Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11 comments:
How about tellin' him that when he's alive, Bats? Or, when your both alive, that is.
I would be okay with Arthur Joseph coming back, but I have no clue what his role could be now, with Aqualad in place.
I agree, Arthur would no doubt love to hear such a compliment from a man that gives out very few, especially one from a peer such as Batman. I guess it mirrors things in real life where you mean to tell someone what they mean to you, but never get around to it until it's too late. Good panel today.
I don't miss Arthur Joseph (or any other replacement hero) at all. Good riddance. There's only one Aquaman, and Joseph's NOT him.
Nice sentiments from Bats, he never seems to compliment anyone face to face though.
I never got the point of this this at all--why would a company publish a comic featuring a new character only to have Batman call him inferior? To the average DC fan "you're worse than Aquaman" is about as low an insult as you can dish out--especially coming from Batman.
I know he does surprise Bats in the end, but he still doesn't rate a place on the Outsiders team, and he was the only Aquaman DC had at the time. It was like they were telling you you completely wasted your time buying Sword of Atlantis.
At least the writer of this issue was being honest, because the Sword Of Atlantis reboot attempt WAS inferior & a complete waste of time. DC holds the comic book record for most failed reboots & replacement heroes I believe. Marvel and even Top Cow\Image seem to be much more adept at reworking & revitalizing declining or "maligned" characters.
I really enjoyed it until Busiek left. The buzz and reviews were good up to that point as well. I prefer the original Aquaman (or, well, the silver age Aquaman) but his book wasn't selling, a fresh start seemed needed at the time.
JD (and Rob, you might find this interesting, too) I read that Marvel consistently loses money whenever they try to sell a Captain Marvel (Mar-Vel? Mar-Vell?) book. However, in order to protect the licensed name (that DC would *pounce* on the minute it became available) Marvel MUST publish said titled book. That's why we have SO many Captain Marvel reboots and re-tries, even though they never sell. :-)
Russell-
I think that was one of the (many) impetuses behind Who's Who , as well: to renew a bunch of character trademarks, all at once.
I think they should bring him back, and exploit a kind of quasi-sibling rivalry angle between him and the new Aqualad. Besides, what's wrong with having another seaguy in the DCU? You can't have enough members of the Aquafam, if you ask me.
@Russell - If Jim Starlin had been allowed to do an extended Captain Marvel (Mar-Vell) run in the 70's instead of being booted over some editorial dispute, I'm sure the character would have become far more popular. I liked Marvel's Captain Marvel more than the DC one anyway, although it was a cheap shot that Marvel trademarked the title to spite DC, LOL, gotta love big company rivalries! :)
JD- Well, while I can honestly say that I haven't enjoyed most of DC's treatments of the original Captain Marvel, I truly LOVE the old Fawcett Captain Marvel comics from the 40's and 50's.
In point of fact, When Marvel comics copyrighted their Captain Marvel, DC had owned Fawcett's character for about 20 years and never got around to using him. I suspect they were still bitter that he had outsold Superman. DC had no choice but to title their comic Shazam! (no choice is probably not the way to put that)causing decades of confusion amongst small children.
The real irony to me is that DC Called their comic Shazam! to avoid a court battle. Much like the court battle they had in the 40's when they claimed Captain Marvel was too much like Superman.
Post a Comment