Congrats to Linden and Aimee Kiser, who got married on Saturday, July 30. May God bless them with many wonderful years together!
Kize These Two People Grade: A+
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Comic Review: All-Star Batman and Robin #1
Today marked the return of Frank Miller in the world of Batman comic books. Writer of The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One (basically regarded as the best Batman stories ever), Miller has the ability to send fanboys rushing to comic stores by the millions whenever his name is attached to anything remotely Bat-related. Also able to generate such a sales frenzy (even when paired with horrible writing) is artist Jim Lee, who joins Miller on DC Comics' biggest summer release, All Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder.
The comic marks the launch of DC's "All Star" line of books, in which top talent will be matched with marquee characters like Batman and Superman. The philosophy behind the All Star brand is that each series will feature the "iconic" versions of the characters, unlinked to any specific continuity or reliance on character history. In other words, to understand All Star Batman, you don't need to know the ins and outs of his every adventure from the past 10 years, you just need to have heard of the character at some point in your life.
With stand-alone storylines being the advertised nature of All Star, it seems peculiar that Miller would spend his first issue retelling the story of how Dick Grayson became Robin. In comics, the revision of origin stories is commonplace, but their purpose is almost exclusively limited to serving as a starting point for a new status quo or emphasis for the chosen character. Since the All Star titles are supposed to exist separate from the specificities of any one writer's version of the heroes, why dedicate an entire All Star storyline to the details of a main character's origin? Secondly, the origin of Robin is probably the third most commonly told story in the history of comics, behind only the origins of Batman and Superman. In my life, I've read at least six other elaborate and independent takes on this story, not to mention seen a movie and a TV episode about the same topic. Even the casual Batman fan has had plenty of opportunities to see these events unfold before picking up All Star Batman and Robin #1.
That said, it is not as if Frank Miller does an unsatisfactory job in telling his version of the murder of Dick Grayson's parents. He does a decent job in the limited space he has here in making their deaths feel tragic, and he adds a potentially interesting new plotline for the future by suggesting that corrupt Gotham cops were involved. As expected, Miller manages to throw his fair share of grim and gritty heroism into the story. The best part of the comic is Batman's internal monologue about the snake venom-laced Batarang he uses on the Graysons' killer. Still, the 18th version of the same story in the past 50 years can only be so interesting, and it's doubtful that any longtime Batman fans will be truly captivated by this first issue.
One really can't describe All Star Batman and Robin's first chapter as fantastic, though the larger story it begins may very well turn out to be. If that happens, my labeling of this current issue as mediocre will be quickly revoked. However, for that to be the case, Miller must eventually come to present us with something new.
Kize grade: C+
The comic marks the launch of DC's "All Star" line of books, in which top talent will be matched with marquee characters like Batman and Superman. The philosophy behind the All Star brand is that each series will feature the "iconic" versions of the characters, unlinked to any specific continuity or reliance on character history. In other words, to understand All Star Batman, you don't need to know the ins and outs of his every adventure from the past 10 years, you just need to have heard of the character at some point in your life.
With stand-alone storylines being the advertised nature of All Star, it seems peculiar that Miller would spend his first issue retelling the story of how Dick Grayson became Robin. In comics, the revision of origin stories is commonplace, but their purpose is almost exclusively limited to serving as a starting point for a new status quo or emphasis for the chosen character. Since the All Star titles are supposed to exist separate from the specificities of any one writer's version of the heroes, why dedicate an entire All Star storyline to the details of a main character's origin? Secondly, the origin of Robin is probably the third most commonly told story in the history of comics, behind only the origins of Batman and Superman. In my life, I've read at least six other elaborate and independent takes on this story, not to mention seen a movie and a TV episode about the same topic. Even the casual Batman fan has had plenty of opportunities to see these events unfold before picking up All Star Batman and Robin #1.
That said, it is not as if Frank Miller does an unsatisfactory job in telling his version of the murder of Dick Grayson's parents. He does a decent job in the limited space he has here in making their deaths feel tragic, and he adds a potentially interesting new plotline for the future by suggesting that corrupt Gotham cops were involved. As expected, Miller manages to throw his fair share of grim and gritty heroism into the story. The best part of the comic is Batman's internal monologue about the snake venom-laced Batarang he uses on the Graysons' killer. Still, the 18th version of the same story in the past 50 years can only be so interesting, and it's doubtful that any longtime Batman fans will be truly captivated by this first issue.
One really can't describe All Star Batman and Robin's first chapter as fantastic, though the larger story it begins may very well turn out to be. If that happens, my labeling of this current issue as mediocre will be quickly revoked. However, for that to be the case, Miller must eventually come to present us with something new.
Kize grade: C+
A New Day on the Horizon
Last week, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court. More so than for any particular judicial opinion that she wrote, O'Connor will forever be remembered as the first woman to ever sit on the bench for the highest court in the land. While her accomplishment in doing so certainly served as an inspiration to ambitious female law students everywhere, she did little during her tenure on the Court to combat the stereotype that women are fickle.
Commonly known for her role as the swing vote, O'Connor was as likely to side with the Court's liberal judicial activists as she was with its so-called conservative contingent. Her votes to uphold the legality of affirmative action and abortion were hardly the stuff you'd expect from a Reagan appointee, yet she sided with Dubya in 2000's famous Bush v. Gore case regarding the recount in Florida. The reason for her unpredictable inconsistencies? Simply a lack of any kind of consistent method of interpreting the Constitution. As described by my 3rd year Con Law professor, O'Connor, unlike the other justices, followed no particular judicial philosophy, favoring instead to apply arbitrary standards to issues on a case-by-case basis.
Though all signs currently point to the "moderate" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it certainly would be nice if Bush managed to place a strict constructionist on the Court who could help to finally reverse the last half-century's improper liberal abuse of judicial power. After all, judicial nominations are the main reason I vote for Republican presidents. If nothing else, however, we can at least hope for a justice who follows unified principles and a logical philosophy in deciphering the nation's law.
Commonly known for her role as the swing vote, O'Connor was as likely to side with the Court's liberal judicial activists as she was with its so-called conservative contingent. Her votes to uphold the legality of affirmative action and abortion were hardly the stuff you'd expect from a Reagan appointee, yet she sided with Dubya in 2000's famous Bush v. Gore case regarding the recount in Florida. The reason for her unpredictable inconsistencies? Simply a lack of any kind of consistent method of interpreting the Constitution. As described by my 3rd year Con Law professor, O'Connor, unlike the other justices, followed no particular judicial philosophy, favoring instead to apply arbitrary standards to issues on a case-by-case basis.
Though all signs currently point to the "moderate" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it certainly would be nice if Bush managed to place a strict constructionist on the Court who could help to finally reverse the last half-century's improper liberal abuse of judicial power. After all, judicial nominations are the main reason I vote for Republican presidents. If nothing else, however, we can at least hope for a justice who follows unified principles and a logical philosophy in deciphering the nation's law.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Deleted Live 8 Post
For some reason, Blogger overwrote my post about MTV's coverage of the Live 8 music festival. Basically, I pointed out how retarded MTV was for promising to "cover" the landmark concert and then proceeding to show hardly any of the music on the air. In its place were numerous documentaries about the history of musicians and activism, mixed in with lame commentary about by VJs about the music, which you could hear faintly in the background. In a situation where MTV could have created quality programming simply by pointing a camera at the stage, they failed miserably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)