I'm really interested to hear your take on IC7. Mine was one of "eh". All this build up for that? People have been talking about the ramifications of this since day 1 and I'm of the mindset that we were setup on the setup. The good old non-villain villain.
As a matter of fact, it came so far out of left field that it feels like the "oops, we leaked it too early so we have to change the ending" of Armegeddon 2001. Except with a whole lot more "so what" because of the 3rd tier bit player aspect.
And really, are people so shallow/desperate that they can't just come out and say "hey, I love you and want you back." Meltzer's way seems so...Minnesotan.
I really fail to understand how this story changes everything, much less anything.
PS - I hate Scot Kolins' art. The pencils are too thin and it looks like he never picks his hand up off the page.
Whatever the mixed feelings on IC, no one (that I read) guessed the ending and the motivation. At least it was something different for a change without the usual "putting things back they were they were like on Star Trek so there's no character development" ending.
I'm just hoping this doesn't lead them to one company wide crossover series after another for years on end. They gave it a rest for a few years, and it seems to be fine when they have a story for it. I'd hate to see another "Secret Wars".
Ok, not the best example. How about, I'd hate to see another lame ass mid-80's Secret Wars with 11 issues of crap and 1 issue at the end where they make all the promised changes.
I was hoping against hope that this whole storyline was going to end with Sue working with the Martian Manhunter to pull the ultimate mystery over on Elongated Man. 'Shocking revelations' aside, I thought that having Sue Dibney turn up alive at the end would have stayed true to the optimism of the DCU while giving the doom-and-gloomers their cake with said 'shocking revelations.'
Perserverence despite harsh reality sums up the (super)human spirit better than this grim ending.
Sold like hotcakes, though. So more of this for the forseeable future, then?
c.
Larry: I agree no one guessed the identity and motivation, but wasn't that because it was unguessable? I mean, if you're going to have the killer be a super-secondary character with almost no "screen" time to even slightly suggest they might have lost their brain, how could anyone have figured it out. I think the problem with IC (see above entry) is that, for me, it's too well done to be dismissable, too poorly done to be acceptable. Hibbs' objections are also well worth considering.
Donnie: Nice insights to IC, and I even almost agree about Scot Kolins' art--I think the detail and the coloring makes up for the thin line work, though. But his pencils at their worst can slip into blatant busy-work.
Craig: I think I like your ending better--and yeah, as long as this stuff sells, we're gonna see a lot more of it.
Commenting by HaloScan
