Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Episode 1451 Talkback - Off the Racks: Doc Savage #1, Inhumanity #1, and Justice League 3000 #1

Doc Savage #1 from Dynamite Entertainment, Inhumanity #1 from Marvel, and Justice League 3000 #1 from DC: Which of these three comics has induced fits of self-loathing in one of the Geeks? This month's Off the Racks episode holds the answer! (1:33:29)

Listen here.

Comments

  • rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    I had many of the same feelings about Inhumanity. I liked the book. Unfortunately, it smacks of Metagene bomb. The new influx of characters will only lead to an eventual culling of characters that don't make the grade. I didn't know about the rift between Fraction and Editorial. This gives me pause. I had told my LCS to put the series in my holdslot. I might have to change that.
  • John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087
    Your discussion combined with a glance at preview pages enticed me to pick up Doc Savage.
    Mission accomplished.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    edited January 2014
    I thought Inhumanity was pretty good. I'm disappointed Fraction won't be writing the ongoing.
  • rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    Justice League 3000. Borrow.
    The best work I've seen Howard Porter do. I remember reading an interview Porter gave back in his JLA days regarding his process. At that time he would work out the pages on letter size paper, scan them and then scale the scans to 11 x 17 to finish the pages. Not a good process. There was always some unexplained wonkieness to the pages. Bodies were turn oddly, perspective would be off. These JL3000 pages don't have any of that. Very nice.
    Back in the day, that would have been enough. Unfortunately, New52 has soured me on DC and I don't need more sophomoric JL.
  • rebis said:

    Justice League 3000. Borrow.
    The best work I've seen Howard Porter do. I remember reading an interview Porter gave back in his JLA days regarding his process. At that time he would work out the pages on letter size paper, scan them and then scale the scans to 11 x 17 to finish the pages. Not a good process. There was always some unexplained wonkieness to the pages. Bodies were turn oddly, perspective would be off. These JL3000 pages don't have any of that. Very nice.

    I never thought Porter's work in those days looked wonky at all. And that really wasn't an uncommon approach to drawing a comics page -- I saw a Wonder Woman story in progress back in the 70's done just that way by an apprentice at Neal Adams' studio. Adams took the letter size roughs (which were very comprehensive) and tighten up the faces of the main characters, and Dick Giordano did the finals on 11 x 17, having used a projector to scale them up.

    In fact, back when I was editing for a local indie comic book outfit here in town, we published some of Moritat's early work, and I remember his first story being drawn on typewriter paper -- so tight and clean that we just reproduced it as it was without scaling it up.
  • rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    I just did a google image search for Porter's JLA & Trail of SHAZAM work. The figures tend to be static. Faces seem "concave", and the stuff that Dell inks has a colorforms feel to it.
    The JLA 3000 work doesn't have any of that.
  • I'm a Pants with Justice League 3000. Didn't find anything other than the art that I actually enjoyed. The characters were wooden and cliched, the setting felt underdeveloped, and nothing felt original. And I'm not at a point in my reading history where I can buy things for art alone.
  • Just listened to the podcast today and Justice League 3000...I bought it...but, kinda wished I hadn't. I just didn't care about the characters or the world that is being presented. But like most first issues, I may need to give it another issue or two before final judgment. I did like how Murd compared it to Marvel's 2099 line. And I loved Spidey and Doom 2099. If DC is going in that direction and trying to set up an alternate future stage to put out some different characters and stories I say go for it! I really enjoyed the Marvel titles back then, so why not give DC a chance.
    Doc Savage sounds interesting so I will need to check it out. Inhumanity, I just have never cared about the Inhumans. They just don't grab me and this story doesn't either. BOOM! A bomb goes off and now we have a whole lot more inhumans on earth. Just great, now we are gonna have more villains and heroes and more...wait a minute. I think I may need to just shut my trap and go along for this ride to see what happens here. Maybe I can just watch some titles and see what develops. So just to recap that's : Justice League 3000 -buyrow, Doc Savage - buy( to try), and Inhumanity - pants, but keep a watch on it. Thanks guys for a great podcast. Keep up the good work.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,748

    rebis said:

    Justice League 3000. Borrow.
    The best work I've seen Howard Porter do. I remember reading an interview Porter gave back in his JLA days regarding his process. At that time he would work out the pages on letter size paper, scan them and then scale the scans to 11 x 17 to finish the pages. Not a good process. There was always some unexplained wonkieness to the pages. Bodies were turn oddly, perspective would be off. These JL3000 pages don't have any of that. Very nice.

    I never thought Porter's work in those days looked wonky at all. And that really wasn't an uncommon approach to drawing a comics page -- I saw a Wonder Woman story in progress back in the 70's done just that way by an apprentice at Neal Adams' studio. Adams took the letter size roughs (which were very comprehensive) and tighten up the faces of the main characters, and Dick Giordano did the finals on 11 x 17, having used a projector to scale them up.

    In fact, back when I was editing for a local indie comic book outfit here in town, we published some of Moritat's early work, and I remember his first story being drawn on typewriter paper -- so tight and clean that we just reproduced it as it was without scaling it up.
    I’m not sure who the first comic book artist to work with smaller layouts was before transferring them to a larger page was, but it goes back at least as far as the ’50s. I know Al Williamson worked with a projector as far back as when he was with EC. Neal Adams adapted it from the same place Williamson did: the advertising and magazine illustrators of the day. I think some of the newspaper strip guys worked that way too.

    Once Xerox copiers came along and guys started blowing up the layouts that way, it became an easier and more widespread practice. Because then all you needed was a simple lightbox to transfer the roughs to the board. These days, as Howard described, guys just scan in the roughs, and scale them up in Photoshop. Unless, of course, they do all their preliminary work digitally, which is quickly becoming the norm.

    The reason you work small first is because it’s a lot quicker and easier to make changes at that size if something’s not working out in the storytelling. The only reason artists work at the one-and-a-half-times-up size is so that when the art is shrunk down for printing, it hides any minor imperfections. It used to be necessary given the printing technology. These days it’s not really necessary. A lot of guys now work at print size or just slightly larger, especially if they have a more open, graphic style.

    Any wonkiness you saw in Howard’s JLA pages had nothing to do with him blowing up layouts. Most likely it was due to deadline crunches. And to be fair, he’d only been penciling on a monthly basis for three years at that point. He was still learning his craft.
  • John_SteedJohn_Steed Posts: 2,087

    Your discussion combined with a glance at preview pages enticed me to pick up Doc Savage.
    Mission accomplished.

    Enjoyed the first issue of Doc Savage. A fast, fun read. Nice atmosphere throughout. Interesting characters. Looking forward to more.
  • The discussion on Inhumanity brought up the parallels with the X-men franchise, and that it's very editorially driven. I think these are both related. Because yes, the Inhumans are now redundant with the X-men. But what does that mean?

    There is zero chance of Fox ever letting go of the X-men franchise, which means the MCU can't exploit one of Marvel's richest and most profitable franchises. I think the Inhumans status quo change is an attempt to rebrand them, so in the future it can be developed into a film or series that has the same kind of tone as X-men.

    By doing it in the comics first it seems less cynical than when "Black Nick Fury" and Phil Coulson were introduced into 616, plus it will give new readers something to go back to if and when a movie comes out that resemebles the movie they just watched, which would be very different from the numerous ways the Inhumans have been portrayed in the past.
  • hauberkhauberk Posts: 1,511
    With the music being used in the last couple of issues, curious to know if you've studied up on fair use. I realize that you're giving away the program for free, but with sponsors, I grow concerned about that kind of exposure... I complain about sound levels but still look forward to the show continuing and don't want anything jeopardizing that.

    Similar concern about hosts occasionally, very bluntly, acknowledging accessing certain material through alternative means.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    hauberk said:

    With the music being used in the last couple of issues, curious to know if you've studied up on fair use. I realize that you're giving away the program for free, but with sponsors, I grow concerned about that kind of exposure... I complain about sound levels but still look forward to the show continuing and don't want anything jeopardizing that.

    Similar concern about hosts occasionally, very bluntly, acknowledging accessing certain material through alternative means.

    Who are you worried about? Are podcasts screened on a regular basis and is there a history of small potato(sorry guys!) podcasts being fined or shut down?
  • hauberkhauberk Posts: 1,511
    If Girl Scout camps get sued for use of songs, it seems like podcasts could just as easily. Is it a big concern? No. Is it potentially relevant and something worth bringing up to make sure that the powers that be have measured their exposure? I think so.

    I'm not an attorney and I know almost as much about fair use and copyright law as I do about operating a linear accelerator. I do, however, occasionally have to deal with litigators and it's almost as enjoyable an enjoyable experience as a root canal.
  • LibraryBoyLibraryBoy Posts: 1,803
    @Adam_Murdough - That Doc Savage logo did indeed originate with the Bantam paperback reprints that started in the 60s.

    As for the magazine in which his adventures originally appeared, that was called - wait for it - Doc Savage Magazine!

    In regards to his companions, I've seen them referred to informally as "the Fabulous Five." I'm not sure if that originated from Bantam or came about as a result of the movie (they are billed in the credits by that name), but I think it's only used in materials talking about the group and not in the stories themselves (certainly none of the ones I've read). I think they're only ever referred to as his aides or partners, and sometimes when Doc addresses them collectively he'll say "Brothers" (wonder if that's where Chris Eberle gets that from?).
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,748
    hauberk said:

    If Girl Scout camps get sued for use of songs, it seems like podcasts could just as easily. Is it a big concern? No. Is it potentially relevant and something worth bringing up to make sure that the powers that be have measured their exposure? I think so.

    I'm not an attorney and I know almost as much about fair use and copyright law as I do about operating a linear accelerator. I do, however, occasionally have to deal with litigators and it's almost as enjoyable an enjoyable experience as a root canal.

    As long as CGS can prove it is not for profit (that is to say that their sponsors only cover their expenses), and they do not play a copyrighted song in its entirety (up to 45 seconds is the general rule, I think, but it’s kind of vague), then they’ll be okay. Otherwise they could potentially have problems.
  • hauberkhauberk Posts: 1,511

    hauberk said:

    If Girl Scout camps get sued for use of songs, it seems like podcasts could just as easily. Is it a big concern? No. Is it potentially relevant and something worth bringing up to make sure that the powers that be have measured their exposure? I think so.

    I'm not an attorney and I know almost as much about fair use and copyright law as I do about operating a linear accelerator. I do, however, occasionally have to deal with litigators and it's almost as enjoyable an enjoyable experience as a root canal.

    As long as CGS can prove it is not for profit (that is to say that their sponsors only cover their expenses), and they do not play a copyrighted song in its entirety (up to 45 seconds is the general rule, I think, but it’s kind of vague), then they’ll be okay. Otherwise they could potentially have problems.
    And thus, knowing is half the battle (while the other half is made up of equal parts red and blue lasers).
  • hauberkhauberk Posts: 1,511
    On Justice League 3000, I'm pretty much in the same boat as Shane and Adam. I'm a bit resentful that we're getting this instead of a real Legion book but I did appreciate the metatext that Adam pointed out and hopes that Giffen continues to be his curmudgenly self and take editorial to task.
  • CorwinCorwin Posts: 549
    I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Karnak in Inhumanity #1

    He draws the tuning fork then realizes he was wrong. I see it can be one of two things.

    image

    Karnak sees the Inhumans coming from one lineage and breaking into two separate "Houses" that will be at war with each other. I don't recognize the symbols on the flags. Then Karnak realizes that he was wrong does that mean it's the coming together or two lines? Or do I have it backwards?

    And look at the point he decides to touch to shatter the glass? The meeting point of the lines. Coincidence? I think not.
  • alienalalienal Posts: 508
    Just listened....
    Music: Ah, it was okay, not great...kinda blah actually.
    Inhumanity #1: BORROW: I liked it more than I thought I would, but I didn't like Karnak's action at the end. Like Murd said though, perhaps it was the toxins in the atmosphere.
    Doc Savage: Didn't read it.
    Justice League 3000: BUYROW: First off, this was NOT meant to replace the Legion of Super Heroes comic. It's a stand alone thing. Second, I don't have any preference of McGuire over Porter or anything like that so I didn't mind the artwork at all. And unlike Jamie, I like the grittiness of the Blade Runner-like world and the artwork reflected it. Third, I find the mysteries of who the JLA are cloned from, what's Ariel got to do with it, and who are the Five, etc. I also find myself wondering if, as opposed to what Shane said, that this series might be related to Forever Evil because the Titans were sent to the future, weren't they? Especially since you all did allude to Kid Flash and the clone Superboy.
Sign In or Register to comment.