|
PIPELINE COMMENTARY AND REVIEW #4
29 June 1997
by Augie De Blieck Jr.
http://www.nic.com/~augie/pipeline
Judging by what few posts I've seen on-line about it so far, I may be one of
the few who enjoyed THE DARKNESS #6. I liked it as a bittersweet ending
kinda thing. Although even I have to admit that some backgrounds would be a
welcomed addition to Silvestri's art.
How does one enter in a Marvel Annual into their databases? (This question,
obviously, is for the anal few of us who actually do keep track of such
things.) It used to be easy. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #4. Simple. Easy.
But now it's stuff like THUNDERBOLTS '97 ANNUAL, judging by one recent front
cover. So what is the title and what is the issue number? Is the title
THUNDERBOLTS ANNUAL and the issue number 97? Or should that be THUNDERBOLTS
'97 with an issue number of 1? The indicia seems to indicate the latter, and
it's the way I entered it in, in the end. But it just seems strange and
convoluted.
And don't even get me started about -1 issues. . .
But I enjoyed the THUNDERBOLTS '97 ANNUAL. It's been awhile since I didn't
enjoy a tale written by Kurt Busiek, though.
(ASIDE: I can say that now without fear that people will accuse me of sucking
up to the on-line pro. =)
The origin of the Thunderbolts, more or less, is given and is done by a
wonderful assortment of great artists: Mark Bagley, Tom Grummett, Gene Colan,
Darick Robertson, George Perez, amongst a couple of other fine artists.
Joe Rosas is the colorist for the THUNDERBOLTS in all their current
incarnations, as well as HEROES FOR HIRE, if I remember correctly. I first
started noticing his work during the time Chris Claremont and Jim Lee were
working together on the X-MEN. Those were fun times, and his coloring there
was always bright and lively and amazingly detailed. Nowadays, the computer
can do all the detail work, and Rosas is left to present us with an open
color scheme, with a fine mix of contrasts and colors.
And is Jolt going through the same troubles as Jubilee and Linda Park? The
writers seem to suggest that these are women of some Asian descent. And yet
the artists can never seem to make up their minds.
STORMWATCH #49 came out this week, also, as the second of three parts of the
"Change or Die" storyline. There's a lot going on in there, and the story is
wonderfully written. Dramatic stuff this time around. The conclusion should
prove exciting.
Thus endeth my weekly suck-up to Warren Ellis. ( I swear this doesn't occur
consciously every week. I don't plan this kinda stuff ahead. It just. . .
happens.)
SUPREME #49 is out this week, too, and the rotation of artists continues.
Mark Pajarillo gets the pleasure (or pain) of drawing from an Alan Moore
script. I can't wait until Chris Sprouse takes over. This is nothing
against Pajarillo, who seems to be able to draw very well, but he just never
seems to put the figures anywhere near the reader. It gets very annoying
when you feel like you have to squint to see the given character in a panel.
There is usually lots of unecessary white space in the larger panels, too.
Rick Veitch draws in a 70's style this time around, in a section I wish
they had called on Jim Starlin to draw. The coloring team seems to have
learned from a recent issue of StormWatch -- the paper the flashback's
printed on is colored to represent the aging of the story, and give it that
more newspaper-ish feel. I like it.
THE FLASH #128 was pretty exciting this week, although I had one weakness
with it. I'm a big Babylon 5 fan, currently ecstatic about the news that
season 5 is a reality. But everytime I read Mark Waid's demon, I keep
reading his name in Minbari. Neron becomes "Neroon" and that's just all
wrong. ;-)
Terry Shoemaker draws IRON MAN #10. I could never stand his art before.
Here, it works. It looks good. Must be an inker thing. (And, hey, the
story thing is pretty good, too.)
And why is it that IRON MAN with the new spiffy gatefold cover is $1.95 and
FANTASTIC FOUR with the new spiffy gatefold cover is $1.99? Did someone
forget to change the price on the cover? Is Marvel set to lose
roughly 100,000 x 4 cents, or $4000.00? Or will that come out of the
retailer's pockets, who already paid the extra 4 pennies, but now won't make
it back?
-Augie
|
