afo@pucc-k (sefton) (08/04/84)
Opening the bag....
LSH: Well, Karate Kid bites the big one. Lightning Lass returns, and we get
some really nice fight scenes (I can't wait to see if they clean up
some of the blood for the comics code people. I still have the copy of
the Superboy/LSH where they think that Karate Kid is the traitor, and
it turns out Nemesis Kid is the one. Never did like Nemesis Kid.
A nice scene where Duo Damsel/Triplicate Girl gets weirded out by
Computo. The strange thing is, is that she seems to get more and more
upset about him as time goes by. The scene where she 'comes back' after
being nailed by Computo (a loooooong time ago) she really didn't seem
too miffed...ah character development.
TLSH: OOPS! That wasn't Lyle Norg after all, just another one of those
inter-dimensional demons that just seem to keep popping up. Nice
short story for the other feature, though. When is the ETA on when
I don't have to keep buying two of the mags, anyway?
TNTT: Oh my, won't the comics code have a good time with this one. Maybe
as long as it's at least one alien in the bed (and you have to agree,
that with Raven in her current mode, she would definitely be classified
as 'alien'), you don't have to worry. Interesting artwork, and it doesn't look like the story will be dragged out.
All
S S: Wasn't this depressing...'Real American' looks like a fun guy. I hope
That he doesn't turn out to be a Nazi 'dupe' though. That would be the
easy way out. The idea of 'Well, first we'll take care of the Nazis,
and then we'll take care of you ' did have its supporters. That is
what is really depressing. Look into the letters for an explanation
for 'Green Lantern' as a name.....
DNA: Yep, Rainbow's powers are going straight to you-know-where, and we find
*why* you should never dump your experiments down the sink...
Really, though, I hope that the Rainbow problem gets resolved pretty
quickly, it's bad enough with Sham moping about.
DW: This magazine is *not* getting any better. I think (for me,anyway)
that the main problem with this magazine is that it is definitely
aimed at a younger age group. Now, given the facts that 1. Dr Who
fans in this country as a whole tend to be in their twenties to thirties
2. The magazine costs $1.50 and 3. You have to buy it in a direct sales
store (or from what I have seen you have to buy it there), I would
think that the demographics point away from kiddie stories. Then
again, Marvel is making large amounts of cash on this, so it probably
doesn't bother them. There is also a rehashed set of drawings on
the back which are just nasty. Jon Pertwee doesn't even remotely
resemble that drawing!!
The Dr Who book also brings out another pet peeve I have about mainstream
comics. The #$%$&)(0"#$ kiddie companion. I don't mean one like Cap'n
Quick (thats a good integration of a child into a comic story), but ditsy
little cretins whose only function is to get themselves into trouble.
I mean, if you had some wonderous super-power, would you want some sniveling
little creature around you? Getting into your way? Creating trouble wherever
he/she goes? Yechh...
I didn't like the kiddie side-kicks when I was a child, either. I thought
they were 'stupid'. I still think they are 'stupid'.
What do you think?
Laurie
pucc-k:afo 'Riots and Revolutions provided upon request'acsgjjp@sunybcs.UUCP (Jim Poltrone) (08/08/84)
[Oh blast, here we go again!] >>> ...the main problem with this magazine is that it is definitely >>> aimed at a younger age group. Right you are, Laurie. As I mentioned in my previous posting, this is all rehash from the old Doctor Who Comics Weekly, a publication of Marvel Comics (British division). Over there, the fans are younger. >>> The magazine costs $1.50 ... Then again, Marvel is making large >>> amounts of cash on this, so it probably doesn't bother them. I wouldn't bet on that. The BBC has to be getting some percentage (after all, it is their program!). Also, they use Baxter [paper], which is more expensive than Mando. And, if you haven't noticed, there are no ads. (Holy pledge break, Batman! It's just like public TV!) >>> There is also a rehashed set of drawings on the back which are >>> just nasty. Jon Pertwee doesn't even remotely resemble that drawing!! Neither did William Hartnell in the upper left hand corner. For that matter, nor did Sarah Jane Smith in the middle pages of DW #1. Perhaps we should have the artists responsible exterminated, hmm? :-) Now for some complaints I have heard from a few other people: "The artwork is bad...really bad. I'm only getting it for collector purposes only." "Marvel doesn't know how to color on Baxter! They use the same coloring scheme they use on Mando! At least DC knows how to color on Baxter." and my 2 pence (sic): Do they really need to use Baxter? I'd be happy is they used Mando [paper], and it might bring down the price to the $1.00-$1.25 range. Also, I believe it was dec-akov68!jayembee who pointed out that Tom Baker is no longer the Doctor. The problem is with some markets that only get T. Baker episodes -- the only actor that fans in these areas know as the Doctor is Tom. Please MAIL (do not POST) any rebuttals; I'll try to rely ASAP. [Thank you mistress. Repairs complete.] -- Jim Poltrone {allegra,ihnp4}!watmath!sunybcs!acsgjjp ...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!acsgjjp decvax!sunybcs!acsgjjp acsgjjp.buffalo@csnet-relay.csnet (If you can find a shorter path, use it!)
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (08/09/84)
>The Dr Who book also brings out another pet peeve I have about mainstream >comics. The #$%$&)(0"#$ kiddie companion. I don't mean one like Cap'n >Quick (thats a good integration of a child into a comic story), but ditsy >little cretins whose only function is to get themselves into trouble. >I mean, if you had some wonderous super-power, would you want some sniveling >little creature around you? Getting into your way? Creating trouble wherever >he/she goes? Yechh... > >I didn't like the kiddie side-kicks when I was a child, either. I thought >they were 'stupid'. I still think they are 'stupid'. > >What do you think? Well, there are two cases where the "kid companions" are interesting: when they are done with unerring accuracy, or with great innocence (the latter is much tougher... I can only think of one case where I thought it was REALLY well done, A LITTLE ROMANCE (which is, of course, another medium altogether ("another medium" :-) ))). Otherwise, I'm not crazy about 'em either -- Bucky in particular (should have renamed him "The Sniveller"). But why do you think there is a outbreak of 'em know? There are a lot of kids, but not many kid sidekicks... I think it's a trend that is dying out. "Silver bullets MY ASS!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (08/11/84)
>Perhaps we should have the artists responsible exterminated, hmm? :-)
One of 'em's Walt Simonson... I rather doubt that Marvel will exterminate
the artist/writer who's bringing in more income than any other at this time
(yes, quit snivelling, Claremont! :-) ).
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
-Wernher von Braun
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA