CBR: When Words Collide - Mar 29, 2010

[CBR News]

If comics can do it, why can't reviews? That's what Tim asks when he takes on the challenge of the 'Retcon Review,' examining some should've-been-great comics of the past from the likes of Shooter, Loeb and Starlin


Full article here (http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=25452).

[EatTheWeak]

I'm sorry, but this article is dead wrong about Ultimatum. It's cheap, easy, schlocky tragedy porn and the passage of time only renders it more embarrassing. The publicity presented this story as a bold reordering of the Ultimate line; the reality was that Loeb reheated a stunted Heroes plotline. "Full of meaning beyond words?" Were we reading the same comic?

[idle_activist]

I think you misread - all of the series mentioned were pretty aweful and he's basically praising them as though they came out right - ie being quite sarcastic.

All in all I think it was kind of petty.

[kaw26]

"EatTheWeak may need to reread the beginning of the article, and look at the other segments," was the initial version of this post. I've been scooped.

[lorathz]

I have a feeling this article was posted two days early...

[TimothyCallahan]

Ha! But this is no joke. Like all comic book criticism, it's so very deadly serious.

[Janissa]

Callahan, Are you high?

Ultimatum was a piece of crap. I read it in the comic store so I wouldn't have to pay for it.

I haven't read "Death of the New Gods" but because of your delirious praise for it - I'll give it shot.

[K-Bomb!]

You people are absolutely retarded.

Unless these are all retcon posts.

[MarvelMaster616]

I usually agree with these columns, but not this time. How can ANYONE say Ultimatum was an emotional story? It had no depth whatsoever. Even Loeb himself admitted in a newsarama interview that it was basically the comic equivalent of a Michael Bay movie. That is to say, it has a lot of big explosions and shock value but no character or emotion. The Ultimate universe needed to be shaken up, but Ultimatum just flat out destroyed it. It killed so many great characters and killed some that never even got a chance to be developed. How is that going to help a series? Basically, Ultimatum took away Ultimate Wolverine, Cyclops, Professor X, Dr. Strange, Hank Pym, Janet Pym, Dr. Strange, and a whole host of lesser characters that will NEVER be given a new twist because they're dead. How can anyone say there was emotion in this story when a lot of these characters were killed off panel? I'm sorry, but whoever wrote about Ultimatum needs to seriously re-evaluate their position. Since when is it a good story to flat out destroy an entire series that so many people enjoyed following? Just for the sake of shock and clearing the deck? I used to be a huge Ultimate fan. I canceled every subscription after Ultimatum. Ultimate has no redeeming values and deserves to be canceled after Ultimatum. It would be easier to start from scratch than to follow the hogwash that has come in wake of Ultimatum.

[Mikey Brown]

I think the article went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over everyones heads. Its a retcon review, a retcon of what the original review was. Its basically opposite day. Get it?

[Mikey Brown]

You people are absolutely retarded.

Unless these are all retcon posts.What he said, except the name calling.

[Jim Gourley]

Tim, I think we're friends again =)

In all seriousness, did you and Greg Burgas draw this play out on a chalkboard before you executed it? It's like a critics' alley-oop.

Between the two of you, my immediate response is "okay, I get it". But upon a little further thought, I believe you're preaching to the choir.

The choir agrees. Burgas argues that Marvel and DC kept chasing after "what works" with the infrequent attempts at "new stuff". You're saying that Loeb tried a little of option 1 with the uber-epic mega-event that "changes the universe forever", and a little of option 2 by going for broke and dismantling things so irrevocably that there would be no option other than to introduce new characters into the universe. In doing so, you believe he failed.

Nod from the choir.

But I think the choir also believes that retcon critiques from the critics are unnecessary, because the companies themselves have their own media machine touting the "success" of such tripe.

So on this count, I think you're Jim Lehrer trying to live in a CNN/Fox News world. You're the one guy telling the truth, but no one can hear you over the noise. Actually, that's not true. For whatever reason, no one wants to tune in to PBS anymore.

But bad books will sell. They'll sell because, for as much as the choir agrees with you, the congregation is the larger audience. And the congregation isn't going to listen to you up in the pulpit so long as Metallica is playing on the communion table. And what is Metallica singing? "Superhero of the Day".

While publishers like Radical put out really awesome stories like Caliber, Hercules, and Shrapnel, their sales can't compare to DC and Marvel. Up until a few years ago in Europe, capes and tights titles didn't do that well. They're here now, but Tin Tin, Asterix, and adventure titles carry the bulk of sales. There used to be a time in the US when characters like Dick Tracy, Mark Trail, Donald Duck and the Crypt Keeper took up the racks. So what happened?

Quite honestly, I think the big companies retconned comics culture. The past, with its slew of adventure, sci-fi, romance, and fantasy books never happened. Americans have always been reading comics with superheroes in them-- and they always will. New readers trying out the medium pick up superheroes by default. A 12-year-old on his first trip to a comics shop is almost pre-programmed to pick up Spider-Man or Batman. The toys and cartoons have pervaded his existence up until that point.

And this is why retcon is ultimately kind of silly. For most comics readers, there's a life cycle. A kid jumps on board at 12, 14, or 16. They read until they're maybe thirty or so, and then they get off the ride. So companies think they have to retcon for that "nostalgic effect" that will squeeze a couple more copies out of the crowd that's aging out. By then you've incurred so much baggage that there's hardly any room for the character to maneuver in the story. Time for that other dreaded "r" word-- "reboot".

That's why guys like J. Michael Strazcynski are able to make such great runs like the one he did on Amazing Spider-Man. That guy took Spidey in all kinds of different directions-- many of which the character had never been before. I think he did it that way because he looked at Spider-Man more as a comics character than a superhero. He refused to be cramped by the cape-and-tight paradigm. Spider-Man went to the Amazon jungle and fought giant demon spiders. He played Tarzan for a while. Back in New York he ate hot dogs with Loki and battled Dormammu. Then he reincarnated with different powers and views on life. He turned into Doctor Who. JMS didn't go back and rewrite the character's origin, but he sure as hell played with it. Even better, he showed that comics are just like real life-- there are very few things that can be done that you can't undo somehow. Things come full circle. You don't have to retcon. You just have to be patient.

That's ultimately how I view retcon-- a refusal to be patient. We don't like the way this character's life is going or feel like we can develop an ultimate resolution to the current situation that will satisfy people, so we're going to simply say "ta-da!" and say it never happened.

I mean, Deus Ex Machina. And that's why I think, most of the time, the audience hates the "editorial fix" more than they hated the creative problem. Consequently, as the practice becomes more pervasive in the medium the audience will become more disgruntled with the medium as a whole.

Ultimately, maybe there's something we can learn from the game industry. World of Warcraft is a realm with pretty loose continuity. Yet it's a beautiful world in which lots of incredible stories unfold every day. At the end of each day, some stories continue on, some end, and new ones begin. But nothing collides with each other in a way that the game "undoes" the XP you gained from your last raid. As well it shouldn't-- that would suck the fun out of it. Meanwhile, the Final Fantasy games don't have any continuity in them except the title. Audiences don't seem to be bothered after thirteen iterations.

Comics are just like games-- it's all in fun. If you're really worried by Batman pulling out Bat Shark repellant even though you specifically remember him abandoning the stuff after denouncing chemical weapons in the 1968 Bat-Girl annual, then you're not having fun anymore. Retcon yourself into a world where people actually care about these kinds of things, but stay out of my existence.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That alternate dimension where the series are like you say?

I want to go to there.

Bravo!

ps. I'm shocked that the people who read this and posted here to disagree can read the books well enough to understand they were bad, but struggled with the review.
(On the other hand, I've never read any of the series retcon reviewed, so I probably missed some in jokes, but they all sound like great series! If only!)

[TimothyCallahan]

Some of these message board posts are not making a good case for the reading skills of the comic book community. It's not a matter of missing the irony in my column, it's a matter of missing the part where I completely explain what I'm doing. And the irony.

I love comic book readers!

[mjmartinejohn]

fkdl;asjdlfjka

[Jim Gourley]

Keep hope, Tim-- studies show that 7th graders who read comics become better readers overall in the long run.

Abandon all hope, Tim-- the national average reading level is about 8th grade. 30-40% of the American population would never make it through the "v-word" introduction in V for Vendetta.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Some of these message board posts are not making a good case for the reading skills of the comic book community. It's not a matter of missing the irony in my column, it's a matter of missing the part where I completely explain what I'm doing. And the irony.

I love comic book readers!

But I imagine if you couldn't pick up on the irony, OR the explanation, then Secret Wars 2, Supergirl and Ultimatum would have read like the most kick-ass books ever.

If you're stuck for ideas on more, I suggest Youngblood - the vast discrepancy from what it was sold as being, as opposed to what it was, is staggering.
(Although you could argue that Milligan and Allred actually did the book it promised to be as X-Force/Statix).
Also, Identity Crisis.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Keep hope, Tim-- studies show that 7th graders who read comics become better readers overall in the long run.

All reading is good reading!


Abandon all hope, Tim-- the national average reading level is about 8th grade. 30-40% of the American population would never make it through the "v-word" introduction in V for Vendetta.

Leave no child behind!

[TimothyCallahan]

mjmartinejohn: your original post made more sense, though I obviously disagree. Too bad you had to edit it down to nonsense characters due to, what, cowardice? Second thoughts? You tell me.

You're allowed to play along here as long as you keep it civil and don't resort to personal attacks. But you can disagree all you want.

Are you defending any of these four series, though? Is anyone?

[TimothyCallahan]

I realize the "cowardice" line is a cheap shot, and I apologize in advance.

[Johnson!]

Well, regular readers' confusion may be warranted considering that rave review of "Dark Knight Strikes Again" a few months back....

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, regular readers' confusion may be warranted considering that rave review of "Dark Knight Strikes Again" a few months back....

It's only fanboys who really have a problem with that work - people who thought DKR was a dead serious work of literature.

Free of impossible expectations DKSA is mad fun.

[TimothyCallahan]

I still haven't seen anyone provide a convincing counter-argument explaining why DKSA is NOT good. People complain, abstractly, about the art, but...I haven't seen any strong criticism beyond that.

Anyone have a great takedown of DKSA they'd like to share? Because I'm pretty sure that I could defend that series against all attacks! Bring it on!

[Chad Nevett]

Are you defending any of these four series, though? Is anyone?

Sure: a defence (of sorts) of The Death of the New Gods (http://graphicontent.blogspot.com/2009/02/hello-cosmic-part-27-death-of-new-gods.html) from over a year ago...

[TimothyCallahan]

I was just trying to provoke you to post on a message board!

[Self.Taught.Robot]

It's the logical conclusion of Alan Moore's early work on "Marvelman," and if Moore ever gets a chance to finish his work on that series, then he should take notes on what Shooter and Milgrom accomplished in "Secret Wars II."

That is the most hilarious thing I read all day. I actually signed up to the forum just to say thank you for that.

Are people seriously not getting the joke?

[adcenam]

The reviewer is way off about Supergirl. Besides David's first 12 issues of Linda/Supergirl, Loeb's run on Supergirl was easily the best the character has seen.

Much of his Supergirl :the way it should have been" already reads exactly like Loeb's. "He changed everything to give her some genuine substance. This Kara Zor-El matters" This was already true of Loeb's Supergirl. His Supergirl had a personality, some rebelliousness, and felt like a teenager without making "teenager" a negative thing. This was a Supergirl that had "substance" and was her own character, not "SUperman in a skirt."

"She is more direct, less measured than the older Kal-El. She's impulsive in battle, but that doesn't make her thoughtless." This is also true of Loeb;s Supergirl. Her power levels had never been higher and she didn't hold back, unlike Superman. Besides kryptonite, her one weakness seemed to be overconfidence.

The "retro reviewer" also complains about her costume being out of fashion. Supergirl's costume is more likely to be worn by a teen in a mall than the vast majority of male and female super costumes. The half shirts may be out, but skirts are still in. What genre does this guy think he is reviewing? If he is complaining about the fashion of the costume, he should complain about Batman and Power Girl first.

It is too bad DC had to wreck this title beginning with issue #20. Supergirl has always had a fun and flirty sex appeal-- nothing over the top like Power Girl or the men in painted on costumes. DC killed it with sexist restrictions that saw shorts under the skirt (so ugly and ridiculous) and making the skirt longer than it was in the 50's. The burka does not seem far behind. This was combined with the really sexist writing of people like Puckett and Palmiotti, who continually portrayed her as a dumb, incapable blond, who had no voice.

As is always the case, when a society restricts a females sex appeal in ways they never do to the males, the females also lose power and voice. With DC changes, Supergirl became less powerful, less intelligent, and did not speak up for herself. The sexists who yelled sexist epithets at Churchill's Supergirl and said disgusting things like "she is asking to be raped" and "cheerleading should be banned" won out. The undershorts and all other Supergirl only restrictions need to go away.

This reviewer should complain about the shirtless teen vampires who are sexed up way more than Supergirl. Maybe he should complain about the impossible bodies of the male characters and the tightness of their uniforms. Oh yeah, I forgot, he must be one of those that thinks shirtless males are wonderful, but a female with sex appeal is a whore.

[K-Bomb!]

Please tell me that this thread will be discussed at length during the next podcast.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

This reviewer should complain about the shirtless teen vampires who are sexed up way more than Supergirl. Maybe he should complain about the impossible bodies of the male characters and the tightness of their uniforms. Oh yeah, I forgot, he must be one of those that thinks shirtless males are wonderful, but a female with sex appeal is a whore.

I'm trusting this is a 'defense' written to be as ridiculous as Tim's review was?

If so, Hilarious!

If not, then that's really hilarious!

[TimothyCallahan]

"The half shirts may be out, but skirts are still in."

a) The half shirt was the ONLY change to the costume from the traditional look.

b) Half shirts are out? They were never in! Trust me, I tried wearing one once and everyone at the mall called the police. Simultaneously.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

"The half shirts may be out, but skirts are still in."

a) The half shirt was the ONLY change to the costume from the traditional look.

b) Half shirts are out? They were never in! Trust me, I tried wearing one once and everyone at the mall called the police. Simultaneously.

I was wondering where the line about your hypocritical, sexiest stance about shirtless vampires came from...

[K-Bomb!]

I'm definitely interested in more info about any and all sexiest stances.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I'm definitely interested in more info about any and all sexiest stances.

Hah!

It's just bad typing, not Freudian, I swear!

[TimothyCallahan]

I'm pretty sure my profile pic is one of my top 5 sexiest stances. You don't want to see #1-4. Trust me. The internet is not the place for such things.

[Chewbacca]

Some of these message board posts are not making a good case for the reading skills of the comic book community. It's not a matter of missing the irony in my column, it's a matter of missing the part where I completely explain what I'm doing. And the irony.

I love comic book readers!

And I love Americans!

Your column is sarcasm, not irony. :wink:

Those Supergirl fans though, that's irony. :tongue:

[K-Bomb!]

Your column is sarcasm, not irony. :wink:


Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anybody, but sarcasm is a form of irony. Keep it quiet though.

[Chewbacca]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anybody, but sarcasm is a form of irony. Keep it quiet though.

Yes, the highest form, at that...

[TimothyCallahan]

Chewie -- No, it IS irony, not sarcasm.

Sarcasm is traditionally reserved for "verbal irony," but even if you allow it to cover written irony it still doesn't fit the definition. Sarcasm is irony "intended to wound." Sarcasm is, "Jeph Loeb, you are a masterfully subtle writer!"

You'll note I never do that in the column. It's general irony instead.