RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Wolverine: Old Man Logan (Mark Millar/Steve McNiven)

Pretty good stuff, so far. It's like Millar wanted to write a post-apocalyptic/Mad Max/old west-type story, and just dressed it up with Marvel U characters. Nothing big has happened so far (Only two parts have been published), but it's worth the read. Clint Barton (Hawkeye) and Logan begin a journey across what's left of America. Barton's vehicle? The Spider-fucking-Buggy. No, I'm not joking. Only Mark Millar...

if tomorrow morning you were told it was a misprint and geoff johns wrote the same story, would you then dub the spider buggy as "fan wank"?

Meh, i don't like comic-Wolverine.

The problem with that is it's not possible that Geoff Johns wrote that. For example, when they unveiled the Spider-Buggy, it was NOT followed by a page-and-a-half of the characters "casually" talking about how "kewl" the Spider-Buggy is, and how regal the "classic-ness" of the Buggy is...with the Buggy looking off into the horizon, a gleam of insisted-awesome in the headlights...

Geoff Johns isn't a good enough storyteller to make you feel emotions. He has to tell you what emotions you should be feeling.

It's called a good story. Yes, I know there's no nostalgic Kryptonian fanwank for you to bathe in, Jeremy. Just try and grasp the idea that it might still be worth reading...

Geoff Johns, the man that brought us universe-changing-sexually-frustrated-wall-punches and a Giant-Yellow-Glow-In-The-Dark-Space-Cricket-Of-Fear.

This man is the king of lame-ass plot devices.

I can hardly wait to see what he invents to make Barry work. Silver-age-monkies-of-making-the-audience-care-about-somebody-that's-been-dead-for-twenty-years?

That's my one problem with Action Comics now. The scenes with Clark and Pa make it so obvious that Pa is going to die. I don't think it'll be that emotional when it actually happens. Though I'll take your challenge Pro, I'll check it out next time I'm at the bookstore.

Or you could just download it like I did...

I like the art. Flipped through the issue and the story seemed cool, but I didn't really bother reading it.

I hate the art. Didn't really bother and flipped through the story it, reading it seemed cool.

Hatred the art. Didn' of t the inconvenience really and moved of a pull with history, reading seemed it fresh.

mxy is a witch, he speaks in strange riddles.

It's called Babelfishian.

Just nostalgic 70s-era Marvel fanwank....

No there's not. Have you read it?

I think a good argument can be made that putting the Spider-Buggy in anything is, per se, "70s nostalgia fan wank."

So, then, you haven't read it, have you?

I'm guessing you haven't read everything Johns has written either.

With that being said, I gotta admit that the story sounds intriguing and I might pick up the trade when it's all said and done.

At the same, however, just because a story is entertaining doesn't mean someone can't legitimately accuse it of having a certain level of "fanwank" in it. As someone else pointed out on another thread recently, most modern superhero comics have a certain level of wankery.

Given that, I think its well within the realm of possibility that Millar's SpiderBuggy reference, no matter how entertaining it may or may not be, is in fact "fanwank."

Finally, and as an aside, I think that some people tend to overuse the term "fanwank" as shorthand for "any story I don't like that involves continuity". It's becoming almost as overused as "jump the shark".

He's right, it's jumped the wank.

Wanked the fridge, even.

I've read enough. JSA, Flash, Avengers, Infinite Crisis. Those series more than paint a good picture of Geoff Johns craptacular record.

Meanwhile, the usage of the Spider-Buggy in this story is not, nor is it presented as, "fanwank". It's not continuity. It is, in fact if nothing else, literally making fun of the whole idea and concept that Spider-Man would have a vehicle, much less a fucking dune-buggy.

But, having not read it, I can safely accept that you're just arguing to argue...

Sounds like fanwank to me!
















































and I hate to agree with Gay-Man!

Taking guesses and actually reading the material are two different things.







And I hate for you to agree with Gay-Man, as well...

His Flash and JSA were almost universally critically and commercially acclaimed. His work on Sinestro Corps is also very well-regarded.



Bringing back stuff to make fun of it can also a form of "fanwank," albeit in the guise of "irony." And, yes, unless Marvel is doing "Elsworlds" here, it is "continuity."



Not really. I'm just pointing out that one fan's pleasurable "wank" is another fan's "crap."

I fucking hate it when this cunt actually makes sense!

In your uninformed opinion. As I have already outlined the type of fanwank Johns is personally responsible for, and as that was the comparative basis by which Rob made the point, it is not in this case any form of fanwank.



Just another possible future for the X-verse. Are all of those equally canon? Of course not. Your point is dismissed.



Unless you have actually read it, and understand the story, then I don't see where you flawed point is relevant to anything in this thread. I in fact think you're still trying to pick a fight, like you a-l-w-a-y-s do.

MEANWHILE has anyone actually read the fucking story? Please respond before G-Man starts trying to argue the definition of "Is". Thanks...

It's your prerogative to agree if you want. No one's forcing you to accept the truth.

So, have you read the story?

Unless Webster's has really hit rock bottom, there's no official definition of "fanwank." But at least one source indicates that (ironically, in the context of "Dr. Who," of all things) "fanwank" includes "any piece of work which reuses old monsters or characters purely in an attempt to stir feelings in the groins of sad anal fanboys."

I think bringing back the SpiderBuggy arguably fits that definition.



Millar himself is on record as saying "Old Man Logan" is in continuity:

• The storyline fits very neatly into Marvel continuity and crosses over directly with my FANTASTIC FOUR run, and even subtly with [my other upcoming project] 1985. This is why we did this in the regular WOLVERINE title as apposed to a special mini-series.

No, Pro. I was just discussing something about the state of modern comics. Do I agree with your position here? Obviously not. But I've tried to explain myself without unduly attacking you. I just wish you could do the same thing.

As I said before, the story looks interesting and I plan on giving it a look (and maybe buying it) when it hits the trades (which is the case with every Marvel book I get these days). I enjoy a lot of Millar's work and hope this will be another example.

At the same time, however, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the man never puts any fanwank into his stuff.

Dude, you loved his Flash run up till about 200.

Besides, I believe that G-man's point is valid. There's nothing wrong with fanwank as long as that's not all a comic is. I'd have to say that including the Spiderbuggy is fanwank even if Millar did it well.

How can you make that assumption without having read how it's used? Or why?



Okay, fair enough. I concede that point since I did not know that little bit. Still, unless they absolutely make that the one, true future of the Marvel U, then it makes no sense, now does it?



Oh please man. Please. Try that innocent line on someone who doesn't talk with you all the time. They might buy the act. But, be honest with me. I, at least, deserve that much. You're saying it's Fanwank that the Spider-Buggy appears. I'm saying it's not at all. I've read the story. You haven't. Thus, until you read the story (and remain with the same opinion, I'm certain) I can't accept this whole "discussion" as anything but you wanting to debate (over nothing, mind you).



And I have never stated that he doesn't. I'm not defending Millar based on some wide-eyed love of the man. I was simply pointing out the facts. Fact is, the use of the Spider-Buggy isn't fanwank. Fact is, it's certainly not fanwank as defined by Geoff John's unholy pen. That's all I'm saying.

Meanwhile, I think the story could be a lot of fun and I was wanting to express my rare love of a Wolverine story in this thread...

Never said I didn't. Ever. But, anything post-200 is exactly what I'm talking about. Thus, it's on the list. Why should that have to be clarified? I thought with someone who knew me as much as you do, you would automatically understand what I was saying.



I disagree. Fanwank is Geoff Johns on every title he touches. This is a story that happens to have a recognizable car in it (briefly I might add). Nothing remotely alike.

Meanwhile, did you read the story?

Excuse me, aren't you the same poster who keeps telling us that we can't form an opinion on whether or not something is "fanwank" until we've read the story?

So, either you're reading every title Johns writes or you're engaged in the same type of spectulation that you view as unfair when directed at Millar and the SpiderBuggy.

Just when you thought this thread had Jumped the Fridge, it comes back for more.

My statements are based on previous readings of his material. Are you saying that, based on Millar's past writings, that he's full of fanwank?

Dude, I know.

At no point did I think something as harmless as a thread about a book I enjoyed reading would cause such a pointless debate. But, I notice that the same ones debating in her with me about this are the exact same ones that threw a fit when I said I wanted T&A from a movie Catwoman. Funny that, eh?

I'm saying that, based on past writings of mainstream comics, Millar enjoys throwing some fanwank into his work, yes. In fact, if pressed, I'd go so far as to say that stories about heroes' last adventures, imaginary futures, etc., with nostalgic nods and/or gags involving obscure bits of continuity and "where are they now" cameos of how the writer wishes the characters would end up are often a form of fanwank.

I'm also saying, as noted above, that I think some people overuse the term fanwank when what they really mean is "material I do not, myself, enjoy."

Fair enough. Although, I would be curious as to hear some examples from you concerning Millar. He's nowhere near perfect. But, I've never ranked him in the category of Johns & Co.



Possibly. But, I find it hard to accept that definition without lumping in every possible future story ever. But, I think that's over-stating the concept, really.



I wouldn't neccessarily disagree here. But, I think there's a defining line to successfully demonstrate a difference, though...

Nowhereman and I should be proud to have introduced the word "wank" into the American vernacular.

The Spider-buggy reference is surely a piss-take rather than fanwank, isn't it?

I saw the cover to the third issue the other day - lots of dessicated super hero corpses in a grave. Might have a look.