www.ComicBookPage.com

It's functional and effective. It won't become as instantly recognisable a Apples apple or Microsoft´s window. But it doesn't effect the quality of what is on the pages.

BobBretall wrote:What do people think of the new DC logo???

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/01/19 ... -identity/

I'm trying to be positive for a New Year's resolution. I like the versions with the identities (the Green Lantern glowing one, for example). I don't really think it was necessary to create a new logo for that treatment.

I think I would like to see a more dynamic logo for a company devoted to creating modern mythology, staffed by some of the most creative minds on the planet.

I find it nondescript and obscure. Which, when looking for something that screams brand recognition, isn't that what you want? No?

When I first heard (seen) of this, I was hoping it was only going to be used on their digital comics. Small, out of the way, showing more of the cover does work in that circumstance, but for the entire line?

But, I am sure we will get use to it. We always seem to.

BobBretall wrote:What do people think of the new DC logo???

http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2012/01/19 ... -identity/

I'm not digging it. I guess it kind of looks like "DC" but doesn't come across as particularly clever or interesting to me. I like the "swoosh" just fine.

An interesting article about what went wrong with Static Shock, at least from the former writer's perspective.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/01/2 ... -quitting/

spid wrote:An interesting article about what went wrong with Static Shock, at least from the former writer's perspective.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/01/2 ... -quitting/

Wow.

Unbelievable:

John Rozum wrote:From the first issue on, I was essentially benched by Harvey Richards and artist/writer Scott McDaniel. All of my ideas and suggestions were met with disdain, and Scott McDaniel lectured me on how my method for writing was wrong because it wasn't what the Robert McKee screenwriting book he read told him was the way to do things. The man who'd never written anything was suddenly more expert than me and the editor was agreeing with him. Scott had also never read a Static comic book, nor seen the cartoon series, yet was telling me that my dialogue didn't sound true to the character and would "fix it."

There was more concern about seeing that the title sold and didn't get cancelled than there was in telling good stories and having something coherent to bring readers in. This is what led Harvey to insist on the stuff with the two Sharon's and cutting off Static's arm. He had no answers for how to resolve these things, but thought it would keep reader's wowed enough to stick with the series.

This is the precise stuff that caused me to drop the book. I think the editor should have left John Rozum alone.

I am almost done reading the DC New 52 Hardcover, and by coincidence I left off right before Static Shock. I wish I had read the issue then read the article, but even without the knowledge of the conflict the material was still oddly paced.

What is the deal with DC & ripping/blowing off people's arms???

Just read Resurrection Man #5......another 2 arms go missing in this issue.....

C'mon, writers at DC, it's just getting old.

BobBretall wrote:What is the deal with DC & ripping/blowing off people's arms???

Just read Resurrection Man #5......another 2 arms go missing in this issue.....

C'mon, writers at DC, it's just getting old.

Ripping arms off is the new zombies.

And it's Res - Man! He'll grow them back! (Note: Haven't read it yet...don't sperl it for me!)

BobBretall wrote:What is the deal with DC & ripping/blowing off people's arms???

Just read Resurrection Man #5......another 2 arms go missing in this issue.....

C'mon, writers at DC, it's just getting old.

It's not old until people are beat to death with their own arms, or until there's a Gutters comic about it.

If you think about it, this would probably happen a lot with the types of strength a lot of these characters have. The human body just isn't evolved to handle the level of stress many characters are capable of exerting.

Here's another news item not sitting that good with me:

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/geoff-j ... 20126.html

Although the character was formerly known as "Captain Marvel," in his relaunch, he'll be called "Shazam."

Nrama: Are you calling him Shazam now? Have you gotten rid of "Captain Marvel?"

Johns: Yeah, we're going to call him Shazam.

Nrama: Why the change?

Johns: Well, there are a lot of reasons for the change. One is that everybody thinks he's called Shazam already, outside of comics. It's also, for all sorts of reasons, calling him Shazam just made sense for us. And, you know, every comic book he's in right now has Shazam on the cover. So I think just by embracing that and calling him Shazam.

And you'll see it actually make sense in story, why he's called Shazam rather than Captain Marvel. That's just what he's going to be called for us from now on.

For a lot of people this probably falls into the territory of "Who cares? Just tell me a good story."

But it bugs me.

I have always called him Shazam, even before the TV show , and even when reading a "Marvel Family" title, so this is nothing to me.

Perry wrote:I have always called him Shazam, even before the TV show , and even when reading a "Marvel Family" title, so this is nothing to me.

You're why they are doing this..... (not personally you, but I think a lot of people fall into this general mindset)

BobBretall wrote: You're why they are doing this..... (not personally you ...)

Oh no. It is personally me. I did it. Johns called and asked if it was cool with me and I said sure.

No, in all seriousness, you are right, people like me are part of the reason, though I think they also want to just get past the whole Captain Marvel/Captain Mar-vell thing. Of course, if we keep going down that road does Mary Marvel change her name?

Slippery slope, but I think calling him Shazam is a good idea, for the short term. Long term? probably a bad decision.

This is a little retro since most have already read the first 52 already. I just finished reading the Hardcover containing the 52 so here is my general thoughts about the books I did not read earlier.

Good books I will pick up in trade

Batman: There was a lot of positive buzz about Scott Snider, and the book delivered for the most part.

Flash: Nothing world breaking about it, but a good solid story

Superboy: An interesting take on the character.

Wonder Woman: It was not as good as I heard, but it did have a kernel of something.

All Star: Western: Makes me want to go back and pick up the Gotham: Gates story.

Supergirl: I am iffy about picking this up in trade, but the art was great and it was a good first step.

The Medicore

With this many books there are bound to be some average books. I was surprised at how many did not even take a chance at something different. Some of the books I might be satisfied with if I had picked them up at launch, but do not really give enough for me to go out of my way to pick them up.


The Bad More to do with the buzz going into the book.

Action Comics: I just did not like the flow of the book. Everything was so disjointed I could not enjoy reading the issue.

Animal Man: The art was bad. The story did not really go anywhere. I was surprised at why this book received so much praise.

Green Lantern: Probably the worst "first issue" of all the 52. This felt like just another issue of Green Lantern to me. Maybe that is good for people who were already reading along, but it was really disappointing for me as a new reader of Green Lantern.