath]

Quite simply this was the best take on "super-heroes" I've seen.
This wasn't "what would it be like to have super-heroes in the real world (ala Miracleman/Watchmen)" or "super-heroes as metaphors for political leanings (ala Dark Knight)." Those were great but NF was not any of those things.
This was "super-heroes are good guys."
Period. They may start out thinking one way and they may even disagree with each other, but in the end they do good.
All the political stuff you guys are tossing around is YOUR own bias coming forward.
In this story, the good guys were good. The bad guys (the monster) was bad. The good guys had to overcome obstacles to defeat the bad guy. The way good comics should be.
I see this series as the sequal to The Golden Age by Robinson. I would love to see a third creator with as much love for the medium finish the trilogy with a great bronze age story, although I would like to wait another decade before seeing it. To give us time to savor NF and allow the creator perspective.
NF should be ranked with Watchmen, Dark Knight, Nexus, Sandman, Howard the Duck, the Golden Age and Amrican Flagg as among the greatest comics produced in the last 30 years.

As an aside, as much as I love Steve Englehart's work - his Avengers is equal to Roy Thomas' and there is no greater Batman other than the small run he did with Marshall Rogers - I wasn't overwhelmed with his JLA run. And I thought his "origin" for the team never worked. I prefered the meteorites/space aliens story from JLA 9/200. However Cooke has taken that basic premise and made me fall in love with it here. Because he was spot on with every characterization.

[Tynne]

All the political stuff you guys are tossing around is YOUR own bias coming forward.


If it was my biases the story would have been quite different.

One can say that one did not perceive/wasn't bothered by the political content of the book without insulting the posters who remarked that they were.

[Brian Cronin]

Please....anyone who thinks Tynne and I are reading something into it...explain away the paragraph I posted earlier....

"The system wasn't working. Walls of conformity had been constructed to identify good and bad citizens. Political and religious walls could be surmounted through capitulation but some walls, like race, excluded vast numbers based on ignorance, hate and fear. A narrow majority of Americans had awakened to the need for change. What America needed was leadership strong enough to reignite the nation's original promise of all men being created equal. It would fall to te visionaries of tomorrow to embrace the politics of inclusion."

I would love to see how the heck that isn't saying the previous adminstration was bad and the new adminstration was good.

-Brian

[T Rath]

No insult intended. But when the AUTHOR of the story says there's no political agenda, that natural conclusion is that any READER who sees a political agenda is bringing their own bias to the material.

And that paragraph was correct. While Brown v. the Board of Education, and subsequent desegregation measures did occur under the Eisenhower administration, it wasn't until Kennedy/Johnson that meanful change occured, up to and including amendments to the Constitution. Like it or not, Kennedy WAS a true leader, someone that could unify both sides of the aisle. Just like Reagan. Eisenhower, like Johnson, had a few good ideas but was unable to marshall the unification needed to accomplish what they wanted.

And for the record, not only am I a Republican, but I'm a Republican precinct committeeman in my community. Are you other "conservatives" backing up your ideology with action? If so, good on ya! If not, get out there and work to make things better.

[Pixies Chick]

Please....anyone who thinks Tynne and I are reading something into it...explain away the paragraph I posted earlier....



I would love to see how the heck that isn't saying the previous adminstration was bad and the new adminstration was good.

-Brian

While the heroes were less active, either because they were hiding, lost faith in themselves, or were captured, other leaders rose into prominence, and they needed to be defeated. Leadership does not equal administration.

[Brian Cronin]

While the heroes were less active, either because they were hiding, lost faith in themselves, or were captured, other leaders rose into prominence, and they needed to be defeated. Leadership does not equal administration.

"A narrow majority of Americans" is a direct reference to the 1960 Presidential election, which was between Eisenhower's Vice-President (i.e., a continuation of that adminstration) and John F. Kennedy, "the visionary of tomorrow."

And then the book ends, as all is happy, with the inauguration of Kennedy, whose inauguration speech gives the entire series its title.

-Brian

[Joe Rice]

Is it really biased to say that a lot of things were really shitty during the 50s, and they STARTED to improve in the 60s?

[Brian Cronin]

Is it really biased to say that a lot of things were really shitty during the 50s, and they STARTED to improve in the 60s?

I think it is a silly revision of history to try to pretend that 1961 was any different than 1958 in America.

Anything that was bad in 1956 was bad in 1962.

Anything good in 1963 was good in 1957.

And New Frontier appears to be saying otherwise.

And the idea that Kennedy (who I don't have any problem with, honestly...my problems here are ones of context) was some shining visionary of tomorrow is, in mind, silly revisionistic history.

-Brian

[Joe Rice]

Kennedy isn't the only leader to take the field in the sixties. King, X, (the other) Kennedy . . .I mean, I feel it's generally held that the sixties were a time of social progression, while the fifties were a post-war economic boom and social holding pattern.

HUAC happened in the fifties. That's a big part of the New Frontier story. The fifties, to many, represent an oppresive time in American history. As symbol, that's generally how it works. Symbolically, it has little to do with administrations. Republicans just so happen to have been in power during a time generally considered to be oppressive and paranoid politically. Kennedy took over in a time generally seen (especially symbolically) as a lifting of those old paranoias and prejudices.

[Brian Cronin]

I did say that I will allow that perhaps Cooke was going for just an "All Other Polticians"/Camelot dichotomy, and not a Republican/Democrat one....I just doubt it.

And even if he WAS just doing an "All Other Politicians"/Camelot dichotomy, I think THAT'S silly and revisionistic, as well.

-Brian

[Captain Jim]

Just had a chance to finally read #6 and loved it (as I did the others).

I have to say, I never saw anything remotely anti-republican in this series when I read it (and I'm a republican). I'm in agreement with Bored and some of the others.

I also grew up during the fifties and sixties and felt this was a fair representation of the eras.

And I loved the Kennedy speech at the end.

[Captain Jim]

Personally, I think DC has put out the best two mini-series this year...

Me too: NEW FRONTIER and IDENTITY CRISIS (no, really!)

[Tynne]

It seems odd that I was quite positive in my views on all but one element of the series...in this and pretty much every other New Frontier thread. And many others in the thread seems to be fixating that one negative opinion. Going out of their way to tell me how wrong my opinion is.

Oh, and how if I have this opinion, I must also actually think the entire book is bad, and Cooke sucks, and I'm trying to get people to not read it, and I'm self-denying delusional hardline conservative, etc, so-on-so-forth.

Because apparently I have to either love everything in the book 100% or I must hate everything in the book 100%.

Doesn't that seem kind of a strange demand to make?

I really don't think having a mixed opinion on a book is so very wrong.

But whatever.

People keep bringing it up.

I must hate Cooke and hate the series or I must be a delusional freak who sees conspiracy theories in everything.

Feh.

Fine.

[Brian Cronin]

I dunno, Tynne...I understand the perspective you have here, in that it DOES seem to be a common thing to act like someone saying ANYthing negative about a book is saying that they didn't like the book overall.

However, I do not really get that sense from THIS discussion on this specific thread. Okay, at least the majority of the disagreements. ;)

Taking just the last two disagreers for instance, Joe and Jim, both seemed just to disagree with our stance that New Frontier unfairly showed one party as evil and one party as shining truth, and not misconstruing our stance as an anti-New Frontier period stance.

-Brian

[Joe Rice]

Yeah, Tynne. I don't think people are really saying that. When you disagree with most people about a certain part of the comic and agree on the rest, they'll most likely want to discuss the disagreement more, in order to understand it better. AND TO CORRECT IT YOU WRONGY WRONGERTON!

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I would just like to point out that someone said I was right about something...again.

Hell is now freezing over.

The End is nigh!

[DaleKaleD]

I know that its been a while sense anyone posted here, but I was toying arround with my scanner, and put this together, thought that i would make it available

http://img61.echo.cx/img61/8011/newfrontierwallpaper5pn.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[kossori]

Nice pic!
:-)