Marvels: Eye of the Camera 6 (April 2010)

marvels-2-6.jpg

Okay, so Busiek doesn’t pull it off, not saving the whole series, not even saving the whole issue, but when he has the chance to be a right cheap bastard and have the mutant girl be a hallucination of a dying cancer patient… he doesn’t do it. He doesn’t do the M. Night Shyamalan ending. He does the work instead.

The ending doesn’t work–we never find out the title of the new book the protagonist was working on and there’s this whole emphasis on his concern for mutant rights–which started an issue ago, certainly not through the whole series–but most of the issue does.

Marvels: Eye of the Camera is a piece of shit. The only issue worth a cent, much less three hundred and ninety-nine of them, is this last one. It could have been a one shot. Would have been better as one too.

CREDITS

Closing the Book; writers, Kurt Busiek and Roger Stern; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Lauren Sankovitch and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Advertisements

Marvels: Eye of the Camera 5 (June 2009)

marvels-2-5.jpg

If Marvels II is really all about the protagonist dying, shouldn’t they have made the issues match the K├╝bler-Ross model–the five stages of grief–you know, from that “Simpsons” episode with the blowfish. Just an idea.

I’m not sure when this issue takes place. Sometime in the late 1980s at least. The protagonist has been dying for six months or something, so this history of the Marvel Universe is rather abbreviated. It’s idiotic, really. I mean, if the point of Marvels was to age things real time, based on publication date, look at this nonsense. Whatever.

This issue ends with a thread from the first series returning. It’s an interesting, cheaper than cheaper idea. I mean, if Busiek really resolves the story of the runaway mutant girl… it means the first series really was all bullshit to him.

I think I dislike this comic book more each issue.

CREDITS

A Whole Lot of Paper; writers, Kurt Busiek and Roger Stern; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Jeanine Schaefer and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Marvels: Eye of the Camera 4 (April 2009)

marvels-2-4.jpg

Ok, so Secret Wars took place in the seventies? I mean, based on the style of the protagonist’s new boss, at least. She’s wearing clothes straight out of “Mary Tyler Moore.” It’s fine, of course, if it does take place in the seventies in Marvels, but maybe mention it, guys. Maybe mention the year. Maybe tie in some events. Or at least get things right when it comes to costumes, if you aren’t going to mention years.

As I understand it, Alex Ross brought Marvels to Marvel and Busiek came onboard it. So letting Busiek run Marvels II seems a little odd. There’s absolutely no passion to the series, but there’s not even any interest in it. There’s a lot of random events, not particularly memorable ones either, taking place over a dozen years in this issue.

It’s not disastrous, but it’s a waste of time and money. Mine, specifically.

CREDITS

Deep Wounds; writers, Kurt Busiek and Roger Stern; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Jeanine Schaefer and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Marvels: Eye of the Camera 3 (March 2009)

marvels-2-3.jpg

Does Busiek have a point this time? This entire series seems pointless. It’s Anacleto, finally, drawing superheroes–not a lot of them, but some of them–and they look good and the comic looks good overall, but Busiek isn’t doing anything here. There’s nothing… pressing about this comic book. It’s completely by the numbers.

It’s so unspectacular, I don’t even remember what happened this issue. It ends with Spider-Man not trying to save the Hitman. It apparently takes place in the seventies, since the Punisher has just shown up, but there’s no seventies texture to it. Apparently, setting Marvels in a point in history is over now. It’s just the same as every other Marvel comic. Stuff happened a while ago. An indeterminate while ago. Like when Doctor Doom says many months ten years after an event. Sure, it’s many months….

Oh, man, this was four bucks an issue?

CREDITS

Shadows Within; writers, Kurt Busiek and Roger Stern; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Jeanine Schaefer and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Marvels: Eye of the Camera 2 (February 2009)

marvels-2-2.jpg

The second issue is better than the first… but it’s still got a bunch of problems. It’s more of a sequel to the original series than the first issue, which makes the first issue even more questionable, but it also… it’s a….

So, the protagonist has this book about all the heroes and it’s called Marvels and it’s a big best seller. So now he doesn’t know what to do next and he decides instead of doing a book about villains or something, he’s going to do a book to show everyone the superheroes are true heroes.

Something he basically already did and they talk about him doing a lot in this issue.

It’s mind bogglingly illogical.

I must be missing something. Like a CliffsNotes to it or an online reading guide.

Anacleto’s still boring. Maybe the lack of superheroes in the superhero comic has something to do with it.

CREDITS

Making Sense of the World; writer, Kurt Busiek; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Jeanine Schaefer and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Marvels: Eye of the Camera 1 (February 2009)

marvels-2-1.jpg

I’m a little confused. Marvels is, itself, somewhat out of continuity–the Fantastic Four didn’t really get their start in the sixties in current Marvel continuity. So, Marvels: Eye of the Camera is–or should be–out of continuity too, right?

Because Busiek wastes the entire first issue ret-conning Marvels.

It’s not even clear until the last five pages it’s about the same Phil Sheldon (Busiek introduces his Judaism big time in this issue, which wasn’t even a minor part of the original series). The narration’s all different, sounds like a totally different character. Busiek obviously wasn’t trying to recapture the voice. Instead, he went with a burn out.

Anacleto’s art’s okay. It doesn’t do what Ross’s art did on the original Marvels, which was realize comic book characters in a realistic way. Anacleto’s art is careful, pretty and stylized–not particularly special.

It’s off to an awful start.

CREDITS

Just One Little Thing; writer, Kurt Busiek; artist, Jay Anacleto; colorist, Brian Haberlin; letterers, Richard Starkings and Comicraft; editors, Jeanine Schaefer and Tom Brevoort; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Robocop 23 (January 1992)

robocop-23.jpg

Yeah, it’s awful.

Lewis doesn’t appear in the issue. Robocop doesn’t go to Detroit. The entire issue, for him, is set on an Aztec pyramid; something along those lines.

Robocop spends most of the issue talking about what it means to be Robocop.

What I find most amusing about the comic is how everything Furman worked on–this intricate frame job, Lewis’s romantic interest in Robocop, even the development of a more recognizable police force–gets flushed here for a really lame comic book.

Worse, Robocop’s out of helmet for most of the comic so Sullivan’s art on him is weak.

I realize Marvel could have cared less–they didn’t renew the license, I’m guessing–but… wow. It’s an awful comic book. Anyone involved with the writing and editing with any shame should have used a pseudonym.

Even after all these issues, this one’s utter lack of quality surprises me.

CREDITS

Beyond the Law, Part 3; writer, Simon Furman; artist, Lee Sullivan; colorist, Gregory Wright; letterer, Ken Lopez; editor, Rob Tokar; publisher, Marvel Comics.

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: