DC Round-Up Comics Released 3/9/16

dc roundup31

How many Batman books is too many Batman books? Depending on who you ask there ain’t no such thing! We try to stay up on what’s going on at DC, but we can’t always dig deep into every issue. The solution? Our weekly round-up of titles coming out of DC Comics. Today, we’re discussing Batman and Robin Eternal 23, Starfire 10 and New Suicide Squad 18.


Batman and Robin Eternal 23

Batman and Robin Eternal 23Michael: The soulless wonder that is Batman and Robin Eternal is gradually positioning itself for a grand finale. The Robins have recruited help from other Bat family members and Gotham-ish in the forms of Batgirl, Batwoman, Katana, Catwoman and Midnighter. Mother is broadcasting her brainwashing signal that Red Robin notes “every child in the world has been ordered to kill their parents and join the new order by a woman who manufactures brainwashed soldiers.” Every child in the world? If that’s the case, then those parents are as good as dead; I don’t care how fast Team Robin mobilizes. I’m not saying that I’d be satisfied with seeing billions of little ones bathing in their parents’ blood, but it kind of seems like all these kids are doing is amassing in zombie hordes in the street. I couldn’t count more than a handful of adult bodies who were lying at the feet of these brainwashed tykes.


There are no stakes in this story because it doesn’t play by its own rules. Team Robin is racing the clock and has one hour before “the riot turns into a war zone.” It’s another empty escalation of stakes that’s basically saying “this bad stuff is about to get a whole lot badder…so call to action!”

Genevieve Valentine is on script duty this week and she writes the characters in a Aaron Sorkin-y way, having them speak in ways no other human being speaks. Perhaps it’s because Batman and Robin Eternal is heading towards its conclusion — and therefore has less time for its mystery dilly dallying — but everyone in Batman and Robin Eternal 23 is whip sharp and full of quips. There’s a scene where Scarecrow tries to pull the Hannibal Lecter routine on Spoiler by trying to make her doubt herself, but she turns the tables on him. It’s intended to be a moment of empowerment and growth for Spoiler, which it is, but the emotional maturity of these characters fluctuates from highs and lows week to week. David Cain played the Hannibal Lecter game with Harper just a few issues back and totally got in her head; granted, the topic was the murder of her parents. Batman and Eternal doesn’t show a lot of respect for its cast by its ever inconsistent characterization.


Starfire 10

Starfire 10Spencer: Starfire 10 is all about light, in both a literal sense and a metaphorical. Once her body adjusts to it, Strata’s unique underground light source is powerful enough to supercharge Starfire, granting her supreme power — more than enough to destroy the dark king Neala-Tok’s entire army in a single blast. But under Amanda Conner and Jimmy Palmiotti’s pen, the light also represents “good” in a more abstract, metaphorical sense.

light vs. dark

If Neala-Tok’s hateful, death-worshipping ambition is darkness, than Kori’s love, kindness, and compassion is light — a fact not hard to miss when Elsa Charretier and Hi-Fi’s art literally turns Kori into a bright beacon of beautiful purifying light (as she very well deserves to be). But that certainly doesn’t turn Kori into a pushover:


To Kori, lights represents “righteous fury” as much as it does “peace,” at least in the sense that it’s her duty as a defender of all that’s good to rid the world of those black-hearted individuals who threaten it. That’s Kori in a nutshell: she loves so deeply and so broadly that a being as twisted as Neala-Tok is repugnant to her. In most situations she’ll show compassion to an enemy, but there’s no point this time. The most compassionate move she can make it to put him down for good to prevent him from destroying countless more lives.

Conner, Palmiotti, and Charretier also explore the idea of light through Strata’s Rebirth Ceremony, where the souls of Strata’s dead are ferried to their next stage of existence within Strata’s light source. Petty human concerns feel small and insignificant next to this marvelous display, this reminder of the fundamental ways we’re all connected to each other on a fundamental level. Stella is reduced to tears, and rightfully so.

For all its artful thematic exploration, though, this issue has a few weak points too. Neala-Tok is a thematically appropriate villain, but his level of generic, mindless, pure evil doesn’t exactly paint him as a compelling villain, and the interchangeable, mindless nature of his army does little in that regard either. The creative team makes a big deal of how Kori’s powers only make the Chida bigger, then hints at a strategy to defeat them revolving around that fact, but ultimately, they’re all annihilated when Kori detonates — how? And Kori’s coma feels like a cheap way to wring a few extra drops of drama out of the issue — even though Strata’s scientists theorize Kori may remain in her coma for as long as 36 years, she awakens in a mere 3 pages (seemingly a matter of minutes in-story), rendering the entire thing moot.

I suppose that make this a decidedly mixed installment of Starfire, but ultimately, I think it falls more on the side of “good” than “bad.” The creative team clearly has some lofty ideas to explore, and I’ll always give that a bit of extra credit, especially since they’re such a natural fit for Starfire as a character.


New Suicide Squad 18

The plot is impossible to follow. The various strategies of Cruise and his allies and foes don’t stand up under scrutiny. And none of that matters.

This is a movie that exists in the instant, and we must exist in the instant to enjoy it. Any troubling questions from earlier in the film must be firmly repressed.

Robert Ebert, reviewing Mission Impossible (1996)

New Suicide Squad 18Patrick: The plotting in Suicide Squad 18 is a mess. Coming off last issue’s obvious fake-out “everyone dies” cliffhanger, it’s hard to imagine this issue being anything less. Every page, every twisting story beat, seems designed to disorient the reader, so even explanations come with alluring question marks hanging over them. All of which serves to make the delicious premise writer Tim Seeley and artist Juan Ferreyra eventually arrive at — which I’ll describe as The Dirty Dozen meets the second Hunger Games book, mashed up with Death Race meets The Most Dangerous Game — seem perfectly logical by comparison.

This disorientation is immediate and deliberate. The first two-and-a-quarter pages tell a story in flashback about a Belle Reeve dust-up between Deadshot and Captain Boomerang, but it’s not enough for Seeley to simply tell us this story, he needs to make a point of who is telling this story. That first narration box bears Harley’s signature red and black diamonds, but Ferreyra drives the point home even further by flooding the backgrounds and fringes of these panels with Harley’s totally evocative pinks and soft baby blues.

Captain Boomerang v Deadshot

Also, just how cool is that last panel? The glasses of a rando lunch lady reflecting to the reader the image of Deadshot catching Captain Boomerang in his peripheral vision. That’s layers upon layers of vision and perception imagery stacked right up on top of each other. We’re also actively engaged in the question of when and how this story is being told, because Harley is frequently interrupted by her until-now-assumed-dead compatriots Cheetah and Deadshot (again, those narration boxes are brilliantly set off by letterer Nate Piekos’ simple application of character logos).

The whole issue plays out this way – a dizzying tale of who knew what when and who works for who and what any of them hope to get out of it. All of it is accompanied by Ferreyra’s masterful control over clarity, which can either patiently express the size and shape of Amanda Waller’s poorly decorated office, or abstract a months-long plan into a Wes Anderson-esque diorama. The story might be leaping to a bunch of crazy conclusions, but it’s hard to fault this issue when the sheer act of leaping is so much fun.


The conversation doesn’t stop there, because you certainly read something that we didn’t. What do you wanna talk about from this week?

16 comments on “DC Round-Up Comics Released 3/9/16

  1. I’m reading Constantine and I find it a pretty good read. I thought Constantine in hell to save the hunk was a little weird, but Constantine trying to do what’s right and STILL hurting those around him is a good story.

    I like that Constantine is all, “Fuck fairies,” in this because I’m on his side. Fuck those guys. Elves too.

    • Have we been sleeping on Constantine? I know I like individual issues of that series, but for some reason I have a hard time maintaining my excitement for it between issues. SOUL SEARCHING TIME.

  2. Batman and Robin Eternal: The soulless line hurts, because it is the sad truth of what Batman and RObin Eternal has turned into. I just remember those first issues with Seeley, where Dick Grayson desperately tries to deal with the insanity of everything around him and the feeling of being out of the loop. Or Valentine writing Cassandra going to the ballet. But I really think that for Eternal to work, they need to do something about Tynion. The foundation of Batman and Robin Eternal is strong, with a foundation dedicated to having a soul and exploring what it means to be Robin. But I don’t think Tynion knows how to best set the story up to take advantage of this. Which means that too many writers are being given briefs that just don’t have enough of them. It gets worse when the brief gets in the hands of a lesser writer, and even worse when Eternal made the choice to keep Valentine, Orlando and Seeley, the best writers, at the beginning and end, which led to a boring slog through the middle that did nothing but kill the soul that this series begun with. I remember seeing reviewers discuss the amazing heart of Eternal, and how it was just as much part of the Batgirl/Grayson reinventions as everyone else. I remember having a discussion here about the art, and how the house style art was such a poor fit for what the writing was. Then the energetic opening collapsed and turned into the soulless product we have here.

    Though to be fair to it, I think Michael is being unfair here. The fact that Cain successfully Hannibal Lectered Harper has nothing to do with Scarecrow failing to Lecter Spoiler. Harper has always been a raw, and emotionally open like that. She is exactly the sort of person who would be easily attacked like that, especially on a topic like her mother. You can discuss inconsistent characterization, but this is what Harper has been from when Snyder wrote her.

    Meanwhile, Stephanie Brown has been the exact character to shut down Scarecrow for literally years. She has never had great ego about her skills (a lot of her old friendship with Cassandra was built on the idea that Cassandra was better than her in every way), and the pre-New 52 Spoiler has already done this to Scarecrow. Back when she was Batgirl, Scarecrow had a mental breakdown at the idea that she could actually stand up to fear. And Valentine, who wrote the most important New 52 Spoiler stuff, is building off the foundations of the classic Steph and the stuff she built during Catwoman. Regardless of your thoughts about the rest of Eternal, that scene was one of the moments that rang so true to me, and one of my favourite scenes in the entire book.

    And I have to say, I always find the ‘Sorkin style dialogue’ critique weird. Sorkin is rightly said to be one of the best writers of dialogue in the business. The only people I can think of that are thought of as better are Tarantino and Shakespeare (and Whedon, depending on the person). A very elite group to be in. What makes their dialogue so great is that they are enjoyable, while speaking true to the person. Jason is 99% bluster, Midnighter is flirtatious and enjoying playing the jerk, Dick Grayson is full of charm. All true to the hcaracters, and the dialogue is also great to listen to. Maybe they don’t speak as a real human speaks, but anyone who actually listens to how other people speak understands that that is the worst possible goal for dialogue. I’ll take ‘entertaining and true’ over ‘repetition and um’, thank you.

    Basically, Valentine continues to be the best writer they have on this book, and elevates a book that lost its soul long ago.

    New Suicide Squad: The most interesting thing here is how DC Rebirth is going to effect it. We get a truly great creative team, enjoying making perverse, filthy adventures that fit the Suicide Squad perfectly. A franchise that has a chance to explode when its movie comes out. And yet, DC Rebirth is going to mean that whatever happens, a reset is coming. Hopefully, we’ll get the same creative team, but we will still have to start from scratch reintroducing everything. But while this is a great individual story, DC Rebirth is hovering ominously over this way more than most other books

    • “And I have to say, I always find the ‘Sorkin style dialogue’ critique weird. Sorkin is rightly said to be one of the best writers of dialogue in the business. The only people I can think of that are thought of as better are Tarantino and Shakespeare (and Whedon, depending on the person)”

      I didn’t read this comic. However, I’ve tried to watch West Wing and Sports Night. And I’ve learned something.

      It is nearly impossible to say that you don’t like Sorkin’s writing/dialogue to someone who does without that person directly or indirectly calling you stupid or implying that you don’t think fast enough to understand the quick and snappy banter.

      I find any show that has Sorkin writing dialogue to be unwatchable within a minute. The dialogue is so stilted and fixed that it doesn’t feel like dialogue between real people, it feels like a preplanned dance of words that have more emphasis on flow and rhythm than actual content. Which may be what others like in it, I can’t really tell, because whenever I voice my complaints I’m called a moron.

      Anyway, I understood the criticism and I understood exactly what Michael was saying, even though I’ve never read the comic.

      But I can’t stand Sorkin, although I’ve never watched anything of his since Sports Night, which I really wanted to like.

      • I hear that Sorkin criticism (and the response to it) loud and clear. I think Sorkin came to power at a time when the general aesthetic (especially on TV) was just jamming in cleverness and wordplay and jokes as densely as humanly possible. It’s a criticism that I have of (especially early) Whedon too. I’m watching Season 2 of Buffy right now for a podcast I’m guesting on, and am having a tough time getting through it. All of the characters talk like they’re fucking TV writers, and I get why that’s a method of expressing oneself worth aspiring to, but it makes for some wholely unrealistic teenagers.

        That said, I don’t totally discount Sorkin (or Whedon for that matter). I got into Sports Night when I was young enough to find that cleverness attractive, and I do think that — when paired with the right direction (i.e., Fincher) — his scripts can really sing. It’s definitely not about not being able to keep up with the dialogue – it’s about being annoyed that the dialogue is so in love with its speed that it’s daring you to keep up. I feel the same way about the plot of Inception. No, the movie isn’t confusing — all it’s rules are explained early and often. But the writing violates its own rules so frequently that it’s like Nolan is saying “you don’t understand anyway, do you?” I get it, I’m just not having as much fun getting it as the writer is asking me if I get it.

        • I think a hard thing about talking about Buffy is that Buffy and Sopranos changed so much about how TV works. They are two of the most influential TV shows ever written, and TV was fundamentally different after them. We wouldn’t be in the so called Golden Age of TV were it not for those two shows. But it also means that you are going through uncharted waters. Buffy Season 2 specifically has been called a masterpiece, but there are a hell of a lot of episodes that aren’t. When it does the big moments, the stuff that pushed the boundaries of what TV could be, it truly is great. But so much of it isn’t (especially considering part of what made Buffy so innovative, its season structure, did require ‘normal’ episodes). I saw a fascinating statistical thing on the best Buffy episodes, and while Season 2 was the best with all the best episodes, it was also full to the brim with bad episodes when it tries to do filler and has to contend with the fact that the filler is shit because Buffy hasn’t changed the world yet. But Season 2 really sings in the important episodes.

          Though I find the critique that they talk like TV writers an odd one. The description of Whedon’s dialogue, especially for Buffy, is characters desperately trying to work out the language to properly express the idea, either butchering the sentence totally or suddenly remembering how to say it and creating just as big of a mess. A beautifully crafted mess, but one that still speaks true to the idea of teenagers, still young and inexperienced, trying to deal with complex ideas (whether it is demons or romance).

          Things like Sorkin/Whedon’s dialogue or Inception never feel like they are confusing or anything to me (Inception is seen as an ‘intelligent’ movie, so everyone loves to say ‘I’d didn’t find it confusing’, but I haven’t seen too many who actually find it confusing). Quite simply, they tell each moment with a high degree of craft (I could write a lot about Inception at the moment, but would rather focus on dialogue). It is about creating something that tells the fundamental truth while being enjoyable to listen to (and often being more truthful by ‘lying’). THat’s the advantage of the Tarantino/Shakespeare/Sorkin/Whedon dialogue. It is rarely clever for leverness sake. It is written with the idea that dialogue deserves to be crafted.

          THoguh, of course, any of their work can be ruined by poor direction. THe Cohen Brothers are a great example of writers whose dialogue rarely works under anything other than their own direction. But that is a direction problem

        • I’m certainly not trying to brag about understanding Inception. I just know that the common conception there is that the movie is too confusing — and that’s common in the broadest possible sense. I’m looping a lot of my 65 year old parents and their friends into that perspective.

          I think there’s a lot more that keeps Buffy Season 2 from worming it’s way into my heart: the weird implications about the immorality of sex, the frankly awful filmmaking, the limited range of the actors. But the one thing I keep coming back to is that I don’t like the way the characters talk – especially Xander. I try like hell to let what’s on the screen override my knowledge of how the product was made, but he (and Willow and Buffy) all sound like they’re having their sentences diagrammed and riffed on. Which I suppose would be a fine bit of characterization, but I have yet to see it bare itself out in the stories themselves. If they’re so interested in language and expression, why do they never pursue those interests in any way?

          Ultimately, it’s just a matter of taste. Hey and also, The Judge looks like he’s a leftover costume from Stargate Atlantis.

        • Oh and check out Hellmouthy (you can find it on iTunes) – they’re working their way through Season 2 right now, and I’ll be on talking about episodes 19 and 20 on March 31!

        • With Inception, I swear I have never met a person who finds it confusing, but I’ve seen a lot of people who say ‘Everyone says its confusing, but I understood it fine’.There are certainly people who I can see watching the movie and just not engaging (the 65 year old parent) but among those who actually try and properly watch it, I’ve never seen anyone struggle with understanding. Largely because there is so little you need to understand (it is very cleverly structured in that regard)

          On Buffy, as I said, it is still fixing all the problems with TV. The poor direction is part of it. Buffy was done during a time where a lot of TV was basically radio with pictures, and the idea of doing fight scenes like they do was extraordinary. Quite simply, there didn’t exist the directors on TV to do the sorts of stuff Buffy did (and yeah, Whedon’s direction has generally been pedestrian. Barring a couple of moments in Avengers, I think it was only Ultron where he started being able to direct in a more cinematic way). It is easy to look at TV these days, where top class filmmakers are actually doing TV and many of the journeymen directors are able to do good stuff, but those sorts of directors didn’t exist then. Same with the Judge. Early 90s costuming and low budgets does not a great demon make. TV has a long history of really bad alien designs (Doctor Who used to have monsters made up of bubble wrap)

          On the immorality of sex, I believe that Giles makes it very explicit that Buffy is in no way to blame. Season 2 is a story about what it is like to deal with the fact that your nice boyfriend can change after you sleep with them. About dealing with the fact that many men seem nice, but we stop as soon as we get ‘what we want’ from the girl. It is sadly a really shitty and really real thing, and should be a key part of of ritualistic self flagellation every morning for being men. Of course, this is a show built on the metaphor of ‘High School is Hell’, so that involves Angel losing his soul. But I also think it is worth noting that many of Angelus’ evils can be expressed easily through the prism of abusive boyfriend. Hell, many of Angelus’ lines in his first episode are basically verbatim ‘dismissive lines men say to women after sex’.

          But Giles makes very clear that Buffy is not at fault. She isn’t shamed for causing the mistake. Instead, Giles rejects the very idea of judging Buffy in any way, states that it was a perfectly reasonable thing to happen and that Buffy had no reason to expect this to happen. And that all Buffy will get from Giles is support and respect. And that is the show’s position on Buffy’s sex life. Regardless of how your boyfriend changes, the sex itself isn’t the problem, and Buffy deserves support, not judgement.

          On the dialogue, I find that the dialogue is carefully written for maximum entertainment value. But I also think it does a good job at giving each character a clear voice. It is hard to think of many shows where lines are so distinctive to character. Hell, you can even pinpoint the place in a character’s arc from a joke, at times. Realism is surrendered for truth. Identity is strong and obvious, and more importantly, you can truly see inside a character. Been a long time since I’ve seen Buffy, but you think of the Avengers movies, so many ‘pithy’ lines say so much about the characters, and give actual insight into their psychologies (and I’m going to stop here before I discuss Oscar Isaac).

          And I’m honestly interested in the podcast. Terrible with podcasts, but I’ll try and get round to listening to you

      • I think a big part of it, especially when you say so in a critical piece like this, is that it is by definition a position that requires defense. Sorkin dialogue is only a thing because Sorkin is widely acknowledged to be one of the best dialogue writers in the business. That isn’t to say that you have to like his dialogue, but that you have to be prepared to argue it, like you just did. Because otherwise, all you are saying is ‘why is X writing like one of the best in the business?’

        Personally, I enjoy dialogue that actually has flow and rhythm. It makes the dialogue enjoyable to listen to, and it is for good reason that Shakespeare’s plays were all poetry. I feel his dialogue is still full of content, just presented in a more enjoyable way. And I don’t think anyone writes dialogue that feels like normal people, because normal dialogue repeats itself and is generally a mess. You are certainly free to feel differently, but when talking against teh consensus, you have to jsutify your reasons. Just like I do with Waid

        • I don’t think Michael’s point was “Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue is bad” – he was using it as a shorthand to characterize the dialogue. And then he goes on to detail what aspects of that characterization he’s referring to specifically AND how he felt that was inconsistent with the scripting for these characters. We’ve sorta turned that comment in a greater discussion of that style of dialogue writing in the comments here — which is a totally fun conversation to have — but it doesn’t read to me like Michael was taking Sorkin’s name in vain or anything like that.

        • He follows up the Sorkin statement with a statement that no one sounds like a human, before linking the quippy style with the characterization problems. I happily admit to being confused with his characterization problems, and am still wondering how Character A’s response to Character B doing X is in any way linked to Character C’s response to Character D, but the way the paragraph is set up seems to be linking that dialogue with the characterization problems. It feels odd to be drawing attention to the style in a section that critical otherwise

          (Which is probably a good place to address Drew’s points. The dialogue masters are all known for stylized dialogue, which fits pretty perfectly for your average superhero comic. Whether it is Whedon, Sorkin, Tarantino or Shakespeare, they all fit perfectly for superhero comics. If we were talking about the Vision, it would be a different story. But this is Batman and Robin Eternal, which would match all four styles perfectly.
          And while Sorkin has his critics, they are kind of defined by the fact that they disagree with the consensus. As I said previously, when you are against the consensus, you have to justify it. I don’t like Waid, but I’ve made a point to justify and explain that reasoning, leading to big discussions and debates you guys)

        • I have no place in this conversation as I watched one episode of West Wing, about 3 episodes of Sports Night, and have never read this comic.

          The facts, as I recall them, from so many years ago. I watched West Wing one time at Scott’s house. I’m not a tv watcher, but it was on while we were having dinner or a drink or something. And I hated it. I wasn’t even really watching it, but I hated the sound. The way everyone sounded bothered me. It was like a hyper rehearsed musical without music and without singing and even without words, this constant drone of fake banter where the actual words didn’t even matter, what mattered was that the response to the words could occur before the original speaker had finished a sentence.

          I hated it.

          And that was my Sorkin experience. “Well, this is clever you are clever this is clever too but look, that’s cleverer only a little not when compared to this how clever do you really think it is it’s mostly clever and partly notclever but how do you like the notclever part its ok for being notclever but it would be better with cleverness added.” on and on and on and on. The words weren’t even clever, the tone was clever. They could have been reading a fucking recipe to each other, it didn’t matter. “Now mix in two eggs.” “Two eggs? Last time it was three.” “Because we were feeding three people.” “And why aren’t there three this time?” (Both together): “Molly.” Cut to Molly baking her own baking thing.

          At the time, I didn’t know who Sorkin was. I didn’t ask. I didn’t even criticize it too much because Scott freakin’ loved the show.

          Months/Years/Indeterminate time later: I watched Sports Night a few times. I liked it except for the dialogue. The characters weren’t characters on the screen, they were clever lions waiting to pounce with the next clever flow of words. The story was good. I wished it was from the ’20s so I’d have had subtitles and music but no voices.

          One day, somehow this came up with Scott and I said, “You know, I’d have liked Sports Night but whoever wrote it sounded exactly like they were trying to copy the fucking West Wing and I just can’t stand it.”

          At which point I was told, “That’s Sorkin you dummy. He wrote both of them.”

          And that’s the last I’ve thought of Sorkin (other than occasionally seeing him celebrated somewhere as being a genius), until now, when I read someone describing dialogue as Sorkin-like and knew exactly what he meant.

          And that’s my criticism of Sorkin. I honestly don’t even know what he’s done since then (other than inspire the writer of this comic).

          (I’ve never watched Buffy, either. I’ve seen it, didn’t particularly care for it, but never *watched* it)

        • I like Sorkin dialogue just fine, but there’s no denying that it’s stylized. The Shakespeare analogy makes me a little uncomfortable, but I think it’s apt for expressing how distracting it might be to adopt another writer’s distinctive style. There are certainly stories where it would be a strong choice to ape Shakespearean dialogue, but “because Shakespeare was great” can’t be the reason — it’s a specific style that warrants specific justifications. Even if it was done well, it only fits some of the time. I think the same thing can be said of Sorkin-esque dialogue. It can work, but that doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate. (And I think it’s worth noting that critics are far from monolithic in praise of Sorkin’s dialogue — it’s typically lauded in films/shows that critics like, but panned as “overwrought” in cases where the consensus tends to go the other way.)

  3. Eternal: Say what you will about the plot (I tend to agree with all y’all that Mother’s exact plan feels confusing and maybe a bit contradictory), but I loved the characterization in this issue. One bit nobody else pointed out: Midnighter taking Cullen under his wing. They don’t draw much attention to it, but there’s a panel where Cullen is staring at Midnighter and his boyfriend/one-night-stand as M sends him off. Seeing as Cullen is gay too, this feels significant. Could Cullen be imagining Midnighter as someone to aspire to now? I know he’s mostly worried about Harper (and rightfully so), but I’m really enjoying Cullen and Midnighter’s interactions (and that goes for this week’s issue that just released yesterday as well)

    • That’s the frustrating thing about weeklies. A writer can’t fix core story issues, as that is all Tynion’s fault. But they can polish their issue so well that the characterization shines. Cullen was another thing I really liked. The Cullen Midnighter idea is just such a good idea, and I’m interested in how Orlando is going to continue that stuff in his two issues

What you got?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s