but my initial annoyance in not being able to keep track (plus my dismay that the art, although good enough to get by, is not a patch on Alphona's), diminished as i got more into the story.

this was the first ep of the 1900s arc that actually made me care about the Victorian superheros. esp when that midget guy gets the bullet. i didn't even remember who he was and he's probably only been in about five panels in the entire run, but DAMN. it takes a writer like Whedon to make you care about a completely throwaway character like that.

An AICN shout out to a guy who shaped the lives of fantasy lovin' geeks everywhere is a no-brainer. WTF?!

Don't tell me y'all are afraid your imaginary girlfriends will find out you're D&Ders.

Seems like a bit of a dis.

This is what Millar does best. His legion for fans, second only to the Bendii, think he does everything best. I've often tried to figure out why I like Millar's writing so much because:A) His dialogue reads like someone who learned everything about how us yanks talk from T.V., movies and a few hip hop CDS and 2)His plots usually consist of taking a longstanding superhero concept and pissing on it without really adding to it and D)His characterizations are about as subtle as Michael Bay on crank filming a script Stan Lee wrote on Red Bull and *)His action, which can be quite good, is too few and far between because this is the 21st century and IV) although I agree with his politics in general, his political commentary in his work reads as both diluted and heavy handed at the same time -- how do you tell that a U.S. comic book fan receives his political education from the Millar board? He'll call himself a "leftie". Here, leftie is either how you bat or those special scissors in grade school. You can tell a bonafide American because he or she will say they are "liberal" or "conservative" or "too damn busy to care". Also, if you kick 'em in the shins, they'll knock you out.

No, I think the reason, in spite of these problems, that I love Millar's writing is that when he's trying, when he's at his best, he's the best idea guy working today. More vesatile than Bendis, more focused than Morrison.

And KICK-ASS does sound like a great idea. Millar is a guy who deserves to get paid his Marvel rate for doing his own stuff, not theirs.

And Optimus, I'm the complete opposite about first issues. If a first issue can't cut it for me, there's no way I'm ponying up the filthy green for a second.

This is especially true after so many years of being inundated with the Liefield style of anti-realism (I love making up words).

If you think abut the feats that the heavy hitters can accomplish, they would need to be a bit beefy and have some muscle tone.

I also hate the books where the faces of everyone are the same, the perfect Kennedy-esque square head with all features in perfect balance and symmetry.

Ross’s characters seem ugly, because they are not perfect. And for some unexplainable reason, I guess we could only call it taste, some people will like this and some won’t. I’m in the first camp.

Visually, however, the Marvel icons are freakier. As editor, Stan Lee's brilliance was to let Kirby and Ditko go nuts when they were creating the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man is completely masked with mirror lensed eyes, often portrayed dangling upside down or standing on the sheer surface of the wall. The Hulk is a monster. The original Fantastic Four are depicted as stranger than anything at DC at the time. The original Avengers: an armored, hammer swinging god with (gasp!) long hair; a giant and a bug sized woman; a monster; a mechanized man; even a masked man in red, white and blue who is still more mysterious than the muted, near uni-colored Green Lantern, Flash, Aqua-Man, Batman or Martian Manhunter, with the mask dehumanizing him more than the equally vibrant Superman and Wonder Woman.

Marvel heroes were freaks. With MARVELS, Ross' realistic style emphasized that these aren't the kind of sights we see every day.

The DC icons, although great characters and visually interesting in their own way, look normal by contrast. They look like people in costumes. I think this is why little kids relate more to DC heroes and often switch to Marvel when they get a little older.

The thing is, the DC heroes should look like WELL BUILT people in suits and often they look like people Ross badgered into modeling for him. Too often, Superman and Batman, for example, come off as doughy as George Reeves and Adam West.

Also, I have to admit, I hate the way Ross paints the DC guys so we have to look up their noses. I swear,Ross loves that up-the-nose shot as much as Gil Kane ever did.

And I know it shouldn't affect how I feel about his art, but I can't help but dislike Ross a little for his "Jack Kirby did everything at Marvel and Stan Lee did nothing" stance. Which is as ridiculous as the "Stan just told Jack what to do" stance. C'mon, Alex, have you ever looked at the stuff either of them did on their own (or without Ditko either in Stan's case. There's a reason that people have heard of Spider-Man and the Hulk but haven't heard of Iron Man and Daredevil as much)? We get it, Alex, you're an artist, you relate more to Kirby but compare Kirby's NEW GODS to Kriby & Lee's THOR and you'll see.

Why do I think Butch Hartman's version will still have a better grasp of everyday American life than Mark Millar's?

When FF # 1 and HULK # 1 came out, the nameless company that would soon be called Marvel (it had been Timely and Atlas) didn't have their own distributor. They were distributed by National, which was DC. At the time, DC was the only company still successful with superheroes and they wouldn't have been too keen on distributing competition.

Because the pre-Marvel publishing slate was heavy on giant monster titles, Lee and Kirby made early issues of the FF resemble their monster mags to the casual eye. Each issue featured at least one giant beast, the FF weren't in costumes for the first three or four issues, the Hulk was a monster superhero, etc.

Very clever and sneaky.

Also, interesting (probably to me) Marvel could only publish a certain numer of superhero titles at first. Which is why we soon had JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY as Thor's comic, Cap and Iron Man in TALES TO ASTONISH, the Hulk and the SUB-MARINER in ASTONISHING TALES, etc.

FF # 1 was supposed to be like that. Goodman wanted his own JLA, even though his company didn't have a stable of solo heroes. That's when Stan decided to get crazy with a concept of Kirby's that was probably closer to CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN. Stan getting crazy inspired Kirby to get crazy and so on.

Then, Spider-Man cut a deal with the devil...

Where Ross portrays his worlds in hazy ether and pillowy scenes. Quitley shows you every line, every crack, every nasty feature women (and some men) spend their lives fighting to conceal.

Is it like, real-real. No it's a comic book. But these guys certainly bring more to the page than just your standard pencils.

So I'm always going to focus more on stories. I just really appreciate when someone does something different. Love em or hate em, you have to admit both Ross and Quitely have broken the mold.

I agree that McFarlane was one of the greatest Spidey and Hulk artists ever. And I like his Spawn. Of the original Image guys, McFarlane and Larsen were the best writers -- mostly because they were the only two not trying and failing to put out "X-MEN". Which is not to say either of them, especially McFarlane, are great writers but there are worse.

I still maintain that a lot of trash talked about the Image guys, even Liefield, comes from people who aren't that familiar with their heyday work. We repeat what others say. Also, people don't want to be who they were then.

I was already an adult at the time, so the Image guys neither shaped my view of comics or are something I had to outgrow. They made comics exciting. It was immediately clear that Liefield wasn't writing for kids. He WROTE like a kid, and not purposely. But the art...especially on his NEW MUTANTS/X-FORCE/YOUNGBLOOD and SUPREME was on purpose. It is a style. But when we talk Liefield, that's the only time you hear comic fans complain about hands, feet, pouches and anatomy. Because that's what OTHER comic fans have done. It's a dated style and like any style, it doesn't belong in every comic but it was visually powerful and made for good comics.

Gene Colan -- another guy I first discovered in reprints. GIANT SIZED DAREDEVIL # 1. Frank Miller may have become the definitive Daredevil writer, but Colan is the artist (with David Mazzuchelli a close second). It turned out Colan was still active, with TOMB O' DRACULA, DR. STRANGE and especially HOWARD THE DUCK (with some great IRON MAN and CAPTAIN AMERICA reprints) ready to be shoplifted.

Steranko--as I kid, I only knew his work from posters I saw in slightly older stoner/geek's bedrooms but it was amazing, different and dynamic. I practically broke down the comic shop door when his NICK FURY, SHIELD and MARVEL VISIONARIES trades were published.

Jack Kirby -- of course. He sort of harmed his own stardom by trying to write (which I'm sure was not as painful as trying to READ the stuff) but the visual punch always made for an almost hallucinatory experience. Even in black and white, although old fashioned dot color is the best way to experience Kirby.

Oh, and dozens of other artists too, but to a lesser extent.