Supergirl #23, featuring the new creative team of Kelley Puckett, Drew Johnson, and Ray Snyder, starts out promising enough. Supergirl gets a mysterious package. What's in the box? Who gave it to her? And is Jean Loring involved? Many questions flood into your head. And then you see him. See who? Batman. But not just any Batman...stubble-faced creepy sorta crazy-looking Goddamn Batman. It's awesome. Did the editor put Goddamn Batman in on purpose? Was Drew Johnson given a stack of ASBAR to use as drawing reference? Who knows? It's not important.
Then Supergirl gets sucked into this sketchy galactic mission involving Superman and these Green Lantern dudes. It's all very colorful and Johnson's art is pretty. But it feels like a fill-in. It free-floats much as Supergirl herself does through space during most of the story. It isn't bad. It just that it's a vignette.
Drew Johnson's art isn't that much different than that of previous artist Renato Guedes, only there is a bit more hip-bone drawn in above the belt and it's not as photo-realistic. Most of it is pretty good; there are a few panels that stray into wonky territory. Snyder is a good inker for him, holds together the lines nicely.
But I can give you no real forecast or opinion on how the Puckett/Johnson era is going to be, because #23 reads like an inventory story. Maybe next month the new status quo will finally be established. Who knows? I'm still trying to get over the Goddamn Batman on page 4.
Rating: B-
With Ms. Marvel #23, Carol Danvers is back from the superheroine love-doll -- excuse me, living art -- farm in Chile just in time to have some sort of alien stick a tentacle through her spine. She becomes psychically connected to the alien, who in her mind looks like a hot blue chick with dreadlocks. Somewhere along the way, Machine Man gets a female body, continuing the meme started a few weeks ago with Hawkeye in "Marvel Zombies 2."
"Ms. Marvel" is just a good, readable comic. It's not quite Grant Morrison. But, much like the "Iron Man" monthly, if you follow it every month you get a pay off with an interesting supporting cast, a continuing story not bogged down too much with the event-of-the-hour, and a complex superheroine.
That said, a great deal of the success of "Ms. Marvel" is due to the work of artist Aaron Lopresti. Lopresti invests Carol Danvers with a very definite personality through his art. Yeah, it's a little cheesecakey at moments. But it's also very human. And I feel for Ms. Marvel through that art, those facial expressions, the way I did for "Strangers In Paradise" through Terry Moore's art. And I know that sound like the ultimate blasphemy, but it's the truth. Go look at Katchoo and Lopresti's Carol Danvers side-by-side.
Rating: B+
Kelly Puckett always reads like that. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteI also would have given Ms. Marvel a B+. & wtf'ed at the Machine Man thing-- though I thought his character has been funny enough throughout. I really want Ms. Marvel to be a big deal. I like her. & not just because of the boots.
ReplyDeleteAaron's run on MYSTIC from CrossGen was also excellent.
ReplyDelete.wil.
You think Guedes' artwork is "photo realistic" ??
ReplyDeleteI'll never understand the suck-job this guy gets from bloggers, just because he refuses to acknowledge that some women are attractive (Not saying I approve of Michael Turner, but Guedes' art is UGLY)
For proof I submit the following from a fill in he did for Action Comics only a short time before he jumped to Supergirl.
http://www.crookedstep.com/cb/actioncomics850.gif
That is baby Kal-El. Tell me that's photo realistic and explain why he's giving the finger.
That totally looks like a newborn.
ReplyDeleteNewborns aren't all that cute.
Gotta agree with John on this one. I know all newborns look like Winston Churchill, but that is just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteNot a word about that Greg Horn cover? Good Lord, that thing is in the running for Most Awful Thing I've Ever Seen on a Marvel Comic.
ReplyDelete"Go look at Katchoo and Lopresti's Carol Danvers side-by-side."
ReplyDeleteWow... you are so right.
As for Guedes and that baby shot, I think it's pretty amazing. That's how babies look. I wouldn't call it "photo realism"... it's just that his characters have incredibly life-like facial expressions and strike very natural poses. The linework itself is actually kinda minimalist.
Guedes haters baffle me.
ReplyDeletethat Supergirl issue was AWFUL.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the art's way better, and she's at least not fat anymore.
Second, the story was nothing. It started with this Batman thing which I enjoyed, then BAM! a random story that still makes no sense to me.
Then back home. It just read like complete filler that really didnt make any sense.
But at least she's not fat anymore. :)
Meh, looks exactly like a newborn baby to me.
ReplyDeleteGuedes did not draw Supergirl "fat" he drew her "badly" there's a difference. If you think that's what fat is, then maybe you should google image search "fat girl" and see what fat is.
ReplyDeleteWhat's annoying is that, since I can't stand Guedes' artwork, I get lumped in with the same idiots claiming he made Supergirl "fat"
I like Guedes. His stuff is both realistic and graceful, which aren't always present with one another. There's a delicacy that reminds me of when Josh Middleson was appealing instead of appalling.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw that Ms Marvel cover, I was going eeeurgh at both the body distortion and the costume (and then, why isn't she fighting back?) Part of the body distortion reaction (where the heck are her nipples?) is because I didn't parse the costume properly. Like: how the h*ll would that stay on? -> Oh, there's her other boob. that's not right -> no nipples? oh, it not a ridiculously impractical boobwindow, it's that zigzag thing. Is it deliberately drawn so that it looks as if the costume shows even more flesh than it does?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's how newborns look. They're wrinkly and weird-looking. Cute doesn't kick in until much later, plus I think we're all used to newborns in movies and TV shows being played by babies that are at least a month old, at which point they look totally different. Chubbier and smoother.
ReplyDeleteAs we've learned the hard way from Greg Land, photo-realism in itself isn't a virtue; it's how the artist chooses to use it. It can help add some suspension of disbelief to a story. I haven't read "Supergirl" since that horrible issue with Batgirl in it, so I don't know anything about Guedes' storytelling ability, but the guy's single panel work and pin-ups and sketches look outstanding.
That said... Batman needs to shave. Just say no to raised-relief Superman chest emblems and Batman with 5 o'clock shadow, please.
I liked Guedes' "acting" in Supergirl; her body language and facial expressions were enormously appealing, and it was nice to have her doubt and slowly growing nobility shine through. Those three issues could represent the high watermark of that title, sadly.
ReplyDeleteIs Ms. Marvel doing well? I hope so, because it's tons of fun. Even though I hate that Captain Marvel has been resurrected, I'll be buying the new mini just because Brian Reed is on it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so Supergirl 23 wasn't a *bold new beginning* but rather a near wordless chase involving a war no one knows anything about.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is it was a better issue than just about any of the last year.
First, we get a Supergirl who wants to be a hero. She went beyond her 2 hour time limit to try to complete the mission. Second (and really a corollary of the last point), we get a Kara who respects Superman enough to simply say 'I'll do it' when he says he has a mission for her. Third, we get a tenacity of her wanting to finish the mission on her own.
For those craving the angst-riddled Kara of this title's earlier issues, she did sort of blow off the exposition of the meeting, and flying off into a space portal on your own is a bit headstrong.
Look, I know it isn't American Flagg #1, or Watchmen #1. It isn't even PAD's Supergirl #1 or even 'Daring New ... Supergirl' #1.
What it was was an improvement in this title.
Terrific review. I've definitely caught the Lopresti/Moore connection. The Aaron Lopresti interior artwork is so much better than the cover artwork that it blows my mind. Gotta admit, the cover art definitely catches the eye -- but in an awkward, bad way, y'know?
ReplyDelete