Mieville, Fialkov and Kindt are DC's best choices.
But that's IF DC gives them more works or if they want to work more for DC
Mieville, Fialkov and Kindt are DC's best choices.
But that's IF DC gives them more works or if they want to work more for DC
Saludos desde el exilio a una generación de destructores.
I think if your question is 'who should take a stab at the multiverse', you're starting off asking the wrong question.
Nothing - absolutely nothing - about the multiverse is inherently interesting.
I honestly don't give a fig about the damn thing. The only reason that I'm for it is that it is a great set piece with which to explore characters. That's the ONLY function it serves, and if you're missing that you're missing the whole point.
The best 'multiverse' stories only use that as a backdrop to explore their central characters, to reflect them or to provoke certain emotional responses. If a book is going to claim to explore the multiverse, it needs to have a solid central cast, and that central cast and what they go through has to be the focus of the book.
From Alan Moore's Captain Britain to Mark Millar's Swamp Thing to Peter Gross's Books of Magic to Judd Winick's Exiles, this has been the formula that works.
Matt Kindt would be my first choice to do it, but I wouldn't mind seeing Mark Waid tackle it either. Milligan's work isn't suited to that kind of big ensemble, works best on an individual basis. I wouldn't mind seeing him tackle, I don't know, Booster Gold though. Lately he seems to have been phoning in his dialoging, though.
Actually, give Robinson the right room and he might do well with it, he's quite good at creating worlds that feel real, that feel like they have a history, and if you give him relatively new characters, and just one or two of them, he tends to be stronger.
Check out my New Blog! Just a random assortment of ideas, thoughts, and reviews!
http://heshouldreallyknowbetter.blogspot.com/
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Noone wasnt the point of the reboot "not to confuse readers" rolleyes.
Multiversity needs to die
Why? I don't see a point to have so many universe set in the new 52. The whole point of a cohesive universe is to have them interact with each other. Making each title all on separate universe seems to defeat the purpose. As a mini or OGN, it works perfectly, but I'm not sure if anyone would be interested in an Earth 3, 4, 5 since we already got 3 earths (including earth 1)
I laughed out loud at this.
I don't really think Multiverse needs to die, I think it can provide a fun and interesting story for the main books, it is also something that DC excels at. All their Crisis events are immensely popular. I would like to read an Exiles series in DC. I thought that it'll be pretty interesting.
Anyone who has an interesting story to tell. DC reserves too many concepts and characters for specific writers who may or may never get around to using them. How long did they put the New Gods on hold for Morrison after Final Crisis? If someone has a good story now, let them tell it.
I liked the idea of a Challengers from Beyond series but I would like to see a series set on an elseworld like the Justice Riders or Elseworld's Finest with Supergirl & Batgirl done by Brian Bendis. Then I would like to see an Earth 5 series featuring the Marvel Family done by Alan Moore which would be an incredible read but then it would be a sign of the apocalypse coming right next to the war between Angels & Faeries lol.
Last edited by Captain Midnight; 11-20-2012 at 09:42 AM.
The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What's Tom Peyer doing these days?
Pull List; seems to be too long to fit in my sig...
Strictly speaking, "Jurassic Park" is pure high concept: "cloning dinosaurs, just add idiots". High concept is nowhere near as lofty as many people seem to think it is. I had to tell someone that in Avengers Arena threads. Works that are entirely high concept are generally bad Hollywood flicks. Its the pitch, not the plot, character, theme or anything worth reading.
Bookmarks