Alpha Flight (Vol.4) #1 Review Compilation Thread

[suzene]

I dunno... with Volume 3 I can see what he's saying. Although y'know just competant writing, ala Chaos War & this Volume so far, rather than a killing spree would have worked too.

There was nothing about v.3 so messed up that it inherently required a complete deck-clearing exercise of the original team, though. Killing off the team did nothing to correct the continuity headache of Marvel Has Two Alpha Flights -- Bendis intended it to be the real Flight that was killed and no one cared about the spares. All it accomplished was to give Wolverine three panels of angst (and that's counting the Dark Avengers/X-Men crossover), tick off a lot of Alpha Flight fans (and all seven fans of Puck II and Major Maple Leaf II), and still necessitated someone else cleaning up Lobdell's loose ends. And even after all of that, it's not like Chaos War or v.4 took pains to address the issue. All that was needed to solve the problem was pretty much the handwave that was given: the real team came back from space, the xeroxes are no more, let us never speak of this again. Not nuking the team would have meant we wouldn't have needed the Chaos War one-shot to undo Bendis' (and Fraction's, to be fair) killing spree among the Flight, and that Pak and Van Lente wouldn't have to fish Puck out of Hell, while not killing off the team would have presented very few roadblocks as to their portrayal in v.4 -- even without Heather and Mac dying, given their history up to this point, making a case for them as unfit parents/an unstable home environment wouldn't have been difficult, Marinna would still have 1001 reasons to be messed up after being cracked out of a test tube, etc.

TL;DR: Killing off the team solved none of the existing complications associated with Alpha Flight, it just presented a really big new one.

[DelBubs]

I gotta agree with the first paragraph, being the non creative type, I honestly can't see what else you could have done with Alpha to get it where it is now.

[mreeez]

To be honest, the reason Bendis killed off AF was to give his buddy, Oeming, cart blanche to put whatever roster he wanted to in Omega Flight.

[suzene]

http://littleyellowboxes.tumblr.com/...-image-15-6-11

[varo]

http://mrcomicbookafterschool.blogsp...1-morning.html

[varo]

http://networkedblogs.com/jyr9U

[suzene]

http://cosmostreats.tumblr.com/post/...22nd-june-2011

[Phil]

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/review...3648973551.htm

[suzene]

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/review...3648973551.htm

I don't know whether to laugh or headdesk over their criticisms of the artist's research.

[Wolfie]

I don't know whether to laugh or headdesk over their criticisms of the artist's research.

Same here, Suzene! I saw that one and thought they were really unprofessional. Dale actually called him out on it on Twitter, saying that the script called specifically for the area around the Harbour Centre Lookout. It's not "all glass" around there! It's, well, exactly the way Dale showed it.

GARR, these people make me angry sometimes. The whole section on Vancouver (including the other comment that "Eaglesham does what most comic artists do: draw Generic Stand-In City for whatever city that writer's decided to set the story in.") should have been removed from the review once he was corrected publicly. Leaving it in just spreads lies to people who don't know any better. Besides, Dale always does thorough research on the locations being used, with Google Earth and Street View, etc. AND he does this even though he has 8 issues to draw in 8 months! You would think people would appreciate that kind of dedication and attention to detail.

What strikes me most is just how hard so-called "reviewers" try to dig for things to pick on, rather than giving props for the strong elements. It's so rare to see an educated review that doesn't come off as a bunch of fan-boys (no offense intended, we love our geeks!) trying to feel important by tearing people down.

Okay, I'm done now...

[Le Messor]

Glad he liked the book, but I really could not disagree with that first paragraph more.

I couldn't disagree with his spelling of 'Marianna' more.

Same here, Suzene! I saw that one and thought they were really unprofessional.

I'm noticing that we're saying anybody who disses the issues are unprofessional or bad reviewers...

Also, the 'generic city' art... worst I've ever seen was in a JLI annual. They showed my home city (Canberra), which in real life looks nothing like Generic City (that's on the west coast). The Simpsons got it more right!

- Le Messor
"Kant's principle of universalisability in ethics is often alluded to by the common question: "What if everybody did it?" But to this, there is a common rejoinder: "They don't."
~ T.V. Morris, Bluffer's Guide to Philosophy

[Wolfie]

I couldn't disagree with his spelling of 'Marianna' more.

I'm noticing that we're saying anybody who disses the issues are unprofessional or bad reviewers...

I can't speak for others, but in my case (and it's my quote you used), I say they're unprofessional if they make inaccurate statements. These guys, for example, criticized elements of the art where they were just plain factually wrong. I call them unprofessional because they criticize Dale for not portraying Vancouver correctly, and for using generic cityscapes, when in fact the script called for a very specific area of Vancouver and his rendition was spot-on. If you're going to make public statements, I think you need to make sure you're not talking out of your derrière first.

Nowadays, anyone with access to the Internet can call themselves reviewers, but honestly, I'd say only about 1 in 10 "reviews" I read are TRUE, professional reviews. I was chatting with a Marvel exec the other day, and he was remembering how he reviewed some comics of Dale's many years ago. He said just how embarrassed he was about those old reviews, and how unprofessional they were. And those reviews of his, in my opinion, were leagues ahead of what we read these days. Most reviewers today don't even seem to know who does what, for Pete's sake!! They'll blame or credit one member of the creative team for something that had nothing to do with them, and vice-versa.

As for the word serviceable (re: your comment on another thread), it bothers me because of its dismissive nature. What if I said "Michael Jackson's music is serviceable," for example? Is that accurate? No, of course not. I think we can agree that he is recognized as being talented and has proven himself over a span of many years. I can say "I've never enjoyed that type of music, so this song doesn't do it for me." AH! Now that's fine. So when someone who obviously likes more cartoony art says that someone more realistic "sucks," yep, I have a problem with that. A reviewer should be well-versed in all types of art and be able to recognize an artist's strengths and weaknesses WITHIN that genre.

If you look more closely, by the way, you'll see there are many reviews on which I don't comment. They can be negative reviews, as long as their criticisms are legitimate and supported by evidence.

[varo]

i read that one too phil, and i was going to link it, but it just seemed like they were trying to outwit one another rather than give a actual review.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Oh, they're idiots anyway...They don't even know who Cody's "poster boy" was that the book was referring to (believing it could be Puck), did they not even really read the issue?...The person in question was revealed at the end....And they think that Box is controlling Cody....LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

The comments about Vancouver being inaccurate are just stupid...I even recognized the building Attuma smashes as a Vancouver building (and I'm not Canadian, not have I visited Vancouver)...Harbour Centre, as Wolfie points out.

Dana

Here's the building...I've been seeing pictures of it for years...

http://www.1st-vancouver.com/images/...iseship_lg.jpg

[Wolfie]

The tower actually has a pretty cool website where you can get a 360-degree view. Nifty! http://www.vancouverlookout.com/