CaeuZokul

July 4, 2013 12:25 am @RonDev- that's a faux 60s printing process thing. Roll with it.

July 4, 2013 12:13 am In 1988, Stacy was very, very good to me. …True story. Very minor embellishment. A friend named Steranko invited me to stay with him, but I declined through humble modesty (we're still friends). Shook the hands of Jules Feiffer, Marv Wolfman, Trina Robbins and Bill Sienkicwicz. Listened to Todd McFarlane carp about Marvel chiseling him out of rights for a Spider-Man satin jacket. Asked Bob Kane a question about collaborators and got soundly double-talked into submission. COMPLETELY missed the Superman panel with Carlin, Giordano, Ordway, Wolfman, Julie Schwartz and KIRK ALYAN, for Rao's sake! (how did THAT happen?) Had a beer in the sun with Berni Wrightson and swapped art production horror stories with Chaykin. Almost made up for the Superman thing with a conversation and autographed poster from Dave Stevens that weekend at Golden Apple Comics in LA. Poor me. Topped it off with a Saturday night conversation with Jack Kirby about Galactus and dancing with Gilbert Hernandez's wife, Carol Kovinick (the for REAL Luba!) at the Post-Masquerade Dance that night. That was 1988. My one and only time with Stacy. Why would I want to go back?

July 3, 2013 10:12 pm Forget it. As of right now, all of those are taken. Or would be If I still lived there. Damn.

June 26, 2013 10:23 pm Well said.

June 18, 2013 11:27 am Most all of the DC books. BQ: Atlas Shrugged Part 2

June 14, 2013 3:17 pm SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Thanks for the well thought-out and reasonable reply. I'm just a guy that likes the back and forth of now/then storytelling and I thought it worked here. My opinion. I too felt Jonathan's death was needless. I could have been an excellent moment for Jon to allow Clark to step up. It would have even been better if it was another injured traveler. They should have just grabbed the damn dog in the first place. As far as Zod was concerned, it didn't bother me because he DID kill Jor El himself, and Kal knew Zod wouldn't stop until everyone on Earth were dead too. It was still heartbreaking. …And in other news… I too liked The Invisibles.

June 14, 2013 1:07 pm Thanks for your positive statements. Very well balanced.

June 14, 2013 1:04 pm MILD SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Every time we flash back to moments in Clark's past, the scene is key to the moment in the present. How he learns to control his hearing, his natural inclinations to respond to violence, the proper way to aid others without bringing too much attention to himself and so on. It didn't take me long to understand the importance of the Codex. I know what the word means. I was, at first puzzled at why Jor El put it in Kal instead of just with him, but by the end I realized mere objects could be lost or stolen. And without an overarching reason to be proactive, Clark followed Jonathan's advice to keep a low profile. Jor El gives him the tools and reasons to be proactive with compassion and restraint. His two fathers serve him well. As to the "S" symbol meaning hope: If memory serves, since the Modern Age, as well as being the crest of the house of El, it had also stood for hope. Something none of the other Superman movies point out (I'd have to re-watch the first Chris Reeve movie to be positive). I'm glad it was made clear and more than once. Anyone who deals with the public will tell you, if you want it to be understood, repeat it. As to it being disjointed: Moving between now and then was an excellent way to keep all elements of the narrative moving forward at the same time without getting bogged down. Wasn't confusing for me. But I can understand Grant Morrison's stuff. Different strokes. As to the final solution to Zod: Byrne showed with clarity where and why Superman developed his code against killing. In MOS we immediately see how killing effects him. My guess is he'll never do it again and will find ways around it. To end my rant, I'd just ask for more posters to talk about what they LIKED about MOS. Sometimes the negative POVs outnumber the positive.

June 14, 2013 5:26 am Saw it at midnight. LOVED it. I have no qualms about the climax. I understand its one-time use. I bet John Byrne would agree.

June 14, 2013 5:12 am This was published before the age of… er, concept of Apokolips.