RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books JLA / Hitman #1

RAWK

It's got everything in 40-plus pages: fucked up humor at Noonan's, Morrison era JLA, and making fun of Bloodlines for being lame.

Bloodlines was lame, especially that character introduced in the Demon Annual by that hack writer.....

Now now, Snarfbaby!

Oh, ROY, you know I'm just teasing! I thought you were into that....

Spank me, Snarfbaby. Spank me hard!

*WHACK!!*

Why did everyone hate Bloodlines again?

Because it was lame.

Please take care to read the thread before posting to it.

Thanks.

I actually liked Bloodlines. In fairness, it was the early '90's and I was 14. Not nearly the sophisticated paragon of taste and culture I'd become....

You were right the first time, Snarfbaby!

Bloodlines sucks!

Loose Cannon anyone?

Or how about Ballistic?

It spawned one good character(Hitman..., Duh), that had a good series!

Looking at Ennis's's's's's body of work thus far, it does lessen the inpact of Hitman to me because of all the recycled ideas since then and before!

Well, Argus from the Flash Annual was pretty cool, though I'm biased to any character drawn by Phil Hester....

Balent's Geist could've been cool.

Nightblade was only memorable for being drawn by Mitch Byrd. Nightblade. shit, there's one for the horrible names thread.

Blood Pack was interesting, in lieu of the fact that they were making fun of reality t.v. YEARS before anyone else was doing it.....

Let's end this right here, before Snarf ends up declaring Bloodlines the best thing in the world.

Well, not the best thing. That would be John Byrne's masterful crossover, Genesis!

Just sum it up.

DC sucked ass during the 1990's.

Death of Superman, Knightfall, Waid's Flash, Starman, JLA, Young Justice, PAD's Supergirl.
Some great stuff there, some original stuff. Now it's all 1980's retro. While some of it is well written, it's bad for the industry. Because it's so exclusive and dependent on the past. They boast sales of 150,000 when 15 years ago that would be on the lower end of the spectrum. Things are not going well and a lot of that is because of pandering to older fans.

Agreed, the 90s was full of good stuff....In Batman anyway. Admittedly, I didn't pay much attention to Superman, but one of the first comics I had was the Death of Superman trade paperback. I was 8 at the time and it looked epic, and I guess the 90s feel for comics just kind of ingrained itself on me.

But I s'pose it was a mixed blessing. Their success with Knightfall and Death of Superman is probably what gave them the idea that crossovers are good things.

As John Byrne once observed, for each of us, the "golden age of comics" is whenever we started reading them.

Starman, The Golden Age, Sandman. Sandman Mystery Theatee, Hellblazer, Morisson's JLA DC 1, 000, 000. Yeah, there were good things published in the 1990's. I tend to find them the exception rather than the rule though. As has been mentioned above, what stands out the most for me about the 1990's are the awful crossovers and themed Annuals. and the 1990's was the beginning of the made for TPB story.

But G-Man is correct. To everyone, when THEY started reading comics is their own particular Golden Age. You see that especially with Byrne's Superman where newer DC readers swear that's the only correct way to portray him VS Silver age readers likewise.

I suppose. But I know for a fact that if I was child of 70s reading comics, I'd certainly admit that 86 was a golden year for comics since they actually bothered to take out the trash, albeit in a retarded fashion.

The way they're redefining an era this time around is just God-awful and disgusting.

Well, speaking as one of those children of the 1970s, I'd say most of us viewed 1986 as the dawning of, for lack of better term, our own personal "silver age."

You also need to remember: there was not as clean a break in 1986 between the past and future as people now think. Many of the seeds of "Crisis" and the reboots were actually the work of creators who got their starts in the 1970s: Marv Wolfman, George Perez, Clarmont, Byrne, Miller. Furthermore, some books (most notably Batman) didn't change much from their pre-Crisis storylines.

I disagree. A lot of the story lines stayed, but people took a new appraoch to writing Batman. I remember 'cuz I was so happy that he wasn't quippy anymore.

Plus he was more of a detective who just happened to run around in a gay costume, day or night. He certainly wasn't the bad ass who can beat anybody if only he prepares beforehand, that he is today.

That's true if you lump all pre-crisis Batman stories in together. However, I was not doing that. I was pointing out that there isn't that big of a difference between the pre-Crisis 1970s/early 80s Batman and the post crisis Batman.

The Batman that I read in the 1970s by O'Neil, Adams, Goodwin, Englehart, Rogers, and the like (ie, the 'Bronze Age' Batman) is much, much closer to the post Crisis Batman than it was to the pre-1969 "silver age" Batman.

Sure, there were some minor differences. But those seemed to be dependent less on whether the story was pre or post Crisis and more on whomever the writer was...just as was the case pre Crisis.

I wasn't able to get this when it first came out (my shop sold out) but I was able to snag the reprinted editions recently.

Great story. Maybe my favorite book this year.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

Lord David Bowie is going to have something to say about this "China Girl", if he hasn't already.