Name: Beausephus Johnson

Bio: playwright. educator. poppa. draw-er. wandering samurai. uptown hillbilly. urban gypsy.

Twitter: beausephus

Pull List

For Comics shipping on 08/28/13

    View details of my comics
    Print Your Pullist

    There was a time when Detective was my book of choice. Now? Not so much. I have no dea how…

    Read full review and comments

    Hey, remember how Thunderbolts was riding a nice wave of praise from fans and critics with its originality and strong…

    Read full review and comments

    I’ve never gotten drunk on the Grant Morrison Kool Aid. Sure he’s written some great stories, but I’ve also tried…

    Read full review and comments
    Beausephus's Recent Comments
    August 1, 2013 12:43 pm WAIT - that ending moment was pretty spectacular. So that's one small moment that worked.
    August 1, 2013 12:40 pm Enjoyed watching it, but probably won't revisit it any time soon. As noted many of the designs were a bit odd for my taste. Paul talked abut Batman and Aquaman but for me the worst design were the female faces. While the men were hyperbolized, the women were oversimplified. In many scenes Diana looked like she wandered in from an anime show aimed at at much younger audience. Stylistically so far removed from the rest of the aesthetic it was almost as distracting as the voice acting - some of the worst in the entire line of Animated DC movies. The scope was impressive. Really told a "big" story but the character moments just did not work. Great action, but not much else.
    September 25, 2012 8:01 pm Enjoyed most of it...the opening CGI race car scene made me cringe. It seemed like the Harvey subplot was streamlined and made more sense, but many great lines seemed to be cut to my chagrin. I really missed the inner monologue. In some fo the scenes I thought hearing Weller's gravelly monotone would have added more of the gravitas that seemed to be missing. Lines like calling himself "old man", the blow by blow calculated commentary on his attacks, esp. for the Mutant Leader fights that seemed a bit lacking in depth aside from being a climactic fight scene. Parts were enjoyable and many impressive ideas were created to turn the stylized sequential art into convincing animation without just moving the original art in front of a camera. I think 4.5 is high, but I always enoy the thought you put into these reviews.
    April 4, 2012 7:40 pm 2 new categories for young readers and no Reed Gunther? That's the real crime.
    December 20, 2011 12:37 am This signifies in one feel swoop everything that went wrong with most of the New 52. The template for this Blue Beetle was laid out so well, in comics, cartoons...Jamie Reyes deserves better than this series. From the first page of the relaunch, I've been hoping this series would capture the potential this character could have...Invincible, Miles Morales, Spider-Man, Dixon's Nightwing...but the whole space opera through-line leaves me as cold as the well-intentioned but cringe inducing dialoge and characterizations. If this issue can't turn it around, I might have leave it alone for a while until it regains its footing. for now, I'll just enjoy the Blue Beetle with my son on The Brave and the Bold cartoon.
    December 20, 2011 12:23 am But look, that last post of mine might unintentionally re-ignite someone's smoldering fury. Honestly, I didn't really stimulate the conversation any further but felt the need and (now that I registered as a user) a freedom to spew my 2 cents into the world. I get now how easy it can be to shoot off a missive so effortlessly. Perhaps this whole discussion can be summed up with one fo the great mantras that we all agree on - "With great power comes great responsibility." Clearly this is a "great power" when so many people are so vehement about their perspectives.
    December 20, 2011 12:18 am I've been an avid IFanboy acolyte for years, but this is the first time I've felt the urge to post...mainly because I thought this article and the subsequent reactions captured exactly the tension in the comment threads recently. And I have no real recall of what Jimski has written and maybe those calling him out are protesting a bit too much. But this all seems like an explosion of digital fury signifying nothing. If I hadn't posted earlier I would not have come back to check out the thread because as Chris Rohling illustrates above, usually I skip these kinds of conflicts because people are always so divided and no one walks away feeling heard or understood. There's so much that the written word in these circumstances just doesn't convey and it's almost alarming how much we are willing to give up to participate in this medium.
    December 20, 2011 12:09 am And we all shine on... This is my favorite observation in this swollen comment thread. This is the best part of our little sub-culture. It's about as 100% percent a part of the hobby/lifestyle choice as the treehouse arguments over just how strong Hulk is and why so-and-so is a jerk (is it Bendis this week? I've been out of it...)
    December 19, 2011 1:12 pm For decades (centuires?) people have declared the art of criticism dead. The internet allows for anonymity and a free forum for venting/ranting/and espousing personal opinons. The same could be argued for the pulpit most critics stand upon. But on the internet, there's no editing. Thoughts become text and can be spewed into the ether in seconds. However, true criticism, even if conveying a negative opinion, contains positive observations and does not end on "just saying" or "no offense." The lack of genuine accountability allows the worst of our natures to emerge digitally. The fact that so many folks are already decrying Jim's words above as somehow condemning their perceived right to give their opinions are missing the point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but just because one can shoot it anonymously internet, does it mean one should? Perhaps the word "nice" is causing the knee jerk reaction, but the point made in the article still stands. Criticism causes and initiates discussion not just a series of message board posts with everyone kicking into a hyperbolic defense of their own perspective. That is not discussion, not is it truly criticism. And yes, Jim does have the right to espouse his opinions. He is one of the creators involved in this website. The best part fo the internet is the ability for every sub-genre interest to find like-minded individuals. No where is it said that anyone's opinion is invald, but no where is it said that someone should have carte blanche to vomit wherever they want. Communities are not created based on the perceived right to do whatever one feels. Social contract, compromise, whatever you decide to call it, creates communities and overtly negative commentary does not. In Ancient Rome, graffitti was carved into walls and painted over murals. Early America had the Federalist Papers and we have the Siskel & Ebert (well, Ebert, anyway) and Message Boards. I think Jim is simply stating that we need to hold ourselves to a high standard in terms of critiques and digital conduct given the reality of the industry. Of course, you are free to disagree, but then again, everyone else is free to disagree with you. In the words of the greater cooler of all time, "be nice, until it's time not to be nice."