Michael Paciocco's Mind

[michaelpaciocco]

Seriously, blogging in the summertime takes effort, not that that's a surprise, just a gripe.

pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/06/summer-slog_28.html

Yeah, sorry, this is usually the time of year when my blogging frequency drops dramatically (usually to "not at all") and I'm not sure this year will be any different. It's not just because hey, it's summer and there's like, warm weather and the lake is just a short drive away, though that's part of it. The other thing is that right now, I don't find there's much I want to talk about, to be honest.

I mean, sure, I could talk about how "Three", the upcoming Fantastic Four Story arc by Hickman et. al sounds an awful lot like the "Reed Dies" storyline that dragged on for two goddamn years during the DeFalco/Ryan FF era (see above). Or I could talk about how much I'm dreading the heavy-handed social commentary coming up in the JMS Superman arc, but that's pretty well covered just by this post alone. In general, I'm finding Big Two comics to be bland to outright distasteful, what with all the child-killing, cannibalism and human sacrificing going on.

I'm at a loss here - so any ideas would be a boon.

[michaelpaciocco]

blah blah Alpha Flight

pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/06/might-as-well-say-this-now.html

With tomorrow being Canada Day and all, now's a good a time as any to talk about this.

So, Alpha Flight.

Yeah, it's not really good. And there's reasons for that. The biggest ones being that John Byrne never really invested them with any personality to begin with, and then just about every subsequent writer just treated them as TEAM GENERIC. Sort of the no-name grocery-store brand of superteam that you intentionally gloss over, because hey, the name stuff is on the shelf just a ways over and it's not that much more expensive.

So, yeah, that's Canada's superteam, and it could use some retooling.

So, here's the basics:

1) Maybe get a Canadian to write it again? Or at least, someone who's been to Canada and actually knows things about us? Like culture, or politics? Because there are some.
2) Remember in Busiek's Avengers run, during the Kang War? How the Master had all that supercool technology he brought to the game that the Avengers ended up using? And how most of that is in the far north of Canada? That might be something to look at.
3) Take chances.

Sorry, that's the best I got.

[jessebaker]

The problem with Alpha Flight, IMHO, is that everyone obsesses over the wrong version of the team.

The Bill Mantlo version (a run I recently re-read) was the book and concept at it's zenith.

You had Heather as Guardian (James Hudson, let's face it, is a worthless character with ZERO redeeming value), her relationship with Madison Jeffries and her friendship with Puck (and Puck's unrequited love for Heather and the Fairy Tale secret about Puck's true nature), villains such as Scrambler/Omega/Roger Bauch/Pestillence, Aurora as a batshit crazy floozy who's sluttiness was a major source of problems with Northstar, Purple Girl as the rookie hero, the mystery of Laura and Goblin, Sasquatch dealing with being trapped in his female teammate Snowbird's body, and all of that which made the book the closest thing Marvel's ever come to putting out their own equivilant of Doom Patrol.

Sure there were some massive misteps (Mantlo wanting to kill off Northstar with AIDS comes to mind) but Mantlo gave the book a voice by aping the best elements of Doom Patrol as far as making it a family of freaks, deformed and cursed and insane and displaced in another's body. THAT is what I think of when I think of Alpha Flight, personally: a home for outcasts, led by Mama Bear Heather Hudson.

[michaelpaciocco]

hmm....no. Sorry, that run says nothing to me about being anything other than random-ass generic superheroics. If I wanted that, I'd read say...the current JSA or Justice League titles.

I'm looking for something that speaks to my experience as a Canadian - and none, and I mean NONE of what you just talked about speaks to that.

[michaelpaciocco]

Inspired by a comment on KBox's LJ

pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/arching.html

There are some people out there who are of the belief that the Green Goblin is, always has been, and should be Spider-Man's #1 Archenemy.

And...I'm sorry, but no. That honor belongs to Doctor Octavius here. Mr. Osborn has been the recipient of quite a bit of luck.



People will point to the fact that the Goblin found Parker's double identity. Of course, Doc Ock unmasked Parker the first time they met, he just didn't know Parker from Adam. Norman had the advantage of knowing Peter through his son Harry. So...luck, not skill.




Then there's the Gwen Stacy factor. Have you read that issue? Again, it was dumb luck and a serious miscalculation on Spider-Man's part that lead to Gwen's death. By comparison, Doc Ock had a higher bodycount until the return of Osborn in the 1990s and especially under Bendis, where his murderousness was amped up beyond expectations.




When it comes to general lethality, Norman made some nice toys, this is true. Doctor Octopus built goddamn indestructible arms and nuclear reactors, undersea bases, and dimensional portals. Doctor Octopus formed the Sinister six, not the Green Goblin. Now, granted the Goblin legacy (Harry Osborn, the Hobgoblin, etc.) has on balance, been as big (if not bigger) problem for Spidey over the years as Otto Octavious. However, if we are talking sheer level of threat, Osborn's a step above Electro, sure, but up until a few years ago he couldn't even measure up to the threat level of the Kingpin. Doc Ock was a world beater, pure and simple.

[Anders]

Yeah, but being someone's archenemy is about more than pure power. Lex Luthor didn't manage to kill Superman, but he's definitely his arch-nemesis. The FF have fought Galactus, but Doom is still their main enemy. I think you could also argue Hulk - General Ross, and Batman has tussled with more dangerous foes than the Joker.

Being someone's nemesis isn't all about power, but about having a rivalry, a connection. The Spidey-Goblin dynamic is just stronger than the Spidey-Ocky one.

[michaelpaciocco]

Sorry, but I disagree on two points:

1) In all of your comparisons (Lex, Doom, Ross, and the Joker) they are THE MOST DANGEROUS of their foes. more powerful foes, yes, but they also tend to be more predictable, or have fewer resources or an obvious weakness.

2) Dynamics - Goblin is a scientist who reached too far and then wanted to become a crimelord for reasons that were never really clearly explained (See also: WTF was the Goblin's motivation in the first movie?). Ock? Clear motivation, and comparisons to Parker (random science accident leaves a transformed figure) but completely different approach (blames the world vs. personal responsibility).

[jensaltmann]

Jul 2, 2010 15:23:41 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

WTF was the Goblin's motivation in the first movie?

That was fairly obvious (to me, anyway): Osborn was about to lose everything he had spent his entire life working for. When he went bugfuck crazy, he tried to put a stop to that. He saw Spider-Man, being the only other SPB in town, as the only potential threat, so when it turned out that Spidey wasn't the powermad bastard that Osborn was and therefore wouldn't join up, he had to be eliminated. The how was bred from Osborn's various hang-ups, which were magnified and expressed by the Goblin persona.

[Anders]

Osborne is more dangerous to Peter than Ocky because of their personal connection through Harry. Now, if Aunt May had married that nice Doctor Otto, things would have been different.

That the parallells between Peter and Otto are stronger than the ones between Peter and Norman doesn't automatically make him the bestest nemesis EVAH! It works that way with the Batman - Joker dymanic, but not Hulk - Ross or Superman - Lex.

And if we're going back to original appearances, the Joker was supposed to be a throw-away villain who died the second time he showed up.

[michaelpaciocco]

Jul 2, 2010 22:49:48 GMT -8 jensaltmann said:

Jul 2, 2010 15:23:41 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

WTF was the Goblin's motivation in the first movie?

That was fairly obvious (to me, anyway): Osborn was about to lose everything he had spent his entire life working for. When he went bugfuck crazy, he tried to put a stop to that. He saw Spider-Man, being the only other SPB in town, as the only potential threat, so when it turned out that Spidey wasn't the powermad bastard that Osborn was and therefore wouldn't join up, he had to be eliminated. The how was bred from Osborn's various hang-ups, which were magnified and expressed by the Goblin persona.

OK, that's it - there's no real "Plan" other than "hang on to what I already have." And challenging Spider-Man just because he's there is rather...not random, but at it is less than necessary - Spider-Man hadn't stopped him from killing off those people at the Quest Aersopace test, so Spidey was only at 50% to begin with. Really, the Goblin could have gone with "Let's just see if he shows up the next time I eliminate a competitor" and then based an actual...you know, plan.

[michaelpaciocco]

Jul 3, 2010 0:51:44 GMT -8 Anders said:

Osborne is more dangerous to Peter than Ocky because of their personal connection through Harry. Now, if Aunt May had married that nice Doctor Otto, things would have been different.

That the parallells between Peter and Otto are stronger than the ones between Peter and Norman doesn't automatically make him the bestest nemesis EVAH! It works that way with the Batman - Joker dymanic, but not Hulk - Ross or Superman - Lex.

And if we're going back to original appearances, the Joker was supposed to be a throw-away villain who died the second time he showed up.

Again, the personal connection is LUCK, pure and simple - it's chance, randomness.

And I still maintain that the Goblin's place as Spider-Man's #1 is really only a product of his dying, creating a lasting shadow, and that if anything, his ressurrection and subsequent overexposure weakened his standing in my eyes, not increased it.

[michaelpaciocco]

Because screw it, everyone else is talking about it.

pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/ipad-comics.html

OK, so everyone and their uncle has been talking about comics and the iPad, so, yeah, I'm a guy who doesn't own an iPod or an iPhone, but I'll throw in my two cents - after all, that's what the internet is about!

Seriously, just a few quick thoughts of a random nature.




-Now, clearly no sane person would buy an iPad JUST to get comics - even at what is becoming the standard of $1.99 for a single issue (and not to sound like a cranky old man, but that was the price of a paper comic book back in the mid-90s), the point at which having an iPad for comics would exceed the value of buying the single issues is well into the hundreds of comics.




-Hope: That this new format kills the endless crossovers and convultion of Corporate supercomics dead. This puts comics in a very real and direct competition with every other media out there, and tight, taut, self-contained "Bang for your buck" is going to win every time over byzantine useless continuity and nostalgia.
-Speculation: Creators are going to have to fight to maintain rights and continue to receive royalties in this new medium of publication.





-Engineering Trade-Off Analysis: The iPad's advantage? It can carry hundreds of comics in a very portable way. The disadvantage is the initial investment, the need to maintain the iPad (battery, power, etc.) and the loss of ownership of a physical product. And for the record, I don't buy into the "Save the Trees" arguement - when you consider the energy required to maintain a high-tech device like the iPad, you are trading one cost (paper products) for another (power and plastic).

[Anders]

Jul 3, 2010 8:50:10 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

Jul 3, 2010 0:51:44 GMT -8 Anders said:

Osborne is more dangerous to Peter than Ocky because of their personal connection through Harry. Now, if Aunt May had married that nice Doctor Otto, things would have been different.

That the parallells between Peter and Otto are stronger than the ones between Peter and Norman doesn't automatically make him the bestest nemesis EVAH! It works that way with the Batman - Joker dymanic, but not Hulk - Ross or Superman - Lex.

And if we're going back to original appearances, the Joker was supposed to be a throw-away villain who died the second time he showed up.

Again, the personal connection is LUCK, pure and simple - it's chance, randomness.

And I still maintain that the Goblin's place as Spider-Man's #1 is really only a product of his dying, creating a lasting shadow, and that if anything, his ressurrection and subsequent overexposure weakened his standing in my eyes, not increased it.

So what if it's luck? I don't see why that matters. You could just as well say that it's luck that Luthor was born smart or that the Joker survived those first several times when he apparently died and they didn't find his body.

As to over-exposure, I don't think you can argue in-universe and meta-levels at the same time. From out here, everything that happens is just because the editors and writers decided that's how it is; they could decide to make the Rhino Spider-Man's most dangerous enemy ever by retconning the shit out of everything tomorrow if they wanted to. That would make it objectively true in-universe. However, the perceptions of the readers would still be shaped by what they've read, and for most of them Osborne would still be the Big Bad because he's been written as the Big Bad for years and years. Out-of-universe it doesn't matter whether his status in-universe is due to luck or skill since it depends completely on reader perceptions.

What you can reasonably complain about is that earlier writers have been inconsistent with pre-existing material when they have portrayed Osborne as a bigger threat than Doc Ock, but personally I find that to be a pretty uninteresting argument. The writers and editors have defined ol' Gobbo as the Big Bad for long enough that it's true both in-universe and out-of-universe whether we like it or not.

Okay, I'll stop now before I go off on a real rant.

[Anders]

Jul 3, 2010 8:51:59 GMT -8 michaelpaciocco said:

-Speculation: Creators are going to have to fight to maintain rights and continue to receive royalties in this new medium of publication.

OTOH, creators will be able to cut out the middleman completely, assuming they're big enough to not need the corporate machine to get sales.

[michaelpaciocco]

Batman and my problems with him.

pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/pissing-off-chris-sims.html

OK, now not everyone's going to agree with me here - in fact most of you won't. So be it.

People are always going off about Superman being boring because he's so powerful that there's no tension to his stories. Then, in 99% percent of these rants, the first comparison is to Batman, that he's more "relatable" because he's a non-superhuman being in danger.

I have a few problems with this particular comparison.



First off, is there really that much more tension in any given Batman story? I'm not even going to the meta-level here in the sense of "Warner Brothers and DC comics will not kill their cash cow" either. Batman, as a character, is usually so hyper-competent, so well-prepared, that nearly any threat he faces has little to no chance of more than temporary success. You don't see a lot of stories where Batman is continuously rocked back and manages to barely eke out a victory. What you usually see is Batman temporarily mystified or setback, to be followed by a turnabout caused by his impressive intellect and a victory. A few stylistic and genre tics aside, isn't that the exact same format as most Superman stories?



Then there's the relatability arguement. Clark Kent was a kid who found out he could do something amazing, and tries to balance using his talents to the utmost to help others while trying to maintain some semblance of a life for himself. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire who lives in a mansion, and could live a life of luxury if it wasn't for the fact that an early childhood trauma drove him to develop a level of focus that is frankly inhuman. He's honed his body and mind to the absolute limit of performance, giving up luxury (except for the apperance of such - but at what point is the appearance of luxury actually a luxury?). He's directed his talents towards a very specific, narrow goal (the elimination of crime - mostly in terms of street/violent/urban crime) with very specific tactics and strategies and weapons. I'm not even sure where to begin relating to that.





So, there you have - a different take on the comparisons between Batman and Superman. Enjoy