I get why people complain about FINAL CRISIS...

[40footwolf]

You're missing the point, which is that Pink Floyd are a point of ideological contention in British pop music. :tongue:

Anyways as an artistic signpost that is a point of controversy I'd say that Grant is like electric Miles Davis 1968 to 1975.
Yeah, dude, that's why I think they're a great comparison to Grant. A real love'em or hate'em sort of thing.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, dude, that's why I think they're a great comparison to Grant. A real love'em or hate'em sort of thing.

Not unless you're talking about the Syd Barrett era. Because otherwise, Pink Floyd's reputation isn't for complexity, it's for barbarous excess designed to conceal the musical poverty of the ideas after Barrett left.

The comparison is kind of tone deaf, because there's nothing prog rock about Grant's work -- in fact Grant has explicitly rejected the comics work of the 70s as good for its time, but too prog rock in retrospect.

OTOH, he's consistently namechecked Moorcock as an influence; and the one 70s band consistently respected by the punk rock generation is Hawkwind, as it happens.

So, Hawkwind it is; and Pink Floyd it certainly isn't.

Although Throbbing Gristle/Psychic TV would also work.













Or maybe Robbie Williams.

[40footwolf]

Good lord, you people overthink the silliest shit.

[dotdotdot]

Good lord, you people overthink the silliest shit.

well it was just a silly comparison

[berk]

And look at how each of them "dies" in ASS and RIP. One descends into Hell, one ascends into Heaven. Superman becomes pure Superman, purged of all Clark Kent. Batman' situation is more complicated, as we see him shriven of the cowl (literally), and yet all other aspects of him seem to have been subsumed into the Bat-role.

But then, Grant's Batman is totally MPD -- and MPD by design. Whereas his Superman comes across as utterly unitary, with Clark Kent almost entirely disposed of even by the first episode.I'm hampered here by not having read either series, but anyway, it's an interesting comparison because if we take Kal-El/Superman as the real person and Clark Kent as the invented persona, sounds like Superman/Kal-El ascends to Heaven through becoming himself again - through escaping possession by his own fictional creation, Clark Kent. If something like the opposite happens to Batman - complete possession - or perhaps even displacement, if the rumours are true - of Bruce Wayne by the Batman persona, then this loss of identity would be a descent into hell indeed, the reverse of Superman's complete self-realization.

It's complicated by the fact that from the reader's perspective, Superman's the fantasy figure opposed to the very mundane Clark Kent, while from the perspective of Superman/Kal-El, it's Kent that's the fantasy - the fantasy of being included, of not being an alien in a world of strangers.

OTOH, maybe we should see both Superman and Kent as competing fantasies of Kal-El, with Superman winning out in ASS as the more balanced, less escapist (from Kal-El's POV, not the reader's of course) of the two alternatives, the one that manages to accept his Kryptonian otherness (doesn't hide his superhuman abilities) while still finding a role to play within human society (protector). Clark Kent, OTOH would be seen as a retreat from (DCU) reality, a denial of Kal-El's alien nature in favour of a fantasy of complete normalcy and acceptance as a fully human individual.

And maybe I'm completely on the wrong track here, since I haven't read ASS or RIP. Neither character's ever spoken to me as a reader, so I haven't been motivated to check them out.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm hampered here by not having read either series, but anyway, it's an interesting comparison because if we take Kal-El/Superman as the real person and Clark Kent as the invented persona, sounds like Superman/Kal-El ascends to Heaven through becoming himself again - through escaping possession by his own fictional creation, Clark Kent. If something like the opposite happens to Batman - complete possession - or perhaps even displacement, if the rumours are true - of Bruce Wayne by the Batman persona, then this loss of identity would be a descent into hell indeed, the reverse of Superman's complete self-realization.

It's complicated by the fact that from the reader's perspective, Superman's the fantasy figure opposed to the very mundane Clark Kent, while from the perspective of Superman/Kal-El, it's Kent that's the fantasy - the fantasy of being included, of not being an alien in a world of strangers.

OTOH, maybe we should see both Superman and Kent as competing fantasies of Kal-El, with Superman winning out in ASS as the more balanced, less escapist (from Kal-El's POV, not the reader's of course) of the two alternatives, the one that manages to accept his Kryptonian otherness (doesn't hide his superhuman abilities) while still finding a role to play within human society (protector). Clark Kent, OTOH would be seen as a retreat from (DCU) reality, a denial of Kal-El's alien nature in favour of a fantasy of complete normalcy and acceptance as a fully human individual.

And maybe I'm completely on the wrong track here, since I haven't read ASS or RIP. Neither character's ever spoken to me as a reader, so I haven't been motivated to check them out.

I would recommend both, not just as character studies -- although they do a find job of working through what the characters/archetypes are, in a post Warren Ellis world -- but also again as transformative rituals that allow us to experience specific chakra-loa-angel modes of human consciousness in their purity (as Seven Soldiers allowed us to experience the spiral dynamics of shifting between one pure c-l-a mode and the next one up the ladder).

So each works through the twin poles of mercy and severity -- let's think of it that way, perhaps; it probably works better -- and takes the white knight / dark knight dichotomies to their proper conclusion; but still modulates them through the pop culture bric-a-brac we expect of the particular mythologies. The abstract only manifests through the concrete, and all that.

And I think it's fairly form-and-content that the Superman book is more tightly-controlled, whereas the Batman book goes all over the bloody map; what else would you expect from the Appollonian/Hadean divide?

So yeah, digging into these pop culture icons allows us to spear what severity and mercy -- or judgement and compassion, if you prefer -- mean in American society, and have meant over the course of the American Empire from start to finish -- and the end of the American Empire is, I'm sure, on Grant's mind as he "kills off" Superman, Batman, and the DCU, just as much as is the rapture of the nerds.

Take a look for yourself and you'll see.

[40footwolf]

well it was just a silly comparison
Well, that's why I didn't expect anyone to overthink it.

[the4thpip]

So, is JG Jones then the Florence Ballard of Final Crisis, with Pacheco being the Cindy Birdsong and Doug Mahnke the Jean Terrell?

And does that make Grant the Diana Ross?

[Sean Walsh]

So, is JG Jones then the Florence Ballard of Final Crisis, with Pacheco being the Cindy Birdsong and Doug Mahnke the Jean Terrell?

And does that make Grant the Diana Ross?

I don't know who any of those people are, but yes. Yes they are. :tongue:






(I know who Diana Ross is. And I might know who the others are. I'm just trying to be funny.)

[Paul McEnery]

So, is JG Jones then the Florence Ballard of Final Crisis, with Pacheco being the Cindy Birdsong and Doug Mahnke the Jean Terrell?

And does that make Grant the Diana Ross?

Don't be silly.

It was Alan Moore did all those Supremes.

[Paul McEnery]

Good lord, you people overthink the silliest shit.

Not really.

Calling anyone the Pink Floyd of anything is pretty much an insult.

Well, if you're a muso, it is.

[Adam C]

Good lord, you people overthink the silliest shit.

Yeah, but you posted this comparison on a threat where Paul's posting so I have no sympathy for you. :tongue:



So, Hawkwind it is; and Pink Floyd it certainly isn't.

What about Barret-era Floyd?

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, but you posted this comparison on a threat where Paul's posting so I have no sympathy for you. :tongue:



What about Barret-era Floyd?

I did that one, sir!

Yup, since Syd was a master of banging together a number of lovely three minute singles, and then getting them to cohere into a collection -- and indulge in the occasional Interstellar Overdrive -- Syd Floyd will do.

But muso pedants will recall that we refer to them as The Pink Floyd.

[darkhanamaru]

So each works through the twin poles of mercy and severity -- let's think of it that way, perhaps; it probably works better -- and takes the white knight / dark knight dichotomies to their proper conclusion; but still modulates them through the pop culture bric-a-brac we expect of the particular mythologies. The abstract only manifests through the concrete, and all that.

And I think it's fairly form-and-content that the Superman book is more tightly-controlled, whereas the Batman book goes all over the bloody map; what else would you expect from the Appollonian/Hadean divide?



A quick aside..just read black glove HC and again, as in dc universe #0 with the cards and the joker, the story opens with a gambling scene with the roulette table . I like how the gambling trope is weaved in with all the twinning set up through the series and the books - the red vs. black, the interplay between order and chaos that gamblers are always trying to crack, what is pattern and what really is blind luck. I really like how that keeps popping up in different Batman stories.

[40footwolf]

Not really.

Calling anyone the Pink Floyd of anything is pretty much an insult.

Well, if you're a muso, it is.
You know what kind of person talks down to somebody for liking Pink Floyd?

A VERY COOL PERSON.

[Paul McEnery]

You know what kind of person talks down to somebody for liking Pink Floyd?

A VERY COOL PERSON.

I love listening to Wish You Were Here. It's so.... bracing.

[darkhanamaru]

I love listening to Wish You Were Here. It's so.... bracing.


Really? I thought that was the robbie williams.

[Harding Prime]

So, is JG Jones then the Florence Ballard of Final Crisis, with Pacheco being the Cindy Birdsong and Doug Mahnke the Jean Terrell?

And does that make Grant the Diana Ross?

Well, your the 4th Pip, so who would be Gladice Knight?

[the4thpip]

Well, your the 4th Pip, so who would be Gladys Knight?

Mark Evanier.

[berk]

I would recommend both, not just as character studies -- although they do a find job of working through what the characters/archetypes are, in a post Warren Ellis world -- but also again as transformative rituals that allow us to experience specific chakra-loa-angel modes of human consciousness in their purity (as Seven Soldiers allowed us to experience the spiral dynamics of shifting between one pure c-l-a mode and the next one up the ladder).

So each works through the twin poles of mercy and severity -- let's think of it that way, perhaps; it probably works better -- and takes the white knight / dark knight dichotomies to their proper conclusion; but still modulates them through the pop culture bric-a-brac we expect of the particular mythologies. The abstract only manifests through the concrete, and all that.

And I think it's fairly form-and-content that the Superman book is more tightly-controlled, whereas the Batman book goes all over the bloody map; what else would you expect from the Appollonian/Hadean divide?

So yeah, digging into these pop culture icons allows us to spear what severity and mercy -- or judgement and compassion, if you prefer -- mean in American society, and have meant over the course of the American Empire from start to finish -- and the end of the American Empire is, I'm sure, on Grant's mind as he "kills off" Superman, Batman, and the DCU, just as much as is the rapture of the nerds.

Take a look for yourself and you'll see.The characters do get in the way for me, I must admit. To use the semiotic analogy, I can separate the signifier from the signified, the character from the ideas it's used to illustrate in story form, at an intellectual level, but as a reader who gets involved in the story, I tend to see the characters, the story and the subtext as various aspects of a whole, all of them with an important role to play. If one of them doesn't appeal to me, even at the most superficial level, I'm less motivated to give the work my time. As much as I like the ideas behind ASS and RIP, at least from the hints you've given, as long as they're being presented in the form of Superman & Batman stories, that's a problem for me. But I am interested, so I might have to see if I can hold that distaste in check long enough to give these two stories a chance.

I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the creation of the Batman persona having being driven by young Wayne's Oedipal guilt at seeing the wished-for death of his father acted out before his very eyes. The death of his mother would then be experienced by him as an immediate punishment for the guilt of having accomplished his father's murder. Batman would be an instrument of vengeance disguised as justice, and the primary but repressed object of that vengeance would be Wayne himself, with the criminal substitutes for both Wayne and his father's actual killer only secondary targets, but ones whose existence as targets he doesn't have to deny to himself (he just has to deny that they're objects of vengeance rather than justice). Batman's spent all these years trying to kill Bruce Wayne, to punish him for the murder of his own father, and it looks like he might finally succeed.

[Radical]

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.


We (or at least I) also want it to be like back in the '60s, back when being "realistic" wasn't a concern and everything wasn't so dark, cynical and violent.

[Paul McEnery]

I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the creation of the Batman persona having being driven by young Wayne's Oedipal guilt at seeing the wished-for death of his father acted out before his very eyes. The death of his mother would then be experienced by him as an immediate punishment for the guilt of having accomplished his father's murder. Batman would be an instrument of vengeance disguised as justice, and the primary but repressed object of that vengeance would be Wayne himself, with the criminal substitutes for both Wayne and his father's actual killer only secondary targets, but ones whose existence as targets he doesn't have to deny to himself (he just has to deny that they're objects of vengeance rather than justice). Batman's spent all these years trying to kill Bruce Wayne, to punish him for the murder of his own father, and it looks like he might finally succeed.

Sounds about right. Which makes the whole Black Glove storyline rather more interesting. On the face of it, we've got a villain who equates to the Prince of This World, but flipped on its axis, we get a story of an intervention; and from the inside of the schizo-affective disorder, the cure feels exactly like death, so what the patient sees is a wild distortion of reality so that his external environment becomes Hell.

[Tobias March]

Reading Batman 683 it is reminiscent of King Mob's own psychofugue - with the Gideon Stargrove alternate selves and such. Nice to see Grant revisiting the idea.

[gmurakami]

Splatt, respectfully, I disagree. Morrison creates a universe that doesn't need to be explained.

[joint venture]

We (or at least I) also want it to be like back in the '60s, back when being "realistic" wasn't a concern and everything wasn't so dark, cynical and violent.

errr...and you use "The Witchblade" as an avatar.

[Drizzit007]

I thought SI wasn't very good, but at least I understood what was going on for the most part. It seems with FC you need to read all the tie-in issues? Because when I pick up one issue to the next of FC I am wondering if I missed something somewhere in the previuos issue.

[carabas]

I thought SI wasn't very good, but at least I understood what was going on for the most part. It seems with FC you need to read all the tie-in issues? Because when I pick up one issue to the next of FC I am wondering if I missed something somewhere in the previuos issue.Apart from Superman Beyond, all of the Final Crisis tie-ins are completely skippable. It just jumps about in tim a bit.

[Calybos]

Apart from Superman Beyond, all of the Final Crisis tie-ins are completely skippable.

As is Final Crisis itself. (rim shot)

[im399unot]

SI is a straightforward Bendis event. I have no intentions of buying or reading it.

Final Crisis is typical Morrison, especially with how his style is splitting fans. That's what bugs me. FC on the whole has been hit and miss so far.

Other than the facts that they're both mega-events, the plots boil down to the invasions of earth in the name of religion, and the “bad guys” are supposed to "win" in both stories, they're completely different.

I wish this was written by someone other than Morrison. I just hate almost everything I have ever read by him. I am not going to pick up the next F.C. issue.
I just think DC made a stupid choice as to who they chose to write there big event. Most either love or hate Morrison. I hate him but I still gave it a try. I have not liked 1 single moment of F.C.

4 issues was enough for me.

.........and I also did not dig S.I. either. I dont know what was worse, S.I., F.C. or House of M.

[joint venture]

I wish this was written by someone other than Morrison. I just hate almost everything I have ever read by him. I am not going to pick up the next F.C. issue.
I just think DC made a stupid choice as to who they chose to write there big event. Most either love or hate Morrison. I hate him but I still gave it a try. I have not liked 1 single moment of F.C.

4 issues was enough for me.

.........and I also did not dig S.I. either. I dont know what was worse, S.I., F.C. or House of M.

Duuuuude!!!!
geee...at the very least Leinil Francis Yu deserves praise as a kickass artist and a consistent professional. Then, Final Crisis hasn't been THAT bad at all. I do not read Marvel and because of Yu and some Bendis I ended up liking the whole run.

But to be House of M's "peer"; man, Morrison must have done something bad or evil to rank around House of M with you.

House of M is the dictionary's definition for "recyclable paper" and "bad job: everyone".

[im399unot]

Duuuuude!!!!
geee...at the very least Leinil Francis Yu deserves praise as a kickass artist and a consistent professional. Then, Final Crisis hasn't been THAT bad at all. I do not read Marvel and because of Yu and some Bendis I ended up liking the whole run.

But to be House of M's "peer"; man, Morrison must have done something bad or evil to rank around House of M with you.

House of M is the dictionary's definition for "recyclable paper" and "bad job: everyone".

I just dont get any of his stuff. I really wanted to enjoy F.C., I really did. I guess he is just not for me.

[dotdotdot]

final crisis is the best big event i've ever read. but house of m was perfectly fine, too, even if it read better in trade. civil war and house of m were both a bit better than SI, and i enjoyed the latter until the last issue.

[carabas]

house of m was perfectly fine, too, even if it read better in trade.I have to take issue with this. I have read this in trade, borrowed from a friend.

In the first issue, the central conflict is set up to be 'what shall we do about Wanda?'. Fair enough.

Then we get five issues worth of Wolverine, Plot Device Lass, and a few Avengers and X-Men stumbling through some sort of alternate reality only for the whole mess to be resolved out of the blue by characters who were not or barely in the rest of the story.

And all the resolution did was mess up the X-Men's status quo something fiercely. The central issue (what to do about the massively powerful and out of control mutant who can rewrite reality by accident) remaines unresolved even now years later.
Oh, and they gave Spider-Man yet another trauma, which they apparently didn't clear with the Spider-Man writers since it has never even been refered to in the Spider-Man titles (but if they really really wanted to get rid of the Spider-marriage, this would have been the ideal moment to do so).

A first issue that sets up a story that doesn't get told, and five issues of basically filler material that gets rendered inconsequential by the final issue do not a good, or even okayish story make.

[Arksy]

I have to take issue with this. I have read this in trade, borrowed from a friend.

In the first issue, the central conflict is set up to be 'what shall we do about Wanda?'. Fair enough.

Then we get five issues worth of Wolverine, Plot Device Lass, and a few Avengers and X-Men stumbling through some sort of alternate reality only for the whole mess to be resolved out of the blue by characters who were not or barely in the rest of the story.

And all the resolution did was mess up the X-Men's status quo something fiercely. The central issue (what to do about the massively powerful and out of control mutant who can rewrite reality by accident) remaines unresolved even now years later.
Oh, and they gave Spider-Man yet another trauma, which they apparently didn't clear with the Spider-Man writers since it has never even been refered to in the Spider-Man titles (but if they really really wanted to get rid of the Spider-marriage, this would have been the ideal moment to do so).

A first issue that sets up a story that doesn't get told, and five issues of basically filler material that gets rendered inconsequential by the final issue do not a good, or even okayish story make.

For the most part, i agree. Although i was a massive fan of the early parts of the Hulk storyline where Bruce Banner and the Hulk manage to find peace and live in harmony with a tribe of Australian Aborigionals. Was really good stuff.

Civil War is one of my favourite big events only because of the philosophical implications of it all. It was deep and very personal to all the characters involved.
FC on the other hand is just an incredible story even if it doesn't seem anywhere near as deep, personal or philosophical as Civil War.

[Tobias March]

Civil War is one of my favourite big events only because of the philosophical implications of it all. It was deep and very personal to all the characters involved.
FC on the other hand is just an incredible story even if it doesn't seem anywhere near as deep, personal or philosophical as Civil War.

Um Civil War was about as philosophical as Coke Wars....whereas a series exploring gnostic ideas doesn't cut the mustard?

[Arksy]

Ok i think i need to call you out on that because that's just crap.

CW:

Civil war was a story about two friends taking sides on an issue that many governements in the world were discussing and trying to solve. It was a debate of Social securitys versus social freedoms. It was about registration and freedoms.

The country i live in (Australia) wanted to register everyone and make everyone have their own key cards, that idea was thankfully rebuked but they tried to introduce all sorts of nonsense like registrations for foreigners and if my former Government had its way we'd probably be living in a police state right about now. Thankfully that Prime Minister is no longer in power as he was defeated in a record landslide at the election. Never the less - the world climate at the time with the threat of terrorists made the story and the background of Civil War relevant. It was a philosophical question of 'How can we resolve the need for our citizens to be safe from dangers without impeaching too much on their freedoms and rights."

It was deep in the fact that both sides very deeply felt for their own causes. I refer to the personal reactions and ideals explained in the comic book Civil War: Casualties of War. They believed in their own side so much so they lost track of the bigger picture until Captain America realised what was going on and ordered the surrender of his side. It was a very powerful realisation when he said he was winning everything except the argument.

FC:
There is nothing in FC that is relevant or philosophical in a sense that is emprically valid to society as a large at all. There is no debate or argument. It's good versus evil in an all out fight. Unless there's a huge part of the story i'm missing out on i see nothing that a rationalist intellectual could find philosophical about FC. It is an AMAZING story and one i love to absolute bits, but it's really just sci-fi fluff with nothing really anyone can take away from it. Here are some examples:

-The anti-life equation, an interesting concept. An equation that's deeply buried in the human subconscious that when exposed to it renders the person enslaved and forces them to give up hope and willpower in the beauty of life. Jack Kirby once said that the idea behind the equation is that when all choice is given up and when someone holds absolute dominion over you, you are no longer really alive. This is complete bullcrap, life has a very definite scientifically verifiable definition. Bacteria don't really have a consciousness let alone choice in anything. Neither do trees, they're about as conscious as a self-regulating machine. It is interesting when placed in a work of FICTION but it's still bullcrap that doesn't relate to real life at all.

- Mandrakk the Dark-Monitor; It is implied that this Mandrakk character was once a monitor that was a seeker of knowledge and as he grew he became infected with 'stories' and 'experiences' and somehow the taint of experience made him evil and a cosmic vampire. This is rediculous. Experience doesn't make you evil. Experience certainly changes you, but it doesn't make you inherently evil. For the purposes of the story? Great. As a philosophical concept it makes about as much sense as "The Secret"

- Alpha Lanterns; I love the idea of a group of people held by those higher then them as infallable only to be proven wrong. But there's nothing really philosophical about holding an entity uncorruptable only to be proven wrong. It's just a plot device.

- Nix Uotan; The power to conjure up anything you think of screams to me of "The Secret" in fact there's comedy skits about "The Secret" and it's rediculousness so i won't go into it there.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE FC. But don't make it into something it's not.

[Jeff-E]

My problem with FC is that if you didn't follow certain titles before the event you are totally lost. I don't read alot of DC, but I do read certain titles and I collect the big events. Identity Crisis didn't require extensive knowledge before going in to it, and it was well written that until the final issue ruined it, I cared about a pair of characters I had never read before (Sue and Ralph). Infinite Crisis was pretty easy to slide in to as well and for those of us who didn't know everything it helped out along the way and caught us up. FC kind of alienates those of us who didn't read Morrison's runs on JLA... or countdown, or whatever is required to understand why Granny looks like an old version of Da Brat, and why Michael Clarke Duncan's Kingpin has been possessed by Darkseid. If FC is more of a "Purist" story or whatever thats fine, but it was billed as their big blockbuster event, so I ran in to it only to be confused on why Mary Marvel (after I figured out that was Mary) looked like something from a specialized porn site.

[4thHorseman]

My problem with FC is that if you didn't follow certain titles before the event you are totally lost.


Infinite Crisis was pretty easy to slide in to as well and for those of us who didn't know everything it helped out along the way and caught us up.

I'm kinda confused by this. Infinite Crisis had books for more than half a year leading up to it that if you didn't read, you would have no idea where the OMACS came from or why the Spectre killed Shazam and blew up the Rock of Eternity. I haven't read anything in Final Crisis that hasn't had some kind of explanation as for why things are what they are or there will be an explanation for...hopefully.

[Arksy]

I'd never read anything about the greater DCU (kept to batman) before FC, i follow FC fine. (I had a lot of catching up to do but the website "Annotated Final-Crisis" and these boards along with Wikipedia mean i get FC as anyone else, except for maybe the really clued up guys.

[Jeff-E]

I'm kinda confused by this. Infinite Crisis had books for more than half a year leading up to it that if you didn't read, you would have no idea where the OMACS came from or why the Spectre killed Shazam and blew up the Rock of Eternity.

No doubt they had titles leading up to the event, but the OMACS were revealed rather quickly to be "sleeper sentinals", and their arc was a good portion of the story, with the whole Brother Eye thing. It was easy to piece together. The Spectre killing Shazam, I didn't know why it happened or what happened till later, but the story gave us little "catch me ups" along the way. Thats all I was saying, it helped us who didn't know what was going on.



I haven't read anything in Final Crisis that hasn't had some kind of explanation as for why things are what they are or there will be an explanation for...hopefully.

Besides the state of Darkseid, and Granny and the rest? There wasn't really an explination for that. The Japan hero's or were they a new introduction? Just too many things like that leave me confused, now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a terrible story, its just a bit confusing. If I try to get in to the mind set of that I'm reading an indie title that I have no knowledge of its a little easier to read than trying to figure out What happened to these characters that I used to have atleast some knowledge of.

[Jeff-E]

I'd never read anything about the greater DCU (kept to batman) before FC, i follow FC fine. (I had a lot of catching up to do but the website "Annotated Final-Crisis" and these boards along with Wikipedia mean i get FC as anyone else, except for maybe the really clued up guys.

This is kind of my point, Wiki, message boards, and other sites are required reading if you didn't follow alot of DC before hand. That turns alot of people off. The thread is about why people complain about FC... I think this is why.

[4thHorseman]

Besides the state of Darkseid, and Granny and the rest? There wasn't really an explination for that. The Japan hero's or were they a new introduction? Just too many things like that leave me confused, now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a terrible story, its just a bit confusing. If I try to get in to the mind set of that I'm reading an indie title that I have no knowledge of its a little easier to read than trying to figure out What happened to these characters that I used to have atleast some knowledge of.

The Japan heroes are brand new (except for Sonny Sumo who was an old Kirby character), but the New God stuff, are you confused on why they are in bodies of heroes and other characters as opposed to what they normally were seen in?

[carabas]

Besides the state of Darkseid, and Granny and the rest? There wasn't really an explination for that. The Japan hero's or were they a new introduction? Just too many things like that leave me confused, now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a terrible story, its just a bit confusing. If I try to get in to the mind set of that I'm reading an indie title that I have no knowledge of its a little easier to read than trying to figure out What happened to these characters that I used to have atleast some knowledge of.As has already been said, the Japanese heroes (other than Sonny Sumo, who was in two or three issues of The forever People back in the seventies) - not being familiar with that is hardly going to be a big problem) are copletely brandnew, none of them have ever appeared in comics before Final Crisis #2.

And there is absolutely nothing in the stories leading up to Final Crisis that explains the state of the New Gods. In fact, some of those outright contradict Final Crisis.

[Shellhead]

Arksy,

The problem with Civil War isn't the concept, but the execution. The writers apparently couldn't make the idea work without writing several major players completely out of character. Reed Richards and Hank Pym wouldn't use their scientific skills to incarcerate their fellow heroes for the sake of an oppressive U.S. government. They just wouldn't, and the writing sure as hell didn't sell it. And Tony Stark wouldn't be pro-registration, he fought hard to take back his technology from both SHIELD and the U.S. government during the first Armor War. So it didn't matter if Civil War explored the personal implications for these characters, because they were so far out of character that they might as well have been skrulls. And Quesada hyped the event by saying that they were going to present a balanced story where both sides had good points, then presided over the exact opposite, as pro-registration heroes behaved like complete villains.

The ideas being explored in Final Crisis may not seem pertinent to your daily existence, because they are more philosophical in nature. Morrison is dabbling in epistemology and the nature of free will and the very shape of reality. No, these ideas are not torn from recent headlines, but they can still resonate with open-minded readers. And a writer can explore a concept without setting up a debate with an opposing viewpoint. It may not be your cup of tea, but you have probably noticed by now that some of us really are enjoying Final Crisis.

[Arksy]

Arksy,

The problem with Civil War isn't the concept, but the execution. The writers apparently couldn't make the idea work without writing several major players completely out of character. Reed Richards and Hank Pym wouldn't use their scientific skills to incarcerate their fellow heroes for the sake of an oppressive U.S. government. They just wouldn't, and the writing sure as hell didn't sell it. And Tony Stark wouldn't be pro-registration, he fought hard to take back his technology from both SHIELD and the U.S. government during the first Armor War. So it didn't matter if Civil War explored the personal implications for these characters, because they were so far out of character that they might as well have been skrulls. And Quesada hyped the event by saying that they were going to present a balanced story where both sides had good points, then presided over the exact opposite, as pro-registration heroes behaved like complete villains.

The ideas being explored in Final Crisis may not seem pertinent to your daily existence, because they are more philosophical in nature. Morrison is dabbling in epistemology and the nature of free will and the very shape of reality. No, these ideas are not torn from recent headlines, but they can still resonate with open-minded readers. And a writer can explore a concept without setting up a debate with an opposing viewpoint. It may not be your cup of tea, but you have probably noticed by now that some of us really are enjoying Final Crisis.

Haha. I myself am really enjoying FC :smile:

Firstly, i agree that Pym & Reed wer written almost completely out of character.
But i disagree that they acted like villans except for the imprisonment of the anti-registration crowd without due process which was a concept very well explored and delved upon by Peter Parker during the event. Both sides were shoved with a lot of exposition detailing their thought-processes, beleifs and reasoning behind doing what they're doing. I thoroughly enjoyed this as it provided me with a lot of thought-stimulating material and it sparked some intellegent and not-so-intellegent debates about the topic.

As far as FC goes, there's nothing of that same sort of calibre. I walk away from FC thoroughly entertained and excited waiting on the edge of my seat waiting to know what happens next, i don't walk away from FC thinking "That's an interesting take on reality, the thirst for knowledge is a risky one, one that grants us with story and experience if that thirst isn't settled then we become sort of leech like and vampiric." Which of course is absolute nonsense. As is the anti-life equation. As is defining life as 'free will' There doesnt' seem to be any philosophial sides of FC that if you brought up in a room full of classical scientists and rationalists - would be taken the least bit seriously. Which is a long shot from truly philosophical comic book works such as Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Civil War and the like.

Let me reiterate, i really really enjoy FC it is a great work of fiction and the ideas and concepts brought up work really well within the confines of the boundaries of the story. It just has no bearing on anything tangible or real. Which is fine, i just don't understand why people are trying to turn this series into something it's clearly not.

[carabas]

There doesnt' seem to be any philosophial sides of FC that if you brought up in a room full of classical scientists and rationalists - would be taken the least bit seriously.I think you're simply working from a bad definition what philosophy is. Classical scientists and rationalists have no business discussing existentialism.

Which is a long shot from truly philosophical comic book works such as Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Civil War and the like.Those are all very political works, but none of them is particularly philosophical in nature.



It just has no bearing on anything tangible or real.
Most philosophy doesn't.

[mdg1]

Serious question:

Do you consider Final Crisis an EVENT[TM]? If so, why?

[Harding Prime]

Ok i think i need to call you out on that because that's just crap.

CW:

Civil war was a story about two friends taking sides on an issue that many governements in the world were discussing and trying to solve. It was a debate of Social securitys versus social freedoms. It was about registration and freedoms.

The country i live in (Australia) wanted to register everyone and make everyone have their own key cards, that idea was thankfully rebuked but they tried to introduce all sorts of nonsense like registrations for foreigners and if my former Government had its way we'd probably be living in a police state right about now. Thankfully that Prime Minister is no longer in power as he was defeated in a record landslide at the election. Never the less - the world climate at the time with the threat of terrorists made the story and the background of Civil War relevant. It was a philosophical question of 'How can we resolve the need for our citizens to be safe from dangers without impeaching too much on their freedoms and rights."

It was deep in the fact that both sides very deeply felt for their own causes. I refer to the personal reactions and ideals explained in the comic book Civil War: Casualties of War. They believed in their own side so much so they lost track of the bigger picture until Captain America realised what was going on and ordered the surrender of his side. It was a very powerful realisation when he said he was winning everything except the argument.

FC:
There is nothing in FC that is relevant or philosophical in a sense that is emprically valid to society as a large at all. There is no debate or argument. It's good versus evil in an all out fight. Unless there's a huge part of the story i'm missing out on i see nothing that a rationalist intellectual could find philosophical about FC. It is an AMAZING story and one i love to absolute bits, but it's really just sci-fi fluff with nothing really anyone can take away from it. Here are some examples:

-The anti-life equation, an interesting concept. An equation that's deeply buried in the human subconscious that when exposed to it renders the person enslaved and forces them to give up hope and willpower in the beauty of life. Jack Kirby once said that the idea behind the equation is that when all choice is given up and when someone holds absolute dominion over you, you are no longer really alive. This is complete bullcrap, life has a very definite scientifically verifiable definition. Bacteria don't really have a consciousness let alone choice in anything. Neither do trees, they're about as conscious as a self-regulating machine. It is interesting when placed in a work of FICTION but it's still bullcrap that doesn't relate to real life at all.

- Mandrakk the Dark-Monitor; It is implied that this Mandrakk character was once a monitor that was a seeker of knowledge and as he grew he became infected with 'stories' and 'experiences' and somehow the taint of experience made him evil and a cosmic vampire. This is rediculous. Experience doesn't make you evil. Experience certainly changes you, but it doesn't make you inherently evil. For the purposes of the story? Great. As a philosophical concept it makes about as much sense as "The Secret"

- Alpha Lanterns; I love the idea of a group of people held by those higher then them as infallable only to be proven wrong. But there's nothing really philosophical about holding an entity uncorruptable only to be proven wrong. It's just a plot device.

- Nix Uotan; The power to conjure up anything you think of screams to me of "The Secret" in fact there's comedy skits about "The Secret" and it's rediculousness so i won't go into it there.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE FC. But don't make it into something it's not.

LoL..... Taint. :biggrin:

[Harding Prime]

Arksy,

The problem with Civil War isn't the concept, but the execution. The writers apparently couldn't make the idea work without writing several major players completely out of character. Reed Richards and Hank Pym wouldn't use their scientific skills to incarcerate their fellow heroes for the sake of an oppressive U.S. government. They just wouldn't, and the writing sure as hell didn't sell it. And Tony Stark wouldn't be pro-registration, he fought hard to take back his technology from both SHIELD and the U.S. government during the first Armor War. So it didn't matter if Civil War explored the personal implications for these characters, because they were so far out of character that they might as well have been skrulls. And Quesada hyped the event by saying that they were going to present a balanced story where both sides had good points, then presided over the exact opposite, as pro-registration heroes behaved like complete villains.

The ideas being explored in Final Crisis may not seem pertinent to your daily existence, because they are more philosophical in nature. Morrison is dabbling in epistemology and the nature of free will and the very shape of reality. No, these ideas are not torn from recent headlines, but they can still resonate with open-minded readers. And a writer can explore a concept without setting up a debate with an opposing viewpoint. It may not be your cup of tea, but you have probably noticed by now that some of us really are enjoying Final Crisis.

Both of you guys did kinda gloss over the fact that Pym WAS a Skrull and had influence on all the decisions.

[carabas]

It is very much in doubt if at the time of writing, it was already decided he was going to be a Skrull.

And Reed Richards, Tony Stark, and the others can offer no such excuses

[Tony Bang]

political works, but none of them is particularly philosophical in nature.

Watchmen most certainly is, at the most superficial level it's a study of the philosophy of power and ethics.

[Arksy]

I think you're simply working from a bad definition what philosophy is. Classical scientists and rationalists have no business discussing existentialism.
Those are all very political works, but none of them is particularly philosophical in nature.

Most philosophy doesn't.


Watchmen most certainly is, at the most superficial level it's a study of the philosophy of power and ethics.

As is V for Vendetta, it's an exposition of morality, ethics and how anarchy is the only truly morale governing methodology.

[Harding Prime]

It is very much in doubt if at the time of writing, it was already decided he was going to be a Skrull.

And Reed Richards, Tony Stark, and the others can offer no such excuses

You can't possibly question whether Bendis had "who was a skrull" already mapped out, probably around the time of Avengers: Disassembled?

And I personally don't see how Reed and Tony acting holier than thou is out of character. Not that this is the point of the thread.

[Tony Bang]

As is V for Vendetta, it's an exposition of morality, ethics and how anarchy is the only truly morale governing methodology.

Final Crisis is a work about control, how society affects us at the personal level, the connections between the personal and the totality of the universe, and some more stuff I'm probably missing.

I fail to see how that could be not be seen as philosophical.

Unless we are going to discount other writers who use non-literal forms of storytelling. With would throw genius like William S Burroughs and Phillip K. Dick right out.

[ruppan]

Final Crisis is a work about control, how society affects us at the personal level, the connections between the personal and the totality of the universe, and some more stuff I'm probably missing.

Could you elaborate upon FC's philosophical statement about control, society's effect upon individuals on a personal level, and/or the connection between the personal and totality of the universe? Are these concepts more than assertions? Or, is Morrison merely asserting control is bad, a connection exists between the the personal and the totality of the universe, etc.

From my reading, Morrison merely asserts these ideas, attaches a normative value, but there isn't much further investigation. To me, that's the opposite of philosophy, which is the application of a theory or system of thought to a sphere of activity or concepts. I see the spheres of activity and concepts, but I fail to see the theories or systems of thought applied to those activities and concepts.

[Paul McEnery]

Could you elaborate upon FC's philosophical statement about control, society's effect upon individuals on a personal level, and/or the connection between the personal and totality of the universe? Are these concepts more than assertions? Or, is Morrison merely asserting control is bad, a connection exists between the the personal and the totality of the universe, etc.

From my reading, Morrison merely asserts these ideas, attaches a normative value, but there isn't much further investigation. To me, that's the opposite of philosophy, which is the application of a theory or system of thought to a sphere of activity or concepts. I see the spheres of activity and concepts, but I fail to see the theories or systems of thought applied to those activities and concepts.

Grant's more about an ontological/epistemological angle on philosophy, I'd have thought; though with ethical consequences.

[ruppan]

Grant's more about an ontological/epistemological angle on philosophy, I'd have thought; though with ethical consequences.

Even if he were more concerned with the theories of knowledge and being, he would still need to develop some kind of theory or system of thought about these concepts for it to rise to the level of philosophy. Otherwise, pretty much every comic book involving mind control could be considered philosophy. That's too low a standard.

As an aside, if you ever really want philosophy in a comic, I suggest Action Philosophers! It's freaking hilarious and quite accurate....if you're familiar with the philosophers.

[Paul McEnery]

Even if he were more concerned with the theories of knowledge and being, he would still need to develop some kind of theory or system of thought about these concepts for it to rise to the level of philosophy. Otherwise, pretty much every comic book involving mind control could be considered philosophy. That's too low a standard..

By that standard, Sartre's plays aren't philosophical. And I think we'd all agree that would be ludicrous.

Your point of view seems to imply that only philosophy qua philosophy can be called philosophical -- in which case we wouldn't have much use for the word now, would we.

The point is that Grant's work dramatizes a philosophical point of view -- call it scientific gnosticism, if you like -- examining the existential and ethical consequences.

[Tobias March]

Even if he were more concerned with the theories of knowledge and being, he would still need to develop some kind of theory or system of thought about these concepts for it to rise to the level of philosophy. Otherwise, pretty much every comic book involving mind control could be considered philosophy....
....and would be written by Chris Claremont.


Ok i think i need to call you out on that because that's just crap.

Philosophical debate FTW!



CW:

Civil war was a story about two friends taking sides on an issue that many governements in the world were discussing and trying to solve. It was a debate of Social securitys versus social freedoms. It was about registration and freedoms.

The country i live in (Australia) wanted to register everyone and make everyone have their own key cards, that idea was thankfully rebuked but they tried to introduce all sorts of nonsense like registrations for foreigners and if my former Government had its way we'd probably be living in a police state right about now. Thankfully that Prime Minister is no longer in power as he was defeated in a record landslide at the election. Never the less - the world climate at the time with the threat of terrorists made the story and the background of Civil War relevant. It was a philosophical question of 'How can we resolve the need for our citizens to be safe from dangers without impeaching too much on their freedoms and rights."

It was deep in the fact that both sides very deeply felt for their own causes. I refer to the personal reactions and ideals explained in the comic book Civil War: Casualties of War. They believed in their own side so much so they lost track of the bigger picture until Captain America realised what was going on and ordered the surrender of his side. It was a very powerful realisation when he said he was winning everything except the argument.

FC:
There is nothing in FC that is relevant or philosophical in a sense that is emprically valid to society as a large at all. There is no debate or argument. It's good versus evil in an all out fight. Unless there's a huge part of the story i'm missing out on i see nothing that a rationalist intellectual could find philosophical about FC. It is an AMAZING story and one i love to absolute bits, but it's really just sci-fi fluff with nothing really anyone can take away from it. Here are some examples:

-The anti-life equation, an interesting concept. An equation that's deeply buried in the human subconscious that when exposed to it renders the person enslaved and forces them to give up hope and willpower in the beauty of life. Jack Kirby once said that the idea behind the equation is that when all choice is given up and when someone holds absolute dominion over you, you are no longer really alive. This is complete bullcrap, life has a very definite scientifically verifiable definition. Bacteria don't really have a consciousness let alone choice in anything. Neither do trees, they're about as conscious as a self-regulating machine. It is interesting when placed in a work of FICTION but it's still bullcrap that doesn't relate to real life at all.

- Mandrakk the Dark-Monitor; It is implied that this Mandrakk character was once a monitor that was a seeker of knowledge and as he grew he became infected with 'stories' and 'experiences' and somehow the taint of experience made him evil and a cosmic vampire. This is rediculous. Experience doesn't make you evil. Experience certainly changes you, but it doesn't make you inherently evil. For the purposes of the story? Great. As a philosophical concept it makes about as much sense as "The Secret"

- Alpha Lanterns; I love the idea of a group of people held by those higher then them as infallable only to be proven wrong. But there's nothing really philosophical about holding an entity uncorruptable only to be proven wrong. It's just a plot device.

- Nix Uotan; The power to conjure up anything you think of screams to me of "The Secret" in fact there's comedy skits about "The Secret" and it's rediculousness so i won't go into it there.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE FC. But don't make it into something it's not.

Ok taking your points that this has no relevance.

The anti-life equation is a metaphor for people's desire to be dominated. Sorry have you not noticed? Existentialism was initially decried from the pulpit and public speakers because it was seen as 'too negative'. Reading Heidegger one is confronted with the notion that choice is a burden, that our conscious selves depend upon our interactions with others (being-with-others; being-in-the-world; Dasein). Darkseid removes choice, like all dictatorship seeks to do and the dirty little secret of humanity is we want the 'bad men' to do just that. Hence the attraction of the 'benevolent dictator' dream. See also the Patriot Act.

'Infection by story'. How much of a leap is it to see that as infection by other cultures, which is merely a different assortment of information. The monitors as a rareified angelic order depend on a fundamentalist conception of 'truth'. Much like any other fundamentalist culture, when they encounter an 'Other', it becomes demonised. If Mandrakk is to Lucifer, then we're back at the gnostic notion of a fallen demiurge of imperfection resulting from choice/individuality. As said above Philip K. Dick is an exponent of this idea. His Valis or the Divine Invasion could most certainly be considered a philosophical work. Like Morrison he used pulp fantasy to expound his ideas.

Alpha Lanterns - once again we're looking fundamentalist culture. I live in Sydney at the moment and I work in the public service. I've taken phonecalls from Sydney residents demanding 'Muslim schools', be closed down because they're alledged to be jihadist factories. There's your societal relevance for ya.

Nix Uotan - demiurgos. Basic metaphysics. The notion of god as a simple watchmaker.

I compared Civil War to the Coke Wars, because in the end it's Millar satirizing the US political process. Two choices, that's it, designed to generate needless hate and antagonism. It's entertaining if read on that level, because the drama results from knowing if only Cap and Stark would put down their sabres they'd accomplish a lot more. Just as the American political scene has been carved up by Republicans and Democrats so that no actual progress can be made. Any improvements made by one side can be reversed by the other. Neo-conservatives are widely seen to have taken advantage of this.

It's satirical, not philosophical. I'd agree with you that V For Vendetta (anarchism versus totalitarianism) and Watchmen (free will and determinism; what is morally good) could be seen as philosophical works. Final Crisis also deserves that attention though. If not it's just sci-fi fluff as you say, but then Civil War is little more than a plot device to have heroes punching one another. If a incisive reading cannot be made of the one, I fail to see how it can for the other.

[ruppan]

By that standard, Sartre's plays aren't philosophical. And I think we'd all agree that would be ludicrous.

The difference between the works of the existentialists and FC is that the existentialists used fiction as allegory to develop and expound upon their existential theories. The existentialists wrote stories centered around concepts, and really put their concepts to the test in their fiction. I believe they did develop theories and systems of thought through their fiction. It just wasn't presented in the logical manner of a philosopher like Spinoza for example. I just don't see that type of exercise in FC.


The point is that Grant's work dramatizes a philosophical point of view -- call it scientific gnosticism, if you like -- examining the existential and ethical consequences.

That's the real point where we disagree. I just don't see the examination after the introduction of the concept.

Morrison introduces concepts and instantly moves onto other ideas before any examination takes place. For example, the God number concept. Really no explanation or elaboration went into his application of that concept. If he had developed this idea in any way, it could have been considered philosophy or philosophical. Other examples abound, like the time traveling bullet, the assertion that the universe is a living entity, that we are part of that totality, etc.

My question still stands, what philosophical statement is FC making about control, society, the universe, the individual, etc. besides bald assertions or the obvious?

[MrPalen]

Well, I think I've read the first 3 or 4 issues of Final Crisis. I say "I think" because I have basically no recollection of what the series is about. I think Darkseid and his friends are trapped inside humans and are trying to get out.. or something? Martian Manhunter is dead? That's pretty much it.

As for Secret Invasion, for me the lead-up to it was really exciting but I found the series itself pretty underwhelming. It was kind of one big splash page full of super skrulls after another and I never had any sense that there was much of a story there. And I still don't know how Reed detected the skrulls.

[Tobias March]

The difference between the works of the existentialists and FC is that the existentialists used fiction as allegory to develop and expound upon their existential theories. The existentialists wrote stories centered around concepts, and really put their concepts to the test in their fiction. I believe they did develop theories and systems of thought through their fiction. It just wasn't presented in the logical manner of a philosopher like Spinoza for example. I just don't see that type of exercise in FC.

The Monitors are Monads.

There I said it.

[berk]

The difference between the works of the existentialists and FC is that the existentialists used fiction as allegory to develop and expound upon their existential theories. The existentialists wrote stories centered around concepts, and really put their concepts to the test in their fiction. I believe they did develop theories and systems of thought through their fiction. It just wasn't presented in the logical manner of a philosopher like Spinoza for example. I just don't see that type of exercise in FC.



That's the real point where we disagree. I just don't see the examination after the introduction of the concept.

Morrison introduces concepts and instantly moves onto other ideas before any examination takes place. For example, the God number concept. Really no explanation or elaboration went into his application of that concept. If he had developed this idea in any way, it could have been considered philosophy or philosophical. Other examples abound, like the time traveling bullet, the assertion that the universe is a living entity, that we are part of that totality, etc.

My question still stands, what philosophical statement is FC making about control, society, the universe, the individual, etc. besides bald assertions or the obvious?You have a very different view of the role of the artist than I do. From what I can tell, you'd like to see someone develop a coherent philosophical system, then translate that into story form. I don't see that as the only, or even the most likely, procedure a writer should follow in order to produce something of interest.

Asking that a story make a philosophical statement sounds to me uncomfortably close to the old idea that fiction should perform some kind of social, didactic function - teaching us morality or whatever. To me, a piece of philosophical fiction - and the more I get into this the more I ask myself whether we need such a category in the first place - would be a story that made me think about philosophical questions, whatever procedure, motivation or strategy the writer might have had in mind in producing the work. Final Crisis would seem to meet that admittedly vague qualification, in my subjective experience, at least.

[berk]

The anti-life equation is a metaphor for people's desire to be dominated. Sorry have you not noticed? Existentialism was initially decried from the pulpit and public speakers because it was seen as 'too negative'. Reading Heidegger one is confronted with the notion that choice is a burden, that our conscious selves depend upon our interactions with others (being-with-others; being-in-the-world; Dasein). Darkseid removes choice, like all dictatorship seeks to do and the dirty little secret of humanity is we want the 'bad men' to do just that. Hence the attraction of the 'benevolent dictator' dream. See also the Patriot Act.Or hierarchical religious institutions - it's no coincidence that Glorious Godfrey, in both the Kirby and Morrison versions, is imaged as an American evangelical preacher.
I compared Civil War to the Coke Wars, because in the end it's Millar satirizing the US political process. Two choices, that's it, designed to generate needless hate and antagonism. It's entertaining if read on that level, because the drama results from knowing if only Cap and Stark would put down their sabres they'd accomplish a lot more. Just as the American political scene has been carved up by Republicans and Democrats so that no actual progress can be made. Any improvements made by one side can be reversed by the other. Neo-conservatives are widely seen to have taken advantage of this.And from my POV, like Coke vs Pepsi or Coke vs 'Classic' Coke, two meaningless, spurious choices. Stark is America, and so is CA. If CA had won Marvels Civil War nothing would be different right now but a bunch of internal MU details - who's in charge at the moment, etc, none of which would have made any real difference to the status quo.

[Paul McEnery]

I just don't see the examination after the introduction of the concept.
Then you're rubbish at doing analysis or reading subtext.

[ruppan]

You have a very different view of the role of the artist than I do.

Not at all.

I was not claiming that FC should be philosophical to be a good work of art. It isn't a critique to a work of art to say it isn't philosophical. It can have other qualities that are just as valid. For example, I don't consider Green Lantern philosophical, but it's a great piece of art.



Then you're rubbish at doing analysis or reading subtext.

Why don't you actually make your case, rather than launch into a personal attack? Elaborate on FC's philosophical statement about control, the effect of society on the individual, or the totality of the universe. I'm not the one maintaining this work has philosophical ramifications. It's not my burden to prove it.

[Paul McEnery]

If you hadn't noticed, berk and I have been doing exactly that for months.

[Arksy]

Then you're rubbish at doing analysis or reading subtext.

I think you're excellent at making something out of nothing.

[Paul McEnery]

I think you're excellent at making something out of nothing.

Take it up with the people who've written studies on Grant, and published books. Like Steve Shapiro, for instance, who cited my interview with Grant from back in the day, which I can certainly tell you touched on quite a lot of philosophical issues.

[friginator]

The book is fine, but

1. J.G. Jones' art just isn't worth the wait, especially with all the mistakes (Question with a face, headless Hal Jordan). Carlos Pacheco's art, on the other hand, is amazing. Why he wasn't picked from the beginning is beyond me.
2. The two art styles don't mix, and once again DC is cramming tons of different artists into a book that still won't ship on time.
3. Countdown and Salvation Run and Death of the New Gods really made Final Crisis much less enjoyable. The New Gods' death still make no sense, Darkseid is now a tired, overused villain, we haven't seen any ramifications of Countdown, Ray Palmer is still missing, Jimmy Olsen no longer knows who Superman is, and no one remembers him turning into Turtle-Man and fighting Darkseid, etc. Salvation run was nothing. Nothing happened, and it had nothing to do with Final Crisis. And no one remembers the New Gods dying? Yet when Orion dies, it's made a huge deal of?

DC really just doesn't seem to know what it's doing in terms of deadlines, writers/artists, events, etc. I can't really think of anything they've pulled off without something ridiculous like this happening. There's not a single doubt in my mind that they will keep doing this in the future.

[Tobias March]

3. Countdown and Salvation Run and Death of the New Gods really made Final Crisis much less enjoyable. The New Gods' death still make no sense, Darkseid is now a tired, overused villain, we haven't seen any ramifications of Countdown, Ray Palmer is still missing, Jimmy Olsen no longer knows who Superman is, and no one remembers him turning into Turtle-Man and fighting Darkseid, etc. Salvation run was nothing. Nothing happened, and it had nothing to do with Final Crisis. And no one remembers the New Gods dying? Yet when Orion dies, it's made a huge deal of?

Yeah my policy is to ignore material designed purely by editorial mandate. Final Crisis is the story Grant Morrison's telling, everything else I'll ignore.

I mean the series itself will be ignored afterward so it's all good.

[dotdotdot]

I think you're excellent at making something out of nothing.

once you've been exposed to some different art, lit, and perspectives you'll figure it out.

[dotdotdot]

The book is fine, but

1. J.G. Jones' art just isn't worth the wait, especially with all the mistakes (Question with a face, headless Hal Jordan). Carlos Pacheco's art, on the other hand, is amazing. Why he wasn't picked from the beginning is beyond me.
2. The two art styles don't mix, and once again DC is cramming tons of different artists into a book that still won't ship on time.
3. Countdown and Salvation Run and Death of the New Gods really made Final Crisis much less enjoyable. The New Gods' death still make no sense, Darkseid is now a tired, overused villain, we haven't seen any ramifications of Countdown, Ray Palmer is still missing, Jimmy Olsen no longer knows who Superman is, and no one remembers him turning into Turtle-Man and fighting Darkseid, etc. Salvation run was nothing. Nothing happened, and it had nothing to do with Final Crisis. And no one remembers the New Gods dying? Yet when Orion dies, it's made a huge deal of?

DC really just doesn't seem to know what it's doing in terms of deadlines, writers/artists, events, etc. I can't really think of anything they've pulled off without something ridiculous like this happening. There's not a single doubt in my mind that they will keep doing this in the future.

question didn't have a face and no one was headless. and no one, i mean no one could have done this thing better than jones. he was perfect for the project. it's a shame about art chores, but by issue 5 it seems the kinks have been worked out.

[berk]

I was not claiming that FC should be philosophical to be a good work of art. It isn't a critique to a work of art to say it isn't philosophical. It can have other qualities that are just as valid. For example, I don't consider Green Lantern philosophical, but it's a great piece of art.No, I meant that I'd question even what seem to be the standards you want to set for anything to qualify as a piece of philosophical art.

Even within the bounds of straight philosophical writing - if there is any such thing: Derrida, Nietzsche, hell, go back to Plato, all implicitly question the meaningfulness of putative boundaries between philosophy and literature just by the very nature of their work - but anyway, even within what's usually thought of as straight philosophy, has anyone demanded the construction of self-contained, self-consistent philosophical systems since the 19th century? I'd have thought Nietzsche alone had long ago put paid to that chimera.

If we even need to think in terms of such a category, and I'm not sure we do, I'd say that anything that raises the awareness of philosophical problems in the reader might qualify as a piece of philosophical fiction. Morrison skilfully raises several such questions in Superman Beyond and Final Crisis: questions about the nature of reality, and of the construction of what is given to us as reality, questions of identity or "self-hood," and yes, questions of the nature of good and evil.

To put it another way, mythology might be seen as an attempt to think through philosophical problems in story form. Not in a mechanical A-B-C, 1-2-3 manner, thinking the philosophical point first then translating it into a narrative ("let's represent concept X with character Y", then, let's see...), but thinking the story because these questions raise themselves and aren't always easy to confront in straight nominative, declarative language. I think Morrison's making an attempt at a mythological work here, and therefore a philosophical one, if we need that term. We can argue about whether or not the attempt has been successful - personally I think he's been severely hampered by some of the raw material (i.e. DCU "canon") he has to work with - but not, I think, about the validity of the attempt itself.

[Tobias March]

No, I meant that I'd question even what seem to be the standards you want to set for anything to qualify as a piece of philosophical art.

Even within the bounds of straight philosophical writing - if there is any such thing: Derrida, Nietzsche, hell, go back to Plato, all implicitly question the meaningfulness of putative boundaries between philosophy and literature just by the very nature of their work - but anyway, even within what's usually thought of as straight philosophy, has anyone demanded the construction of self-contained, self-consistent philosophical systems since the 19th century? I'd have thought Nietzsche alone had long ago put paid to that chimera.

If we even need to think in terms of such a category, and I'm not sure we do, I'd say that anything that raises the awareness of philosophical problems in the reader might qualify as a piece of philosophical fiction. Morrison skilfully raises several such questions in Superman Beyond and Final Crisis: questions about the nature of reality, and of the construction of what is given to us as reality, questions of identity or "self-hood," and yes, questions of the nature of good and evil.

To put it another way, mythology might be seen as an attempt to think through philosophical problems in story form. Not in a mechanical A-B-C, 1-2-3 manner, thinking the philosophical point first then translating it into a narrative ("let's represent concept X with character Y", then, let's see...), but thinking the story because these questions raise themselves and aren't always easy to confront in straight nominative, declarative language. I think Morrison's making an attempt at a mythological work here, and therefore a philosophical one, if we need that term. We can argue about whether or not the attempt has been successful - personally I think he's been severely hampered by some of the raw material (i.e. DCU "canon") he has to work with - but not, I think, about the validity of the attempt itself.

The essential problem here is the tendency to identify philosophy purely as academic philosophy, safely tucked away into that lil' anti-intellectual pidgeon hole.

Which results in a surfeit of culture that is essentially meaningless. 'Entertainment', that is unchallenging and derivative.

[berk]

The essential problem here is the tendency to identify philosophy purely as academic philosophy, safely tucked away into that lil' anti-intellectual pidgeon hole.

Which results in a surfeit of culture that is essentially meaningless. 'Entertainment', that is unchallenging and derivative.Absolutely. And isn't it funny how, when something does poke its head up from the morass of pop-culture sameness, it so often turns out to be work that not only entertains but opens up the kind of questions we're talking about here - in American tv, BSG and Buffy come to mind.

What would Socrates have thought of academic philosophy, I wonder? Or of Plato's Academy itself? He might have preferred Oprah.

[joint venture]

Better to read and enjoy than to read to dissect.
That's the main difference and the two kinds of posts we get here all the time.

There should be a place where you could discuss Plato vs. Morrison and the implications of having several artists from different schools work together in the same book. I mean, elaborate on that and you WORK HERE.

Tell me you liked the shiny colors and Superman beating the bad guy. Then you're here to share your fun and yourself.

Entertainment versus Elaboration.

[Tobias March]

Better to read and enjoy than to read to dissect.
That's the main difference and the two kinds of posts we get here all the time.

There should be a place where you could discuss Plato vs. Morrison and the implications of having several artists from different schools work together in the same book. I mean, elaborate on that and you WORK HERE.

Tell me you liked the shiny colors and Superman beating the bad guy. Then you're here to share your fun and yourself.

Entertainment versus Elaboration.

Nope. Just entertainment.

[joint venture]

Nope. Just entertainment.

fine :) i can live with that.

[friginator]

question didn't have a face and no one was headless.

I'm pretty sure that's (http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_final-crisis-preview.jpg) a face...

Also, this (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2738588588_f8fce16b4d.jpg?v=0) is the "headless" page from issue 2. I guess it's supposed to look ambiguous between a hooded figure and Hal Jordan's arm and shoulder, but it was drawn so that if it IS Hal, he has no head.

[dotdotdot]

I'm pretty sure that's (http://blog.newsarama.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/normal_final-crisis-preview.jpg) a face...

Also, this (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2738588588_f8fce16b4d.jpg?v=0) is the "headless" page from issue 2. I guess it's supposed to look ambiguous between a hooded figure and Hal Jordan's arm and shoulder, but it was drawn so that if it IS Hal, he has no head.

oh i was perfectly aware of the panels you mentioned. there was more shadows than usual and it made the question look like it had too many features, but then in the other panels it looked better and hidden as it should have been, so it obviously read as artistic license rather than a mistake.
and i had to get on the internet to figure out what people meant by this headless guy.....that would be a very awkward arm on it. it looks like a hooded figure, it's just that jones squared off the top of the hood a bit and the way it's set in the panel is confusing some less experienced readers.
but no, it was drawn and looked like a green hooded figure.

[KYLeo71]

It's drawn to look like one of those freaky art pictures where you look at it once and it's a girl looking in a mirror yet if you look at it again, it's a skull. Now, I admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the image (haven't read the first 4 books of FC yet) so I don't know if this hooded figure has already appeared yet, but even so, I think the "less experienced readers" comment was needlessly condecending.

[dotdotdot]

It's drawn to look like one of those freaky art pictures where you look at it once and it's a girl looking in a mirror yet if you look at it again, it's a skull. Now, I admit that this is the first time I'm seeing the image (haven't read the first 4 books of FC yet) so I don't know if this hooded figure has already appeared yet, but even so, I think the "less experienced readers" comment was needlessly condecending.

you need experience in reading comics and looking at images, and specific sorts of them, to really be skilled at it. it's interesting how newer readers or young children genuinely have a hard time getting across panels or understanding the space. now i don't think for a second it's drawn to look like two things, i think it's drawn to look like a mysterious hooded figure and jones only mistake was squaring off the top a bit, which of course he wouldn't have thought to change since the look of the arm and the proportions make it obvious where a head and neck are supposed to go.

[friginator]

he panel is confusing some less experienced readers. you need experience in reading comics and looking at images, and specific sorts of them, to really be skilled at it.

Okay, it's not like I'm new to comics or anything. You don't have to be condescending. Art is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, and if it's not, there needs to be a reason for that. The question isn't supposed to have visible lips or eyelids. Every other panel with the question doesn't have those features. I know the headless thing was supposed to be a hood, yet I'm assuming it was supposed to keep people guessing. Why else would there be a word bubble coming from where "Hal Jordan's" head would be? Thw way the shadow falls across the right side of the hood is supposed to resemble the black areas of Hal's costume. There's a slight fold in front of the black area, resembling a bicep. Also, the right side of the hood is placed in the foreground in front of the left side, resembling a shoulder in front of "Hal's" back. It's very awkward looking, even for Jones' art. He's one of the various artists who draws things in the process of moving, as opposed to artists who draw characters in poses.

[joint venture]

Okay, it's not like I'm new to comics or anything. You don't have to be condescending. Art is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, and if it's not, there needs to be a reason for that. The question isn't supposed to have visible lips or eyelids. Every other panel with the question doesn't have those features. I know the headless thing was supposed to be a hood, yet I'm assuming it was supposed to keep people guessing. Why else would there be a word bubble coming from where "Hal Jordan's" head would be? Thw way the shadow falls across the right side of the hood is supposed to resemble the black areas of Hal's costume. There's a slight fold in front of the black area, resembling a bicep. Also, the right side of the hood is placed in the foreground in front of the left side, resembling a shoulder in front of "Hal's" back. It's very awkward looking, even for Jones' art. He's one of the various artists who draws things in the process of moving, as opposed to artists who draw characters in poses.

I'm guessing unless we get the original drawings, the final drawings and a much more objective position towards reading a comic book, or just entertaining yourself with one; you will start to see things that might or might not be there.
I agree with you in everything you say tho'.

Maybe this is Jones's way of telling us how much the new Question sucks, cause just go back in time for a moment and remember the real Question. This Montoya character is insulting.

And perhaps editors should QA better as well. Because both panels are errors, not editions or pre-planned outcomes. And even if new readers are not as perceptive as some said they should be, that means the sequential art is flawed; it's not guiding ALL the readers through the story.

Finally, we who have read comics for years and just "go with the flow", are just being condescending to what in reality is an error that shouldn't be allowed to occur.

[berk]

you need experience in reading comics and looking at images, and specific sorts of them, to really be skilled at it. it's interesting how newer readers or young children genuinely have a hard time getting across panels or understanding the space. now i don't think for a second it's drawn to look like two things, i think it's drawn to look like a mysterious hooded figure and jones only mistake was squaring off the top a bit, which of course he wouldn't have thought to change since the look of the arm and the proportions make it obvious where a head and neck are supposed to go.When I was a very small kid, I never used to get Superman's logo: I didn't see the big S in a triangle, I saw the spaces where the S wasn't, so the whole thing looked like some kind of inexplicable abstract symbol to me. Even now that I understand the S is there, it still takes a split-second of effort for me to switch over to that perspective and see the letter.

[dotdotdot]

Okay, it's not like I'm new to comics or anything. You don't have to be condescending. Art is supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, and if it's not, there needs to be a reason for that. The question isn't supposed to have visible lips or eyelids. Every other panel with the question doesn't have those features. I know the headless thing was supposed to be a hood, yet I'm assuming it was supposed to keep people guessing. Why else would there be a word bubble coming from where "Hal Jordan's" head would be? Thw way the shadow falls across the right side of the hood is supposed to resemble the black areas of Hal's costume. There's a slight fold in front of the black area, resembling a bicep. Also, the right side of the hood is placed in the foreground in front of the left side, resembling a shoulder in front of "Hal's" back. It's very awkward looking, even for Jones' art. He's one of the various artists who draws things in the process of moving, as opposed to artists who draw characters in poses.

it's just not a condescending statement. plenty of guys who have been reading comics for a long time still have some problems with lots of work and are sort of limited in their perception of how the space works.
the question in that panel still looks like a sort of plastic mannequin, so it seems obvious that in putting in the shadown jones' interpretation of how the mask would work allowed for more features. no one was supposed to be guessing about headlessness.

[friginator]

it's just not a condescending statement. plenty of guys who have been reading comics for a long time still have some problems with lots of work and are sort of limited in their perception of how the space works.
You can't just say, "It looks bad to you because you're not seeing it right." or "I'm right because I'm better at looking at pictures than you." When someone sees something wrong with art, it's not because they aren't experienced enough. But you're not talking about experience. You're saying that even someone who's been reading and studying comics just as long as you isn't as good as you when it comes to LOOKING AT PICTURES. That's condescending.


the question in that panel still looks like a sort of plastic mannequin, so it seems obvious that in putting in the shadown jones' interpretation of how the mask would work allowed for more features. .
But then Jones draws every other panel without the extra features.


no one was supposed to be guessing about headlessness.
No. They weren't. That's my point. You say that you're better at "understanding how space works," right? Look at the hood. That's not what a hood is shaped like. Again, note what I said earlier:

Thw way the shadow falls across the right side of the hood is supposed to resemble the black areas of Hal's costume. There's a slight fold in front of the black area, resembling a bicep. Also, the right side of the hood is placed in the foreground in front of the left side, resembling a shoulder in front of "Hal's" back.

[MrPalen]

it's just not a condescending statement. plenty of guys who have been reading comics for a long time still have some problems with lots of work and are sort of limited in their perception of how the space works.
the question in that panel still looks like a sort of plastic mannequin, so it seems obvious that in putting in the shadown jones' interpretation of how the mask would work allowed for more features. no one was supposed to be guessing about headlessness.

I don't think you know what condescending means.

Also, that Green Lantern hood/headless image is really poorly done. The job of comic book art is not to have the reader puzzle over whether they are looking at a headless body or a hooded figure. When I read that bit I had no idea what it was I was supposed to be seeing. Looking at it now with 'hooded figure' in mind, it still looks wrong and hurts my eyes to look at. Assuming that it is supposed to be a hooded figure, I think we can be pretty sure the intent of the writer was "Show a mysterious hooded Green Lantern figure" and not "Let's make people have no idea what they're looking at and argue on message boards about whether it's a deformed headless Hal Jordan". Since the latter is occurring, the art in that panel is by definition a failure.

[dotdotdot]

You can't just say, "It looks bad to you because you're not seeing it right." or "I'm right because I'm better at looking at pictures than you." When someone sees something wrong with art, it's not because they aren't experienced enough. But you're not talking about experience. You're saying that even someone who's been reading and studying comics just as long as you isn't as good as you when it comes to LOOKING AT PICTURES. That's condescending.
[QUOTE]

i'm not saying that i'm better, or that you should be as good as me. i am saying that i'm at a place where neither of these things were issues for me, and i can tell what the artist and writer intended easily. and that reading these books is a skill, requiring patience and study and work just like anything else.

[QUOTE=friginator;8203488]But then Jones draws every other panel without the extra features.

less shadows are falling directly on her face in those distance shots. it's cool because it actually makes you think about what it would look like to have a blank mask on in areas of high contrast vs from a distance, and he pretty much nailed it.



No. They weren't. That's my point. You say that you're better at "understanding how space works," right? Look at the hood. That's not what a hood is shaped like. Again, note what I said earlier:

sure it is. it looks like a hood. exactly. and it's attached to that bit of cape in the lower right. that's another clue. i think most people just read the issue too fast, cause this series really demands a much slower pace than we're used to. i can see how that huge shadow falling across can make one think of the pattern of a typical GL outfit, but there's that bit of cape and the top of the hood on the upper left and it's just damned obvious what's supposed to be going on when you look at it for more than a second.

[dotdotdot]

I don't think you know what condescending means.

Also, that Green Lantern hood/headless image is really poorly done. The job of comic book art is not to have the reader puzzle over whether they are looking at a headless body or a hooded figure. When I read that bit I had no idea what it was I was supposed to be seeing. Looking at it now with 'hooded figure' in mind, it still looks wrong and hurts my eyes to look at. Assuming that it is supposed to be a hooded figure, I think we can be pretty sure the intent of the writer was "Show a mysterious hooded Green Lantern figure" and not "Let's make people have no idea what they're looking at and argue on message boards about whether it's a deformed headless Hal Jordan". Since the latter is occurring, the art in that panel is by definition a failure.

i knew what i was supposed to be seeing. this isn't bragging. and there are lots of us. so yeah, it really comes down to who's looking, and how their viewing can be improved. and this is just not a condescending thing to say. i'm open to the idea of looking back and seeing why people thought they saw a confusing headless guy, but the other side doesn't seem to be open to the clues that clearly tell them what they're actually looking at.

[MrPalen]

i knew what i was supposed to be seeing. this isn't bragging. and there are lots of us. so yeah, it really comes down to who's looking, and how their viewing can be improved. and this is just not a condescending thing to say. i'm open to the idea of looking back and seeing why people thought they saw a confusing headless guy, but the other side doesn't seem to be open to the clues that clearly tell them what they're actually looking at.

This is getting semi-hilarious. Reader's guide:

Red text: condescending statement(s)
Purple text: statement claiming a lack of condescension


jones squared off the top of the hood a bit and the way it's set in the panel is confusing some less experienced readers.


you need experience in reading comics and looking at images, and specific sorts of them, to really be skilled at it. it's interesting how newer readers or young children genuinely have a hard time getting across panels or understanding the space


it's just not a condescending statement. plenty of guys who have been reading comics for a long time still have some problems with lots of work and are sort of limited in their perception of how the space works.


i'm not saying that i'm better, or that you should be as good as me. i am saying that i'm at a place where neither of these things were issues for me, and i can tell what the artist and writer intended easily. and that reading these books is a skill, requiring patience and study and work just like anything else.


so yeah, it really comes down to who's looking, and how their viewing can be improved. and this is just not a condescending thing to say

Observe how red and purple areas tend to be adjacent.

In other news, regarding the drawing of The Question:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4443/thequestionjs0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

There is nothing "blank" about the "mask" or face in the first image. Every contour of the face is there, from the eyelids, to the lips, to the nostrils, to that ridiculously detailed ear. There is nothing in that image that even suggests that character is wearing a mask at all. In the second panel, we have vague suggestions of facial features - clearly more blank and smoothed out than the first. So either something is going on where the character's face morphs from panel to panel a-la Rorshasch or it's just inconsistent art.

[friginator]

I wouldn't say that ear is "ridiculously deailed", and Question does have ears, but I have no idea how anyone can see that and still claim it's a mask.


When I read that bit I had no idea what it was I was supposed to be seeing. Looking at it now with 'hooded figure' in mind, it still looks wrong and hurts my eyes to look at. Assuming that it is supposed to be a hooded figure, I think we can be pretty sure the intent of the writer was "Show a mysterious hooded Green Lantern figure" and not "Let's make people have no idea what they're looking at and argue on message boards about whether it's a deformed headless Hal Jordan".

I still don't know exactly what that panel was supposed to show, so the "botched ambiguous figure" is just my guess, but if it was just a hood, it's a badly drawn coincidence. As much as I love Grant Morrison, he doesn't realize that just because he understands it doesn't mean most readers will. His sequential storytelling seems to have evolved/devolved over time, so that now you have to go over it a few times to understand the sequence of events. His work is amazing, don't get me wrong, but he needs to be clearer sometimes. I still don't know what was up with the wind-up monkey on that page.

[dotdotdot]

This is getting semi-hilarious. Reader's guide:

Red text: condescending statement(s)
Purple text: statement claiming a lack of condescension

joker, it would be condescending if i were bragging about something. this is about how we all have to admit the fact that readers aren't on an equal playing field. not you, not me, but all readers. and we have to go from there.

edit: see how i typed "joker,"....now that was condescending
you also might be confusing "you" with me addressing a particular boarder, but this is a wider "you" - all of us. there are things in final crisis that i missed the first time reading, because i went too fast. some of this dealt with the art. that's why i can empathize with some complaints, but the panels really prove just about every one of them to be wrong. and i don't want to hear any of this crap about how you should be able to breeze through every book at the same pace.


[QUOTE=MrPalen;8204786]In other news, regarding the drawing of The Question:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4443/thequestionjs0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

There is nothing "blank" about the "mask" or face in the first image. Every contour of the face is there, from the eyelids, to the lips, to the nostrils, to that ridiculously detailed ear. There is nothing in that image that even suggests that character is wearing a mask at all. In the second panel, we have vague suggestions of facial features - clearly more blank and smoothed out than the first. So either something is going on where the character's face morphs from panel to panel a-la Rorshasch or it's just inconsistent art.

an actual face in the first image would have more color and a bit more definition. notice the eye and lips. this still reads as mannequin fake sort of blankness, and then in the second panel you see how the first one was a product of the lighting. this is simple. see how in the second panel you are still seeing definition of eyes, nose, mouth.....and in this close-up you see how drastic the shadows are with this red stormy sky and how tight and constricting the mask is. it's simply more definition than anyone is used to seeing in the question, but it was a choice by jones and obviously not a mistake. and he seems to be saying "this is how this would actually look".

[dotdotdot]

I wouldn't say that ear is "ridiculously deailed", and Question does have ears, but I have no idea how anyone can see that and still claim it's a mask.



I still don't know exactly what that panel was supposed to show, so the "botched ambiguous figure" is just my guess, but if it was just a hood, it's a badly drawn coincidence. As much as I love Grant Morrison, he doesn't realize that just because he understands it doesn't mean most readers will. His sequential storytelling seems to have evolved/devolved over time, so that now you have to go over it a few times to understand the sequence of events. His work is amazing, don't get me wrong, but he needs to be clearer sometimes. I still don't know what was up with the wind-up monkey on that page.

you don't? in the story of evil gods incarnating on earth and bringing out the worst in us, and where the superheroes have already lost but they don't know it, the automated toy puppetry is mocking the black superhero in a pretty racist way, much like all the brutal sexism that's showing up in the series. bringing out the worst.

[MrPalen]

joker, it would be condescending if i were bragging about something.

No, it wouldn't.


this is about how we all have to admit the fact that readers aren't on an equal playing field. not you, not me, but all readers. and we have to go from there.


edit: see how i typed "joker,"....now that was condescending

No, it wasn't.



you also might be confusing "you" with me addressing a particular boarder, but this is a wider "you" - all of us. there are things in final crisis that i missed the first time reading, because i went too fast. some of this dealt with the art. that's why i can empathize with some complaints

What makes this so funny is that you clearly don't understand what the word 'condescending' means. So you keep saying you're not being condescending, and then immediately follow it up with condescension without realizing you're doing it.



this still reads as mannequin fake sort of blankness, and then in the second panel you see how the first one was a product of the lighting. this is simple. see how in the second panel you are still seeing definition of eyes, nose, mouth.....and in this close-up you see how drastic the shadows are with this red stormy sky and how tight and constricting the mask is. it's simply more definition than anyone is used to seeing in the question, but it was a choice by jones and obviously not a mistake. and he seems to be saying "this is how this would actually look".

It does have a sort of lifeless quality to it, but there is a huge discrepancy in terms of facial detail from the one panel to the next. You say it's lighting, even though the difference in lighting between those two panels does not explain going from high detail facial contouring to a flattened appearance. I used to be pretty bad at working how lighting works when I was younger - a lot of people have trouble with it. It takes experience and skill, and it's probably something we all could be better at. You'll get there though. ;)

[dotdotdot]

this is like how i get pissed when people don't understand the word pretentious and then snub them accordingly
you get me?

[dotdotdot]

No, it wouldn't.





No, it wasn't.



What makes this so funny is that you clearly don't understand what the word 'condescending' means. So you keep saying you're not being condescending, and then immediately follow it up with condescension without realizing you're doing it.




It does have a sort of lifeless quality to it, but there is a huge discrepancy in terms of facial detail from the one panel to the next. You say it's lighting, even though the difference in lighting between those two panels does not explain going from high detail facial contouring to a flattened appearance. I used to be pretty bad at working how lighting works when I was younger - a lot of people have trouble with it. It takes experience and skill, and it's probably something we all could be better at. You'll get there though. ;)

when lightning is striking and you're getting that flash of light and the face is that close in one panel, and in the other the camera is at a distance, then hell yes it explains going from a detailed profile to a flattened frontal distance shot (which is flatter by nature).
admit it. i'm going to be condescending right now, holy hell am i right. now all of you feel bad about yourselves.

[dotdotdot]

i've had it with someone being proven to be pretty wrong or having their argument demolished and retreating into this whining about condescension and everyone's right to hold opinions and false equivalencies blabhalbhalbhabhblah

[friginator]

when lightning is striking and you're getting that flash of light and the face is that close in one panel, and in the other the camera is at a distance, then hell yes it explains going from a detailed profile to a flattened frontal distance shot (which is flatter by nature).admit it. i'm going to be condescending right now, holy hell am i right. now all of you feel bad about yourselves.i've had it with someone being proven to be pretty wrong or having their argument demolished and retreating into this whining about condescension and everyone's right to hold opinions and false equivalencies blabhalbhalbhabhblah

OHGODOHGODDMYHANDSARETURNINGINTOSPIDERSAHHHH!!!!!! !

He's not being condescending. He's just having a nervous breakdown.

[joint venture]

checkout the preview for Superman Beyond #2 and let's argue about something with a head an a tail guys. that preview is enough meat to keep this thread alive.

billy batson...

[friginator]

Superman Beyond was the only Final Crisis tie-in I didn't like (other then that steaming pile of crap, "Requiem."). If this whole wacky adventure only takes place in a heartbeat (literally), then wouldn't Superman be back by now in the regular book? I also despise 3-D comics. Ooh! some of the objects appear to be glued in cardboard on top of the paper! And they're red/blue for some reason! This cardboard red and blue comic is amazing! Of course, now that I've used the 3-D glasses, I can't resell this comic in exchange for one that's actually worth the FIVE DOLLARS that this one cost!

[joint venture]

Superman Beyond was the only Final Crisis tie-in I didn't like (other then that steaming pile of crap, "Requiem."). If this whole wacky adventure only takes place in a heartbeat (literally), then wouldn't Superman be back by now in the regular book? I also despise 3-D comics. Ooh! some of the objects appear to be glued in cardboard on top of the paper! And they're red/blue for some reason! This cardboard red and blue comic is amazing! Of course, now that I've used the 3-D glasses, I can't resell this comic in exchange for one that's actually worth the FIVE DOLLARS that this one cost!

Duuude...you're bitter about this stuff huh? Well, since I dunno what the crap it is until I read it. I read everyone's comics and buy the trades. Yeah sure I'm a leech. But I spend around 200 bucks a month in books, hc's and tpbs. Which is nothing to some people that DO spend big money.

The only thing I regret from this Superman 3D gimmick is that if they do print a tpb, they will do this stupid 3-D glasses thing again. Maybe they could have the trade colored normally cause while it might be a trip for kids and nerds, tearing up the comic book ain't my thing.

Anywhere where I've seen this funny Batwoman appear, the comic book has been, what did you call it?, a STEAMING PILE OF CRAP, not to mention ANYWHERE where this awful Renee Montoya character shows up ( i am not calling her The Question ever). Sheesh, i know Morrison had meatier characters or plots in mind. Or I'll hope at least.

I'm asking him in february for sure.
Can't argue with you when it comes to Requiem,

[carabas]

...this awful Renee Montoya character shows up ( i am not calling her The Question ever). Sheesh, i know Morrison had meatier characters or plots in mind.Even before she picked up teh mantle (well, hat) of the Question, Renee was one of DC's meatiest characters. And one of the most worthy successors to the part. Do you have any arguments at all to dislike her; other than she's not Vic?


an actual face in the first image would have more color and a bit more definition. notice the eye and lips. this still reads as mannequin fake sort of blankness, and then in the second panel you see how the first one was a product of the lighting. this is simple. see how in the second panel you are still seeing definition of eyes, nose, mouth.....and in this close-up you see how drastic the shadows are with this red stormy sky and how tight and constricting the mask is. it's simply more definition than anyone is used to seeing in the question, but it was a choice by jones and obviously not a mistake. and he seems to be saying "this is how this would actually look".Okay... You know, usually I am on your side. But in your defence of these two downright crappy panels you are starting to come of as some rightwing nutter clinging to the idea that Bush the Lesser was the bestest American president ever.

[Calybos]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4443/thequestionjs0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Thanks for posting the pictures for clarification.

No, Renee Montoya is clearly not wearing a mask. Or rather, if she IS, it's a Mister Terrific-style face-hugging mask, not the Question's.

Or it could've just been an artist's error. It's not like that's never happened before.

[Harding Prime]

Take it up with the people who've written studies on Grant, and published books. Like Steve Shapiro, for instance, who cited my interview with Grant from back in the day, which I can certainly tell you touched on quite a lot of philosophical issues.

Studies on Grant?!?!

Dude, what is he, Nietzche?

So what is he, man or Superman? Lol

[Paul McEnery]

Studies on Grant?!?!

Dude, what is he, Nietzche?

So what is he, man or Superman? Lol

Because nobody's ever written secondary literature about a writer before, or examined their work for philosophical themes. It's shocking!

[Harding Prime]

Because nobody's ever written secondary literature about a writer before, or examined their work for philosophical themes. It's shocking!

For a comic book writer, yea it is. Pick up a basketball or something, or wait till he is dead.


I would say do one on Kirby, but I'm sure you already have.

[Vic Vega]

Long thread here.

Quick question: has anyone on this thread addressed that FC is a reworking of Rock Of Ages?

The only real difference that I see between them is that Rock was a Justice League story first and foremost and FC is going out of its way to take the big three (and the entire League by extension)off the board for most of the story. As it stands now, it looks like humanity's fate is in the hands of Mr. Miracle and Mr. Teriffic.

I wonder if the fact that FC is featuring mostly third stringers (at best) accounts for the frustration readers are having with the book.

[Harding Prime]

I wonder if the fact that FC is featuring mostly third stringers (at best) accounts for the frustration readers are having with the book.

I think that has a lot to do with it....

[mdg1]

I honestly think part of it is because the book is not what people were expecting. Everyone treats it like a big EVENT, with armies of heroes and villains clashing, but that's not really what the story is about. It seems to me that the most important battles in FC are _internal_, not external.

[friginator]

Anywhere where I've seen this funny Batwoman appear, the comic book has been, what did you call it?, a STEAMING PILE OF CRAP, not to mention ANYWHERE where this awful Renee Montoya character shows up ( i am not calling her The Question ever). Sheesh, i know Morrison had meatier characters or plots in mind. Or I'll hope at least.
You mean "Revelations"? Because I'm actually liking that one. I don't know what you mean about Montoya and Batwoman, but The Question wasn't ever really very interesting. The animated version was the only time he was a really fun character, and JLU made quite a few changes.

Quick question: has anyone on this thread addressed that FC is a reworking of Rock Of Ages?
No, but that is a good point.

Studies on Grant?!?!

Dude, what is he, Nietzche?
Not every writer deserves a book about his/her work (I'm looking at you, McDuffie), but Morrison is a very accomplished writer, and has done things in the genre that are only comparable to Jack Kirby or Alan Moore. I'm not saying he's the greatest writer ever or anything, but you could write volumes about his work, it's so rich and full of great ideas. You could do an entire study on, say, the Bizarro planet in All-Star Superman, these things are so full of untapped potential.

[Tobias March]

You mean "Revelations"? Because I'm actually liking that one. I don't know what you mean about Montoya and Batwoman, but The Question wasn't ever really very interesting. The animated version was the only time he was a really fun character, and JLU made quite a few changes.


Well Denny O'Neill's The Question series from a while back is worth picking up.

[Harding Prime]

I honestly think part of it is because the book is not what people were expecting. Everyone treats it like a big EVENT, with armies of heroes and villains clashing, but that's not really what the story is about. It seems to me that the most important battles in FC are _internal_, not external.

People were expecting a big event, because DC said it was there big event. And it is, in a way, Darksied taking over earth's population and all, but not your major players. It's everything that DC said it was not.

[friginator]

I fail to see how this is "The Day Evil Won." Don't the bad guys ALWAYS stage a big attack in the second act of the story? ***SPOILER ALERT**** The good guys win! It's not rocket science, people! Another problem is how it's called a "Crisis." Crises #1 and #3 (and to a very limited extent, #2) all had a big, cosmic, all encompassing danger, yet this threat doesn't seem any bigger than Darkseid was in "Coundown' and "Death of the New Gods", which both should never have happened for Final Crisis to work. Yeah, it's much better written and organized, but I'm sick of Darkseid showing up and ALMOST taking over the universe, even if now he and the other New Gods are much cooler. Not to mention all the supervillains uniting, which both Dwayne McDuffie and whoever did Salvation Run promtly ruined. It's not impressive just because the supervillains are all meeting in a room somewhere and talking about how tired they are of the same old dumb plan, YET THEY JOIN TOGETHER AGAIN, AND GET THEIR ASSES KICKED. This is a cool story, but it's not really a "Crisis." And DC's insistance that all these other stories somehow connect to it don't help.

[dotdotdot]

I fail to see how this is "The Day Evil Won." Don't the bad guys ALWAYS stage a big attack in the second act of the story? ***SPOILER ALERT**** The good guys win! It's not rocket science, people! Another problem is how it's called a "Crisis." Crises #1 and #3 (and to a very limited extent, #2) all had a big, cosmic, all encompassing danger, yet this threat doesn't seem any bigger than Darkseid was in "Coundown' and "Death of the New Gods", which both should never have happened for Final Crisis to work. Yeah, it's much better written and organized, but I'm sick of Darkseid showing up and ALMOST taking over the universe, even if now he and the other New Gods are much cooler. Not to mention all the supervillains uniting, which both Dwayne McDuffie and whoever did Salvation Run promtly ruined. It's not impressive just because the supervillains are all meeting in a room somewhere and talking about how tired they are of the same old dumb plan, YET THEY JOIN TOGETHER AGAIN, AND GET THEIR ASSES KICKED. This is a cool story, but it's not really a "Crisis." And DC's insistance that all these other stories somehow connect to it don't help.

the threat and the overwhelming sense of dread are never like this. the heroes aren't taken out of the equation so early and so easily. it's just never this bleak, it's almost as if like evil has won or something.
and yeah, it is just as much a crisis as any other tale with that moniker. the threats from COIE and IC aren't really up to snuff compared to FC either, so i don't know where you're getting this madness.

[dotdotdot]

No, but that is a good point.



we've been over it several times, too.

[Herr Mike]

It's Age of Apocalypse for people who really, really like Grant Morrison.

[Harding Prime]

It's Age of Apocalypse for people who really, really like Grant Morrison.

Except its not an alternate reality...

[4thHorseman]

I fail to see how this is "The Day Evil Won." Don't the bad guys ALWAYS stage a big attack in the second act of the story? ***SPOILER ALERT**** The good guys win! It's not rocket science, people! Another problem is how it's called a "Crisis." Crises #1 and #3 (and to a very limited extent, #2) all had a big, cosmic, all encompassing danger, yet this threat doesn't seem any bigger than Darkseid was in "Coundown' and "Death of the New Gods", which both should never have happened for Final Crisis to work. Yeah, it's much better written and organized, but I'm sick of Darkseid showing up and ALMOST taking over the universe, even if now he and the other New Gods are much cooler. Not to mention all the supervillains uniting, which both Dwayne McDuffie and whoever did Salvation Run promtly ruined. It's not impressive just because the supervillains are all meeting in a room somewhere and talking about how tired they are of the same old dumb plan, YET THEY JOIN TOGETHER AGAIN, AND GET THEIR ASSES KICKED. This is a cool story, but it's not really a "Crisis." And DC's insistance that all these other stories somehow connect to it don't help.

You do know the series isn't over yet right? You nor we know the true ramifications of this series. Do the good guys win? More than likely, but we don't know what exactly happens that may affect the multiverse on a grand scale. They may win, but they may have one hell of a mess to clean up or something that may never get fixed again.

[Herr Mike]

They may win, but they may have one hell of a mess to clean up or something that may never get fixed again.

The heroes or DC editorial?

[friginator]

and yeah, it is just as much a crisis as any other tale with that moniker. the threats from COIE and IC aren't really up to snuff compared to FC either, so i don't know where you're getting this madness.

I have a PHD in madness. Sure, it's a "crisis" by the standard definition, but it only really affects earth, and the Multiverse is much less central to the story than then COIE, ZH, and IC. I'm sure we'll see more of the monitors/multiverse in the next 2 issues, but it doesn't have that same cosmic scale. By that logic, any big story is a "crisis." Was Legends a crisis? Was Final Night a crisis? Was Our Worlds at War a crisis? Was the Sinestro Corps a crisis? I would definitely say the outright murder of (literally) infinite innocent people on infinite planets, the near-destruction of the multiverse, the corruption of the timestream, and all the crazy stuff that took place during Infinite Crisis (OMACs, the Spectre being evil, and the Speed Force being destroyed) was a bit worse than Final crisis. At this point, it sounds like I'm badmouthing FC, but I really do like it as a story, it just seems to be scheduled and marketed badly.

[berk]

... it just seems to be scheduled and marketed badly.I think even the most rabid FC admirer would agree with that. I don't think any of the posters here who are enjoying the story are at all happy about the marketing DC's done for it, going right back to supposed lead-in series like Death of the New Gods.

And if it's true that the delays were due to last minute changes imposed on the creators by DC management, then that's deplorable too, but more because of the hypothetical changes than the delays.

[dotdotdot]

I have a PHD in madness. Sure, it's a "crisis" by the standard definition, but it only really affects earth,

what series are you reading instead of final crisis

[carabas]

I think even the most rabid FC admirer would agree with that. I don't think any of the posters here who are enjoying the story are at all happy about the marketing DC's done for it, going right back to supposed lead-in series like Death of the New Gods.Indeed. I'd go as far as to say that without Death Of The New Gods and Frelling Countdown, Final Crisis would easlily be selling 50.000 more.

[friginator]

what series are you reading instead of final crisis

Your posts. They make FC seem more consistant by comparison.

[Paul McEnery]

Except its not an alternate reality...

But aren't they all?

[friginator]

Half the world being zombified by the Anti-Life equation would be much scarier if we didn't all know there was a "miracle cure" that probably involves hoping for a better tommorow.

[Robert318]

I know there are thousands of people who will never agree with me, but I cannot remember a story I have looked forward to more and then been wholey and completely disappointed in. I looked forward to it because I have pretty much enjoyed all the other "Crisis" stories. We were promised an earth-shattering event and that this was a can't miss event. Reading Final Crisis, I wish this was a book I never ordered, because I don't think it is a book I will pick up and read again. I didn't love Infinite Crisis, but at least I understood what it was about and could follow it from issue to issue. Final Crisis is nebulous at best.

While I recognize there is some potential for some cool character moments in this book, they almost seem taken out of the context of their story and thereby made meaningless. Batman's death at the hands of Darkseid after shooting him is diminished by the fact that there is no lead-in to it. Batman doesn't fight a horrific battle to get at Darkseid. He isn't skulking about to avoid detection. He just appears. The entire sequence leading up to his death takes 2 pages...and then a double page spread of his death. I care about Batman. I don't want Bruce Wayne to die. I should feel something more than confusion at his death. On an emotional level, it did nothing for me.

Two members of the Super Young Team are in love, but cannot tell one another even though they may be about to die? Who cares? These aren't characters I've been made to care about. The Tattooed Man made an honorary member of the Justice League? Why? Cuz he's there and super-powered? And am I supposed to care? If I didn't read Submit, I'd never see what he went through to get to where he is.

Although I am only a fan of the company-wide crossover and millions of tie-in books when done well, I think this is a series that could have been seriously benefitted from more backstory. An event that is supposed to be this big isn't felt in any of the regular books. It should be having ongoing consequences and ramifications. The story has impactful character moments, but that impact is diminished by not making us care about those being impacted.

[Paul McEnery]

Half the world being zombified by the Anti-Life equation would be much scarier if we didn't all know there was a "miracle cure" that probably involves hoping for a better tommorow.

When all else fails, you can always destroy the universe and start over; q.v. Elric, Dreadstar.

[friginator]

I cannot remember a story I have looked forward to more and then been wholey and completely disappointed in.

What about World War Hulk? That was definitely the most disappointing crossover I can think of in recent memory.


Batman's death at the hands of Darkseid after shooting him is diminished by the fact that there is no lead-in to it. Batman doesn't fight a horrific battle to get at Darkseid. He isn't skulking about to avoid detection. He just appears. The entire sequence leading up to his death takes 2 pages...and then a double page spread of his death. I care about Batman. I don't want Bruce Wayne to die. I should feel something more than confusion at his death.

In issue #2 we saw Batman being tortured in Darkseid's underground lair, and Batman's own comic had a weird stream-of-conciousness story taking place in the torture chamber, which he eventually escapes.

DC's handling of everything is idiotic. Last Will and Testament, instead of being the nuanced story it was written as being, became confusing and utterly pointless because of DC mishandling yet another project.

[Paul McEnery]

What about World War Hulk? That was definitely the most disappointing crossover I can think of in recent memory.

To be fair, I wasn't expecting very much.



In issue #2 we saw Batman being tortured in Darkseid's underground lair, and Batman's own comic had a weird stream-of-conciousness story taking place in the torture chamber, which he eventually escapes..

And to be fair again, without those issues, the bit in Final Crisis might well fall a bit flat.

[Robert318]

What about World War Hulk? That was definitely the most disappointing crossover I can think of in recent memory.

I really enjoyed World War Hulk...except for the ending. If it continued to go where it started off, with the hulk taking over NYC, and stayed there for awhile, then it would have been great. The problem was that they had no intention of any long-term effects from that story. They needed to resume the status quo at story's end.

[friginator]

The Hulk gives everyone 24 hours to evacuate. YOU'RE BLOWING UP NEW YORK CITY, yet you don't want anyone to be hurt? The Hulk's big plan? Make superheroes fight each other in a big gladiator match. What? Seriously? That's got to be one of the stupidest plans ever. Especially because the Hulk refuses to let anyone die. He actually says that out loud. You don't want to hurt anyone? Why is the Hulk such a pussy all of a sudden? The fights were incredibly boring, and lasted for about 5 seconds each. Why not send in the 50 state Initiative? That's why they exist! He only fights like 7 people?And why does everyone treat sending the Hulk into space as such a horrible thing? He destroys your city on a constant basis, yet getting rid of him is unforgivable? It's also not a "World War," or really a war at all. The Sentry sits around for the first 4 issues doing nothing, fine. But why waste several pages in every issue on the Sentry sitting around doing nothing? That's really annoying, especially since no one cares about the Sentry anyway.

[Tobias March]

The Hulk gives everyone 24 hours to evacuate. YOU'RE BLOWING UP NEW YORK CITY, yet you don't want anyone to be hurt? The Hulk's big plan? Make superheroes fight each other in a big gladiator match. What? Seriously? That's got to be one of the stupidest plans ever. Especially because the Hulk refuses to let anyone die. He actually says that out loud. You don't want to hurt anyone? Why is the Hulk such a pussy all of a sudden? The fights were incredibly boring, and lasted for about 5 seconds each. Why not send in the 50 state Initiative? That's why they exist! He only fights like 7 people?And why does everyone treat sending the Hulk into space as such a horrible thing? He destroys your city on a constant basis, yet getting rid of him is unforgivable? It's also not a "World War," or really a war at all. The Sentry sits around for the first 4 issues doing nothing, fine. But why waste several pages in every issue on the Sentry sitting around doing nothing? That's really annoying, especially since no one cares about the Sentry anyway.

I have a theory about Rulk. I reckon the original pitch was for a somewhat more brutal World War Hulk and that after the heroes defeated him, Banner would be executed.

Then Jeph Loeb was commissioned to write a continuing series about the Hulk with a new character. Except at the last minute Marvel pussied out (their film division probably threw a hissy fit with the new movie coming out and all) and instead we have this bizarre changeover to Red Hulk without any proper resolution to WWH.

[joint venture]

...must be really pissed off at Final Crisis to start talking about Marvel and the Hulk.

[Robert318]

The Hulk gives everyone 24 hours to evacuate. YOU'RE BLOWING UP NEW YORK CITY, yet you don't want anyone to be hurt? The Hulk's big plan? Make superheroes fight each other in a big gladiator match. What? Seriously? That's got to be one of the stupidest plans ever. Especially because the Hulk refuses to let anyone die. He actually says that out loud. You don't want to hurt anyone? Why is the Hulk such a pussy all of a sudden? The fights were incredibly boring, and lasted for about 5 seconds each. Why not send in the 50 state Initiative? That's why they exist! He only fights like 7 people?And why does everyone treat sending the Hulk into space as such a horrible thing? He destroys your city on a constant basis, yet getting rid of him is unforgivable? It's also not a "World War," or really a war at all. The Sentry sits around for the first 4 issues doing nothing, fine. But why waste several pages in every issue on the Sentry sitting around doing nothing? That's really annoying, especially since no one cares about the Sentry anyway.

Well...when you put it like that...um...

I still loved it. LOVED IT! He allowed people to leave because he was only after the people who were after him. He didn't want to treat people as he had been treated. Not killing anyone? Did we really think he would? It's still Marvel and they have something of a vested interest in protecting all of the big name characters. Sentry sitting around...helped to build some tension waiting for him to make his move. Sure, there are some holes in the plot, something that can be said pretty frequently about a lot of books, but I still loved the story. Like I said before, they couldn't treat the story as it should have been because by the end of the series, all the pieces needed to be right back to where they were before the series. Should they have held off until they could do it right? Maybe. Should they have axed that story altogether? I vote no. Maybe I didn't read that deeply into it, but for whatever reason I give that 2 thumbs up.

Final Crisis, I give 2 thumbs down and I am looking for thumbs to borrow from other people so I can turn those down too.

[Tobias March]

Final Crisis, I give 2 thumbs down and I am looking for thumbs to borrow from other people so I can turn those down too.

http://www.monstersinmotion.com/catalog/images/dvd/frankenhooker.jpg

'eek!'

[joint venture]

http://www.monstersinmotion.com/catalog/images/dvd/frankenhooker.jpg

'eek!'

hahahahahahahaha.

[Wile_E_Quixote]

DC made bad a bad editorial decision in publishing Countdown to Final Crisis and Death of the New Gods. I'm supposed to read all 52 issues of CFTC, and DOTNG and then I'm supposed to start reading Final Crisis and forget about Darkseid getting his ass beat by Jimmy Olson and CFTC.
The series is full of great ideas that are poorly and incompletely realized. Everything seems poorly realized. The Darkseid in FC is much scarier than the Darkseid in CFTC or DOTNG. He's like the really scary Darkseid in Seven Soldiers. Yet we really never learn why he's so scary or about the war in Heaven that caused him to fall to Earth or about the bullet that killed Orion. The concepts of the Anti-Life equation and the possession of Mary Marvel by DeSaad and the Alpha Lantern by Granny Goodness are never explained. They just happened as convenient plot devices
The rescue of Hal Jordan in issue #5 is never fully explained. We don't see Hal after issue 2, he's busted by the Guardians, yet in issue 5 we find out that things are going to Hell on Earth and that somehow Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner have figured out that Hal is innocent and that the Alpha Lantern is possessed by Granny Goodness.
Batman's death was lame. Batman's death was lame. It's not that it was a bad idea, but it was piss poorly realized. We go from Batman being trapped at the end of the Lump storyline in Batman to walking in on Darkseid and blowing him away. We're just supposed to assume that he managed to escape from captivity, quickly recover from the physical and psychological ordeal he had been through, regained his utility belt containing the God bullet, find a gun that can fire the God bullet, got through the Command D bunker without being seen and then busted a cap in Darkseid's ass. Garth, would it kill you to put some background in? All of the stuff I mentioned would have made a great story, instead you just use Batman as a Deus Ex Machina to kick Darkseid's ass.
The shipping schedule is FUBAR'ed. I'm tired of this kind of thing. I wish that when DC and Marvel committed to a mini-series that they didn't publish anything until the entire thing was in the can, story, pencils and inks and ready to be sent to the colorists and printers. This is serial fiction and one of the things that keeps people interested in serial fiction is a regular publishing schedule. It's hard to be suspenseful about what is happening in the latest issue of FC without having to go back and read the earlier issues to remind yourself of what is going on. This wasn't the case with Crisis on Infinite Earths.

[lawman]

Wile...

Hell yeah. Five excellent points there.

(And that's even allowing that the sequence with Hal on Oa in #5 was actually one of my favorite points in the entire series so far. "Good," in this context, does not mean "no room for improvement.")