The Superman Family Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
zarkko the tomorrow man

In Reply To
omike015

Subj: Re: Chuck Austen's run on Action
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:13:10 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Chuck Austen's run on Action
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:14:34 pm EST

Previous Post

> The chief complaints that I've read here and in the reviews on the Superman Homepage reviews.
>
> -Gog as the villian. While there wasn't much of a complaint, it mainly stemmed from the fact that we were told this is the first time Superman ever dealt with him. Which flew in the face of "The Kingdom" from a few years earlier.
>
> -Doomsday's role. Doomsday was brought into the arc as having escaped from Darksied's clutches and was slowly but surely making his way to Metropolis.

How are thse complaints?

> -A new villian called the Repo Man, which made no sense when he first appeared. Had a lousy name and seemed to be filler.

Lousy name, sure. But that issue provided for one of Neil Bailey’s funniest reviews.

> -Superman making wisecracks. Some didn't mind, but others did take Austen to task for this since the character hadn't done that in a long time. Some felt that he was trying to write him as Spider-Man.

Ah, yes. The “Superman shouldn’t be funny” argument. Still doesn’t hold up for me.

> -There were those who cited inconsistancies throughout the storyline. Sales were affected and so at some point, DC apparently let Chuck go before his run was completed. J.D. Finn came in and while the first issue he/she wrote was better recieved, the second part wasn't.

But you notice, pre-sales on both issues went up. There’s really no explanation for that other than people were avoiding the book -- not because it was bad -- but because of who was writing it.

>Research amongest the fanbase revealed that there was no J.D. Finn working for DC or Marvel. And apparently, any other company. This led many to suspect it was either Austen trying to prove a point that the dislike of his run was because of him. Or that it was someone else. Some suspect it was then editor Eddie Bergenza using a pseudonym. Austen did go on record as saying those final two issues were not how he would resolve the story.

I still believe it was Austen. People seem to forget that, at the same time, he was “replaced” by “Sam Clemens” on his creator-owned title WORLDWATCH.

omike015
:-|

> > The chief complaints that I've read here and in the reviews on the Superman Homepage reviews.
> >
> > -Gog as the villian. While there wasn't much of a complaint, it mainly stemmed from the fact that we were told this is the first time Superman ever dealt with him. Which flew in the face of "The Kingdom" from a few years earlier.
> >
> > -Doomsday's role. Doomsday was brought into the arc as having escaped from Darksied's clutches and was slowly but surely making his way to Metropolis.
>
> How are thse complaints?
>
> > -A new villian called the Repo Man, which made no sense when he first appeared. Had a lousy name and seemed to be filler.
>
> Lousy name, sure. But that issue provided for one of Neil Bailey’s funniest reviews.
>
> > -Superman making wisecracks. Some didn't mind, but others did take Austen to task for this since the character hadn't done that in a long time. Some felt that he was trying to write him as Spider-Man.
>
> Ah, yes. The “Superman shouldn’t be funny” argument. Still doesn’t hold up for me.
>
> > -There were those who cited inconsistancies throughout the storyline. Sales were affected and so at some point, DC apparently let Chuck go before his run was completed. J.D. Finn came in and while the first issue he/she wrote was better recieved, the second part wasn't.
>
> But you notice, pre-sales on both issues went up. There’s really no explanation for that other than people were avoiding the book -- not because it was bad -- but because of who was writing it.
>
> >Research amongest the fanbase revealed that there was no J.D. Finn working for DC or Marvel. And apparently, any other company. This led many to suspect it was either Austen trying to prove a point that the dislike of his run was because of him. Or that it was someone else. Some suspect it was then editor Eddie Bergenza using a pseudonym. Austen did go on record as saying those final two issues were not how he would resolve the story.
>
> I still believe it was Austen. People seem to forget that, at the same time, he was “replaced” by “Sam Clemens” on his creator-owned title WORLDWATCH.
>
> omike015
> \:\-\|


One thing that i've noticed Austen does, that I don't personally like, is he mines past continuity for dangling plotlines that would be cool to see, like Nightcrawler's parentage, or seeing Doomsday and Gog again, and then handles them... roughly. Characters just appear without rhyme or reason, and act totally unlike you've ever seen them act before. His dialogue also seems awfully stiff as well.

As for superman being funny, it's ok if he's funny, but it's not OK when he comes off as an obnoxious twerp. He's a smart, and mature person, and his sense of humor should reflect as much.

Also, I think he's got an issue with women, between Miss Marvel being hyperion's co-dependent super-freak, She-hulk's inexplicable one night stand with juggernaut minutes after talking to him, and Preus (ugh) raping women to death.

The combination of all of these things, make me wary of anything Mr. Austen writes. Invariably though, I get drawn in by sensational cover promises (New Capt. Britain, Nightcrawler's father, Doomsday, Gog, Exiles meet X-men) and I buy his drivel, and end up hating every issue by the 4th page.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.9 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software