>Throwaway book made to fulfill a partnership with a store
>Written by a hack writer
>It turns out to be one of the quintessential Superman stories
Literally how did this happen? This book has absolutely zero reason being as good as it is. The expectation was that it would be about as good as the CRAFTSMAN BOLT-ON SYSTEM SAVES THE JUSTICE LEAGUE story, yet it's basically a mandatory read for Superman fans.
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
>king writes a decent superman for walmart
>bendis writes a decent batman for walmart
I really would've loved to see what would've happened if those two were swapped for the main comics.
It's a technically sufficient story - but it's only decent in that King didn't do his typically King shit. Y'all have really low standards to consider this even worth a re-read.
>Y'all have really low standards
For King and Bendis? No shit.
Decent doesn't mean much
I don't know about you but I can still find some enjoyment in things that are decent/fine/okay/good enough. Not everything has to be a 10/10.
That's the low standards you have for the modern big 2.
Wallmart probably kept them on a tighter leash
Because it's short
It's probably pure garbage. I don't think I'll read it any time soon.
People said the same thing about his Supergirl, and that was crap.
>It's probably pure garbage.
>I don't think I'll read it any time soon.
The most Cinemaphile post on Cinemaphile.
I've read other King books, which were also said to be good.
Basically, if I read this and it turns out to be bad, I'm an butthole for giving him another chance.
People have said exactly this about his other comics.
>The Vision
>Batman/Elmer Fudd Special
>Grayson: Future's End
>Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow
All crap.
>Basically, if I read this and it turns out to be bad, I'm an butthole for giving him another chance.
No you'd be an butthole for talking about a comic you didn't read. They say Cinemaphile doesn't read comics and you're just proving that's true.
>for talking about a comic you didn't read
Assuming you mean prejudging, all I did was give an educated guess. That's not assholish. Being an butthole is falling for the same thing over and over again. I've read thousands of comics, including several of King's.
>Being an butthole is falling for the same thing over and over again.
Now I don't want you to read the comic because if you do and you don't like it then you'll get a genuine sense of satisfaction in knowing you were right instead of refusing to find out for yourself.
>Now I don't want you to read the comic
I most likely won't.
>because if you do and you don't like it then you'll get a genuine sense of satisfaction in knowing you were right
It's not at all satisfying to read bad shit. At least not for me.
You have shit taste anon. Those are all great comics.
Nope.
What do you dislike about them? Any or all. Be specific.
All: Grating dialogue and narration (including the overuse of grawlix). Flimsy characterization. Each one a chore to read.
The Vision doesn't have anything interesting in it whatsoever. Not the art, not the plot developments, not the characters or their internal conflicts. To make me care about the feelings, or lack thereof, of robots, you have to be a decent writer. King isn't.
I don't remember much about Batman/Elmer Fudd except it wasn't particularly funny or entertaining, and I love the old Looney Tunes shorts.
Grayson at least has the reverse-chronological and secret-code gimmicks that forced you to read it twice. Otherwise, I didn't care about Dick or Helena or KGBeast. Also, the art is ugly.
Supergirl has nice art, but is ultimately a shittier, duller version of True Grit despite being set in space. There's no actual grit.
I asked you to be specific, and basically the only specific thing I got here is that you dislike his dialogue.
This is how it always goes with the King antis. They can never specify what exactly about his work is "bad" or dull or shitty or whatever. Even here, you can't do it. You say The Visions isn't interesting because of... reasons? You say the Batman/Elmer Fudd wasn't entertaining because... something. To be clear, it's fine to dislike a comic just because it's not for you, but clearly you think King's comics are lacking in substance, yet you seem unable to actually articulate what it is. Are his themes inconsistent? Is his characterization inconsistent (not with canon, but within the narrative)? Is he engaging in a subject only on a surface level? And if the answer to any of these questions is yes, in what way? This is what real analysis is.
I know I'm coming as pretentious right now, but I just get annoyed when I see people decide to write off comics without even reading them because they dislike the author - but when pressed, they can't even explain what their issue with the author is beyond just surface level "well it's bad because it's shitty". With Tom King it's really egregious but I notice this a lot.
I'm sorry I can't give you specific details. For a real analysis, that would require me to reread these comics, and I'm not about to do that. His comics are so lacking in passion that I would have liked to never have read them. I'll add that his characters never feel organic or authentic, more like tools with which to deploy his gimmicks or mouthpieces to express his guilt.
Start keeping a Google doc with notes on what you like and dislike about whatever you're currently reading. It will not only help you remember the books better, but will come in handy in times like these.
I only do that for books I like.
>Keep a google doc for times like these
Wow what a fricking homosexual. I know you need grist for the shill bot shitlosting mill but at least be more subtle about it. King is a fricking hack and you aren’t a teacher assigning a book report.
The post you are responding to literally talks about characterization and substance. Be quiet now.
How come every time you criticise Tom King on this board, there's always one or two anons who come out of the woodwork to cry about how unfair it is that people dislike King?
The only solid King's comic. I was actually surprised. Did someone else write it for him?
Unless it involved time dilation or time travel, the story makes no sense.
On the one hand, some of you idiots slag Superman because he 'doesn't cure cancer' or he 'stops to enjoy a meal' while he hears a woman being raped or any number of things.
There are plenty of good stories about making the choice of when to intervene and when not to, for any number of reasons, including the fact that even Superman can't be everywhere every moment of every day.
It would make no sense to travel across vast distances of the galaxy to save one person.
Rebirth Superman did that story, in only a few short chapters, in 2017's A Minute Longer where Superman had to save those children from the yellow fear entity, Parallax.
The people with millions of dollars to make something with Superman don't get why people like Superman.
Don't understand the hype for this book at all, it's very bland and uninteresting and all it's uplifting meme moments and storyline feel like manipulative imitations of stuff from better works, specifically it felt like King took a break from ripping off Alan Moore to try his hand at ripping off Morrison on All Star.
Why shouldn't King rip Morrison? More writers should, especially when writing Superman.
If only he ripped them off better. Then his comics might be enjoyable.
This story is fricking terrible, I’m so sick of you paid shills pushing it
it's garbage
eat shit