|
There were a few nice ones in the recent Superman: Heroes one-shot, which dealt with the aftermath of Clark Kent outing himself. I really like the Booster Gold scene and the bit with Clark's highschool teacher, but I'll share the first half of a longer sequence:    
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Nipponophile posted:No idea where this came from, I found it forever ago. This rules though, I hope somebody can identify it. I couldn't turn up a thing. Edit: Superman Annual #9, from 1983! Gorgeous Alex Toth pencils and a characteristically weird and quirky Elliot S! Maggin bit of business. It all makes sense now! How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:How often do villains have secret identities? I'm thinking in particular of the time that the Red Skull managed to become Secretary of Defense as "Dell Rusk". Both Green Goblin and Hobgoblin had a significant amount of mystery surrounding their identities, although the original resolution of the Hobgoblin stuff was a huge messy casualty of editorial interference and creative turnover.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
site posted:That's an interesting question but I'd ask what constitutes a secret identity for villains, because when we think of them for heroes they are an ongoing thing but afaik for villains there's always a moment of reveal. I think that for as divisive as "Planet X" was and as clumsily as the character was handled post-Morrison, the actual issue that reveals Xorn's secret was really well paced and does a killer job of setting up a mounting sense of dread. I remember reading that issue when it was new and my hands shaking by the last page.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:I know you meant "Monarch, the 90s DC villain". But in my head I initially read it as "the Monarch, butterfly-themed nemesis for Rusty Venture." Because he did have a really excellent secret identity reveal himself. Rest in Peace, Blue Morpho
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
For most of the semester I assume he had a little notecard taped on next to it so it said "MAGNETO WAS A FRIGHT." Every day Professor X walked by and nodded solemnly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Selachian posted:Pretty much, although it was more extreme in this case because you had writers fighting over what the status quo of the X-Men should be. Morrison shook things up a lot during his run on New X-Men, and while it can be debated (and has been debated, endlessly) whether his changes were good ideas or too extreme, the more traditional X-Men writers like Claremont and Austen worked fast to heap dirt most of them the moment Morrison moved on. I think "more traditional" is misleading here, especially in considering why they each moved so quickly to undo elements of Morrison's run. In fact part of what I love about Morrison's New X-Men and what made it sing so much as it was being published was not so much that it was doing brand new things but that it was continuing the tacit trajectory that Claremont had been setting up when he left the books in the early 90s-- mutants as less a conventional superhero team, more as a global culture with no ways of doing things, new ways of arranging themselves socially, etc.. Everything between the end of Claremont's first run and the beginning of Morrison's-- even very decent comics like large chunks of Excalibur or John Francis Moore's X-Force or PAD's X-Factor-- was essentially trying to walk back from what Claremont was offering and trying to make more conventional, legible superhero comics. Even his own return in the late 90s, even as it really tried to introduce new elements into the familiar soup of the mutant books by that time, was pretty lovely largely because it was just More Superhero Comics. His heart wasn't in it. So I always read Morrison as less a rejection of the tradition Claremont set up and more like the real heir to it. The problem is, Claremont was very attached to certain elements of the franchise he'd played such a part in, and I think he found Morrison's notion of Magneto as a senile, pathetic old terrorist to be, if anything, reactionary. Claremont couldn't let go of the image of Magneto as a romantic freedom fighter, and, tellingly, the last 15 years have proven to be more attached to that version than Morrison's (although I think Morrison's Magneto is really interesting). It's not that Claremont was trying to seize the reins back from Morrison in the name of tradition-- it's that their mutually radical approaches to the X-Men just happened to be in conflict to one another. As for Austen, I think he was really trying to sort of continue the curve Morrison projected by continuing to think of mutants as a tangible subculture with their own approaches to sexuality and the family in particular. It's just that he was a weird horny idiot with bad reading comprehension. I think he just kind of hosed up in a really baffling way. Because he'was bad at writing comic books.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2020 02:12
|
|