what is he, 8?

Anyway, UNDERSTANDING CURRENT MORRISON IS NOT AN ISSUE OF 'SMART' OR 'STUPID': Most of the misunderstanding in Morrison's current work comes down to THE ART. The art simply cannot or will not accomplish all the things Morrison wants; it doesn't clearly make its story points; it doesn't provide the exposition or focal details he needs (judging from his scripts). "The Filth" was more coherent, dramatic, and narratively successful than Final Crisis. That's something I never thought I'd write.

PAD should be writing more X-titles.

Again, though I blame the art. What action there was, did it suck becasue of the "story" or the art. I think the latter.

Likewise with teh panels, did Morrison write inthe script "have this line delievred by a 3/4 face"?

I don't have answers. But I did enjoy elarning more about the city from a text stand-point, but you're right that the visual imagery was a snore.

Sorry for typos....

Really?

Dark Avengers was just too dark for me. Especially with the Thunderbolts also existing. As said in the review, that's a lot of Norman Osborne. Apparently, Marvel U's new m.o. is to ridiculously give one person total power over everything, then eventually knock them off their post. So now it is total lunatic Osborne, who I can stomach in one book, but not two. Haven't decided yet which one to drop, but will probably give DA the axe.

X-Factor was good, but I can also see why people call Peter David a douchebag sometimes. What a pompous little note he put on there. Smug self-aggrandizement wrapped in faux-humility. But, yeah, the story was pretty entertaining.

Identity Crisis was horrid, the absolute worst part of DC's years of crisis, IMO. I even preferred Countdown. I will reserve judgment on FC, I bet it isn't as bad as all that, but it probably isn't that great, either.

Someone recommmended Brubaker's Incognito here, and whoever it was, thanks. It's the bomb and I recommend it to others who like "realistic super heroes" (probably an oxymoron) but not necessarily a bunch of unlikable, unrelatable psychopaths running the USA.

As a character, I don't mind him. But the current situation is just too much for me to stomach. Going with what you say, that he is THE most important guy in the MU currently, then the Marvel U has given the keys to the kingdom to a known psycho super-villain.

I had a problem with the endorsement of using psycho killers like Venom and Bullseye to round up rebels like American Eagle, etc. But since it was at least kind of on the down low,I could kind of accept it.

Norman Osborne, big hero? No. At least Tony Stark had some credibility. I know many readers like this "new" direction, but to me it is more of the same, with a different and even more reprehensible leader.

But in "reality" a politician can't even cheat on his wife, be gay, be non-Christian and still keep a viable career, so even in comic-reality, I have a hard time with Osborne's current role.

And I am just tired of this "Dark" time. It's been going on forever, with no end in sight. Exception: I did quite enjoy the first issue of Dark Reign.

The other problem with him, which I admit is completely subjective, is that he seems so out of character now. I first started reading the reprints of the Green Goblin stories in the late 70s, and the character from that era is so unlike the Norman Osborn of today. I mean, the Green Goblin was so crazy he thought by dressing up like a green elf using Halloween decorations as weapons and killing Spider-Man that would somehow make him become the mob boss of NY city! I’m sure all the wise guys in their suits would love taking orders from him. Plus the limit of his plotting was always get Spider-Man somewhere and kill him; it never was take over the city, get away with a robbery or do some master plan like brainwash millions. Just somehow kill Spider-Man and all his dreams would come true. He was completely obsessed with one guy and I loved that.

But when they brought him back from the dead, they turned him into this Lex Luthor wannabe whose secret identity is a Joker wannabe, and revealed that he had been behind all these incredible plots in the past. Just didn’t seem like it could be the same guy. To me it is kind of like loving the Darth Vader in Episodes IV-VI, and then seeing the prequels and seeing that Vader once was an obnoxious, whiny hipster; doesn’t seem plausible that they could be the same person.

I admit that some writers out there might have been able to work wonders with Osborn, and that his current incarnation might make sense because of those people work, but I obviously haven’t read it and I just can’t pick up must comics with him in it because I find his current portrayal so off the mark of how his character once was, it is hard for me to suspend disbelief.

How many times have we seen Batman bring in the Joker only to have him escape and go on another killing rampage? After awhile I would start to hold Batman responsible for the Joker’s victims; he knows that the Joker is a psychotic killing machine that won’t stop, that he has been declared legally insane so he never has to face the death penalty no matter what, and he knows that sooner of later the Joker will escape from Arkham and kill more people, because he has done that again and again. It is inevitable; unless Batman does something that the courts and police for some reason won’t do and kill him. And when I hear that horrible excuse from Batman and his apologist, “If you kill him, the Joker has won” I think to myself, let him win just as long as his prize is six feet of dirt.

(Fuck. If I was a citizen of Gotham, I would be pissed as hell at Gordon and Batman for how many times they could have killed the Joker and chose not to. Think how many people would still be alive if they had killed him years ago? Jason Todd (well he got better), Gordon’s wife, all those people he ran over in the Robin Christmas issue, all the cops he has killed, all the people he has poisoned over the years. Fuck, Batman is such a douche for resuscitating him after Nightwing beat him almost to death).

And it isn’t just the Batman, but almost every hero out there who is guilty of this. I mean, if US soldiers fond Bin Laden and arrested him, only for him to escape and launch further terrorist attacks, or if Charlie Manson somehow managed to escape from prison and go on a killing rampage every time he was arrested, and I would think the standing order would be “kill on sight.” The immoral thing to do would be to let them live knowing that they are always a potential threat to innocent people, and have proven time and time again they will escape and kill again.

Of course, I don’t won’t the heroes to indiscriminately kill people out there like they are the Punisher; to me that opens another can of worms that hasn’t really been dealt with (such as, has the Punisher accidentally killed an innocent person or the wrong person?). But the fact is, to quote Jane’s Addiction, “Some people deserve to die/That is just unconscious knowledge.”

I had put that out of my mind until I read here that they apparently return in FC7. God no! As a semi-kind of- sort of defender of FC, this may really flip me to the "total suckage" viewpoint.

Much like the misogynist, throwback conclusion to Identity Crisis soured me so much that I will never, ever purchase anything written by Brad Meltzer again.

Now that I have finished FC7...it was...ok.

Most superheroes are by definition vigilantes, it is just that the majority of them do not consider themselves completely above the law, unlike the Punisher who doesn’t believe in the law and instead believes in justice, acting as judge, jury and executioner. In the real world someone like Bernhard Geotz would represent the Punisher, wishing to kill or seriously injure criminals at his discretion, and either the Guardian Angels or some sort of neighborhood watch program would represent the other superheroes, wishing only to prevent crime and make citizens arrest when necessary. Both sides have their obvious drawbacks.

That is why I liked what you said about Nova or Thor, or the new rules concerning the Green Lantern Corps concerning lethal force against the Yellow Lanterns. At least they acknowledge this reality. The funny thing is that one of the most “aw-shucks”, goody-goody heroes was actually one of the few who was willing to use lethal force if absolutely necessary, and that was the original Captain America, Steve Rogers.

Besides killing in WWII or the time he unloaded an Uzi on a bunch of Ultimatum members who were killing civilians, Captain America has never had a problem with killing his arch-foe, the Red Skull. While I know in past issues he has mentioned he wanted to take him in alive so he would finally face the charges for the crimes he has committed, I also remember comments about how he can’t let the Red Skull escape, no matter what. Unlike Batman, Captain America at least seemed to recognize the danger and psychotic nature of his archenemy, and realized that it was more immoral for him to let the Skull get away then it would be for him to break his pledge of not taking a life.

Secondly, in the real world it would be easy for an Iron Man or some other super-hero to off the President or a director of the an agency such as the CIA or the FBI. They would be the only ones with any sort of powers or advanced weapons. But in a comic book universe like Marvel, the U.S. government has access to all types of hi-tech weapons and super-powered agents.

Any superhero in Marvel who tries to mess with the government or off a high rank official is going to have to deal the Office of National Emergency (O*N*E), Mandroids, Sentinels, Guardsman, SHIELD/HAMMER agents armed with Forge neutralizers, a bunch patriotic heroes who don’t question orders like U.S. Agent, Nuke, Thunderbolts, and other pro-government heroes, and finally every other hero out there who believes in upholding the laws and doesn’t believe your rants about a government conspiracy. A pretty hard task to do all on your own, even if you are Iron Man or some other super hero.

BECAUSE A COMIC DOESN'T REPRODUCE THE EFFECTS OF AN OPERA OR A PIECE OF MUSIC. It achieves its own effects through its own materials. And things like "drama" and "characterization" aren't "rules" of some ossified past, they're PRINCIPLES of storytelling, and they only got to be that way because they are what has been shown to work throughout time immemorial.

And still, I love his work (minus FC, which as time passes will eventually come to be seen as a kooky, enjoyable experiment-- right now we're all let down by the marketing vs. the experience).

I never really read any comments by Morrison before, but for him to cry about "jaded" fans not appreciating his work, just...sucks. Who does he think reads his work? Newbies to comics? He can't possibly actually think that.

Morrison appears to be one of many artists who now resents his own fans, the same people who enabled him to become a "name." Apparently, all of us "jaded" internet people are just losers with nothing to do except "personally abuse" him. Of course, we are the same people buying his books and keeping him flush.

Would he prefer we not buy his books? Of course not. He (and many, many others) want us to buy his product, sing it's praises or shut the f*** up. How dare we fans be so ungrateful. Screw us! We suck.

Newsarama seems to just let them spout whatever drivel they want.

I'm a huge proponent of free speech (one of the reasons I started theybannedme.com). I would not want my opinion shackled for the sake of getting more comps.

He states it was on of DCs best-selling books of 08. That's great, but what about the industry as a whole. I seem to remember reading that FC got its ass kicked by Secret Invasion.

Not following convention is fine, but to completely disregard a cohesive storyline is Alan Moore's bag.

So I guess that puts the whole "would he/wouldn't he" thing to rest. He has, he does, he will. Nuff said.

Definitely errors do occur. For example, one prominent character is wearing a mask which covers the lower half of the face, then a few panels later, the character removes a full face mask and crushes it. This one is on the part of the artist. Why this character was ever wearing the mask is one of the questions that is never explained, but it isn't a major point or anything. Lots of stuff like that.

But anyway, he does have a great section comparing the avant-garde and experimental artists and filmmakers who want to do away with dramatic structure with the Counterculture Architects who felt that traditional architecture was to “stifling”. They didn't design houses based on purpose, but on how they "felt".

Of course all those Counterculture buildings fell down over the years, because there is a reason for traditional designs. They serve a purpose. A building has to at the very least stand up and not fall apart before you start worrying about its aesthetic beauty and how to move away from the traditional.

The same could be said about some experimental comics, where there are a lot of them that don’t hold up and fall apart, and they don’t age as gracefully as the “old-fashioned” comics made at the same time. I am not a huge Watchmen fan and think its status as the greatest comic ever is overrated, but I will say this about it: you can follow the damn thing. It didn’t try to invent a new way of telling a comic book story, it told the story with the same structure and rules that had been used before. Only this time it changed the content and subject matter, that is all.

I admire Morrison for trying to move away from the classic comic structure model, but he can’t get upset at the audience if they look at it and say, “It fell apart.”

As for his Kevin Smith line, that was obvious sarcasm.

Morrison thinks that showing just a panel here, a page there of a bajillion disjointed things somehow lends his story "scope".

He is wrong.

The only way one can appreciate the scope of something is if we can also grasp the context of the events and have some idea how the characters--*any* of them, even one--relate to and play a part in that context or scope.

This issue takes the problems the first six issues had, squeezes them all into a single issue, doubles or triples them, and gives you not one reason to give a shit about a single word or image. No characterization, no context, no scope, nothing...just the mad ravings of a guy who's disappeared so far up his own arse he forgot somebody had to read what he was writing.

FINAL CRISIS is a jumbled mess. It tries to go in a dozen directions at once and ends up going nowhere at all. In fact, all those people who said the first four issues were setup and all the big stuff would happen in the last three issues and all would be explained? Boy, were they wrong. Nothing is explained because none of it makes any damned sense at all--not even the big "oooh, Batman with a gun! Kickass!" moment. It's all pointless and incomprehensible and it gets dumber and dumber with every issue, right up to the final shitheaded last panel. Hell, reading issue 7 made me long for those hopeful, potential-filled days of the first three or four issues.

The painful thing here is that I was one of the people really, really looking forward to this. I thought it was gonna kick all kindsa ass, and instead it just left me disgusted at the waste of time, effort and money.

While obviously classic Stan hyperbole, I think there is a grain of truth there. Good writers can take "bad" characters and make them interesting again. Despite all the criticism I have against Morrison, I give his a lot of props for talking the ultimate symbol of dated Batman mythos, the Club of Heroes, and make them relevant and interesting again.

That is why I hate to see people bad mouth old villains or heroes, claiming they are lame or corny or boring. Sure you might not like the Porcupine and think he is corny as hell, but I get goosebumps every time I hear that name.

Look at Wyatt Wingfoot. He was a bit supporting character in the FF as Johnny Storm's college roommate and then drifted away, back to his reservation. Years later they were able to bring him back to great effect, having him eventually become a love interest to She-Hulk. If they had just killed him off after his usefulness was done, then wow, a couple issues of shock but that is it. This way they had someone re-enter the FF's lives, which in many ways is more interesting than someone's death.

I also loved the time Turk stole his armor and got his ass handed to him by DD.

Aw Stilt-Man, we hardly knew ye.

The thing about Lost is that they are trapped on an island. There you have to kill characters to get rid of the clutter (its not like they figured a way home without telling anyone else).

Tony Stark, one of the smartest guys in the Marvel U? His best friend is on life support. So Sue Storm, wife of one of the other smartest guys in the Marvel U Reed Richards, meets with Tony Stark in secret. Why? Because they're on opposite sides of a WAR. And their topic of discussion? Not, "Hey, Tony, why don't you and my braniac husband work together to save your best friend." Nope, it's Sue Storm, mother to two small children, always sympathetic to others and never one to surrender, saying "hey, you FUCKING GENIUS, you should go KILL YOUR BEST FUCKING FRIEND."

So, y'know, Tony does.

It's just beyond stupid, and a total betrayal of several characters at once. It's not just the what, it's the how and the why.

And then the Masters of Evil took over the mansion and the Wrecking Crew were smashing it and the Wrecker saw the armor and said "Look at that! They got his armor hanging up like a trophy!"

And what a death it has been. She is still constantly mentioned or referenced in Spider-Man than most characters still living ex-girlfriends are (when is the last time you seen or heard about Bernie Rosenthal or Doris Evans?). Her death still haunts Peter Parker and, excluding the return of the Green Goblin and his “rape” of Gwen Stacy, you can’t think of a better comic book legacy than being Peter Parker’s tragic young love.

Plus it isn't a character building moment if no one gives a shit 10-20 issues later that person died.

Remember when Kevin Smith killed Karen Page? Despite how some writers try to bring it up or have DD display remorse over her lose, I don't think the fans really believe it means anything. It was such an obvious bad stunt by Smith to show what a "edgy" writer he is.

But when Peter David had Jim Wilson die from AIDS related illness, that actually struck a cord. I think his death has had a longer term affect on the Hulk than Karen Page's death has had on DD (except for improving his status as the superhero no woman should date).

Bull's-eye killing Karen Page isn't ironic. It is just him being a dick and Kevin Smith doing a bad job of writing. Had Karen Page been murdered by a man that Matt Murdock defended, that would be ironic.

Or in the case of Happy Hogan, the character had to make a decision that went against his basic ethics, then that would be truly memorable. Tony Stark pulling the plug is just a cheap gimmick; Matt Murdock pulling the plug on Foggy wouldn't, because it would go against Matt's well established Catholic faith. If Tony Stark had launched missiles at super-villains satellite where he knew Happy was being held because he felt like he had no choice, his friend or millions of innocent lives, that would have been powerful and fit his character.

I think you can say that both X-Men who died in the 70s, Thunderbird and Phoenix, fit those criteria. I can see Claremont arguing for Thunderbird’s death by saying, “Look, I want him to die on the first mission. We have always been saying that being a superhero and a X-Men is dangerous. Well, I think we should show how dangerous it could really be, by making one of the X-Men make the ultimate sacrifice. From then on, readers will know how dangerous and how much at risk these characters are at. If I was making a war movie and I wanted to show how dangerous war is, I would have on the guys in the squad die. That is what we are doing here. And like in war, a comrade in arms who falls in battle will always be remembered.”

As for Phoenix, I think her death had left a huge impression on the X-Men for years (until they fucked it up again by bringing Jean Grey back). So many moments were of the Cyclops, Wolverine, Prof. X or someone else thinking about Jean, remembering Jean or missing Jean. And like Gwen Stacy, I think Jean did more in death to develop the X-Men’s character than she could have done in life.

Once again, my problem isn’t with death, but what you get out of it. If you just treat death as a “gimmick” (which I know ultimately it is, but it doesn’t have to be a cheap gimmick) it has no power and is so forgettable. It is the reason why the movie “Psycho”, which has characters you invest in and has them die for more than just shock value, will be remembered years from now while My Bloody Valentine 3-D, which treats its characters as generic cannon fodder, will be forgotten in just a couple of months.

Going back to Happy Hogan, I don’t mind that he died but that nothing came out of his death. No greater character development for anyone, no lasting impact. If the story had been something like Tony had an affair with Pepper and Happy found out about it, and because of this became reckless and died because of his recklessness that would mean something. Because now Tony would be filled with guilt over his actions contributing to his friend’s death, and even if he got over Happy’s death he still would probably have a drastic change in his character. He no longer would be the carefree Tony, but instead a character who truly worries about how his actions would affect others. That is something that would have lasting affect on the character for years, but right now all they got is a little shock for a couple of issues and than back to the same old.

But I can't think of a worse-written mystery. To actually resort to the "murderer-says-something-they- wouldn't-know-unless-they-were -the-murderer" breaks the hack barrier.

I don't think the rape was misogynist, and I certainly don't think the big chested, barely dressed females are either. It is objectification, sure, but I don't mind that so much. Also, I found IC to be morose and ponderous in general, although it did have nice art.

By the way, Joe, I actually would say that "when it's done good, it's good and when it's done bad, it's bad" is generally true for so many things...except pizza, which is good even when it's done bad.

Right now it's because he's too busy working on designs for the DCU MMORPG, which is hilarious cuz none of the in-game shots so far look even the slightest bit like Lee's shit art.