4 Comments | Add a Comment

0

DARK TOWER
© Marvel

Sponsored Links
Com Escape
Scape
Real Estate
Apartment for Rent
Personals

Comicscape - November 2, 2005

For those of you still living in your parent's basement playing ZORK, pop fiction's reigning lord of horror, Stephen King, and Marvel will collaborate on a DARK TOWER comic book scheduled for release in April of next year. King remains one of the most successful authors of the 20th and 21st centuries (thus far). Some say his foray into comics may revitalize the industry with an event akin to THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Burton's BATMAN, or the Image exodus that launched the '90s boom, perhaps returning comics to the mainstream. Amidst the gushing from the Merry Marvel Marketing Machine and the message board hype, I offer my usual restrained, reasoned perspective a voice crying in the cyber-wilderness, if you will. Undeniably, this collaboration will generate positive press for the entire comic book industry. While I've long hoped for an adrenaline shot of sorts, I have my reservations about this whole sordid affair.

I've read a few of King's novels, though none from THE DARK TOWER series. Though I don't regard King's novels as great literature, he remains an engaging and entertaining (and profitable) voice in pop fiction. I generally don't care for pop fiction, but won't spit upon it too vehemently, as it has its place, I read it occasionally, and, hell, comics certainly qualify. My concerns lay not so much in the quality of King's writing, as much as his level of participation in the project and the public's reaction (or lack thereof).

In an interview over at Newsarama, Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada explained the collaboration with King. During a pitch session, King summarized several DARK TOWER prequel miniseries that take place during the period flashed-back to in the fourth book of the series, WIZARD AND GLASS. The first series will be six issues starting in April, and more will follow along with hardcover and trade paperback collections. As King brainstormed, Robin Furth (author of two DARK TOWER companion volumes) typed notes and later composed them in single issue summaries. Then, Quesada wrote single page descriptions for artist Jae Lee. When asked by Newsarama about the final scripting, Quesada replied, "Right now, we're concentrating on getting the visual rendering of the story finalized. The actual scripting will be the finishing touch." For all of Marvel's emoting about King, it seems the editor-in-chief can't definitively state that King will even write the dialogue for this series. For clarity: Marvel hasn't stated King's level of involvement past what I summarized here. Quesada merely reassured Newsarama that King collaborated every step of the way. Yet, that doesn't necessarily mean that King will actually write this series in the truest sense of the word, with plot, page layout, and dialogue.

For all of the positive press King's involvement will initially lend Marvel, a noticeable lull will follow if he just brainstorms a few ideas. Licensed comics have long shared the shelf with original properties at our comic shops. Almost every major science fiction, fantasy, or horror film and television franchise you can think of has been adapted, continued, and expanded upon. STAR WARS remains one of the most successful media properties ever, and yet the Dark Horse comics haven't brought non-comic readers to the shops in droves. While King commands a large, devoted fan base, I hesitate to think that this will change the state of the industry one that still must contend with the ever-growing wave of electronic entertainment. I've already seen a few forum posts that mention the similar wave of hype that accompanied Joss Whedon's move to ASTONISHING X-MEN, which largely failed to garner the non-comic reading public's attention. I know people that would probably take a bullet for Whedon, and they still don't read that title (or SERENITY or any other). Even fewer will likely care about this if King only collaborates on the stories and doesn't even write the dialogue.

Of course, if King provides the ideas, he'll have collaborated, but he won't have written the series exclusively. That sucks a bit of the wind out of the whole idea. Granted, comic writing especially at Marvel has often been a collaborative venture, particularly when artists draw from plot summaries rather than detailed scripts. Yet, most Stephen King fans will want a comic by the man himself, not just one presented by him, with a story by him, or in his universe. All of the aforementioned may sell well enough, but this won't be much of an event if King's not on board all the way.

If you feel like saying your peace about Stephen King's deal with Marvel, feel free to e-mail me at comicscape@cinescape.com or at kurtamacker@yahoo.com. If I get enough mail, I'll run your letters next week. Try to get them to me by Sunday at the latest. Failing that, I'll complain about something else.

Now, on to Bat-Mail. Simon Cochrane writes, "The nihilism you pick up on in BATMAN RETURNS is something to be applauded and not berated. It's the perfect way to end any film which portrays a story based on an ever-spurring series. This isn't to say it's open-ended. The Penguin for certain is gone. Batman remains. Only Catwoman had a question mark, but enough material allowed for any imagination to cater for the continuation of her hinted deliverance from psychosis."

Upon reflection, the nihilism doesn't bother me as much as I thought it did. Ultimately, though, both BATMAN and BATMAN BEGINS ended on a high note hope for the future, chins up, and all that. Batman remains a hero, and it pleases us to feel like he's saved the day. I laud Burton for trying something different, but the film certainly closes on a dour note.

Adam Nickol writes, "[You wrote] that you consider BATMAN FOREVER and BATMAN AND ROBIN to be part of a second series because they have no reference to the Burton films...there was a definite reference to Catwoman that was made in BATMAN FOREVER. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman) was talking to I believe Batman, though I am not sure if it was while he was suited up or dressed as Bruce, about the kind of women that he likes. She asked him if she should dress in skin tight vinyl and carry a leather whip."

You're right I missed that line. Unfortunately, that single quip doesn't quite compare to Bruce Wayne ruminating over his off-screen breakup with Vicki Vale in BATMAN RETURNS, as well as berating Alfred for letting her into the Batcave. In Burton's second film, Batman reacts to the events of the first film. In BATMAN FOREVER, he clearly hasn't grown or changed after losing a woman he cared for deeply, nor does he even bother to mention her. While Chase's joke may tacitly imply continuity, the rest of the film doesn't follow through.

David James writes, "Watching the extras for the first BATMAN reminded me of how, despite some flaws, I think it got a LOT more right in the end than BATMAN BEGINS did the Batmobile, the music, the retro 1940s setting, the humor, action scenes that are genuinely exciting... "

When you say music, do you include the then-modern Prince songs played throughout the film?

"And I'm sorry, but it's not nostalgia that makes me think Keaton looks MUCH cooler in the costume than Bale. The way he moved, his attitude, that evil grin as he dared the Joker's goons to fight him... This Batman had real personality, where Bale just seems to do a Clint Eastwood act and sneer a lot. Ultimately, I think Frank Miller is right when he says a Batman movie SHOULD be big and operatic, and that's what Burton's movie is. Batman as a real-world character just isn't as interesting to me for some reason."

I think part of Nolan's simulated-realism might have been a reaction to Schumacher's films. Keaton definitely had greater menace about him, but I attribute that more to Burton's direction, the lighting, and the overall look of the film. I thought Bale showed an uncomfortable humanity in the suit that felt refreshing.

John McHugh writes, "Tim Burton is the poster child for Auteur Theory run amok. When working from the inner working of his own mind this doesn't present much of a problem. BEETLEJUICE, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS even the bloated, garish MARS ATTACKS! have a consistent internal logic and a nearly-human element to the stories that make them more or less accessible. As I read in an online review somewhere, he's a distant and chilly director, but usually manages at least a kind of poignancy when he shoots for intimacy."

This is the kind of opinion that I disagree with, but to which I remain happy to listen. I've never found Burton particularly chilly. If anything, his films wallow in over-the-top, Gothic sentimentalizing. Unless you feel that his excess of sentiment seems disingenuous, but I can't see it.

"Then there are his, ahem, 're-imaginings' of established characters. To give credit where it's due, when he has an emotional connection to a central character, like in PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE or ED WOOD, the result can be a good movie. However, the man seems pathologically unable to address someone else's story or character with any sort of respect, the 'Auteur' in him COMPELLS him to fundamentally alter a story or character so he can claim it as his own. Thus, the failures are equally his and his alone. PLANET OF THE APES is the worst example of this, but the BATMAN movies and SLEEPY HOLLOW also fall prey to this instinct."

I agree that PLANET OF THE APES fell flat, but I thoroughly enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW. Given the brevity of the original story, there wasn't much of a movie to be had there. I won't argue that he seems driven to leave his particular mark on any adaptations he directs. It generally doesn't bother me, but I'm a fan of his style.

"I realize, as is often repeated, that comics and film are different mediums, that changes in characters and situations are inevitable. But if you want to make a movie about a rubber fetishist who gets his kicks throwing burglars off rooftops, and down bell towers, or better yet a tweaked up Jack Nicholson in whiteface terrorizing a movie back lot, then please go make that movie. Tim Burton could find the financing for that film. Just don't shoehorn a character with half a century of history into the movie you want to make, just because you can. There's no excuse for such a lack of plot and characterization in the origin story of such a beloved fictional character, just so you can have lovingly lighted shots of men in hats, a guy sleeping upside down, or Jack Nicholson freaking out to Prince."

Still, I thought a lot of the changes you mentioned remain "in the spirit" of Batman's world, but that's a judgment call on my part.

"Richard Donner's SUPERMAN, Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN, Del Toro's HELLBOY, hell, even Rodger Valdim's BARBARELLA all had changes to established cannon, but they all retained the core of what made the character unique and special. Tim Burton's BATMAN just isn't Batman. There's no intensity, no intelligence, no rage, there's not even a playboy angle. Bruce Wayne's just a guy who could use a little feminine attention, and Batman's just a stuntman in a suit who can't lift his arms above his head. The rest is just sound and fury. Of course, this is Tim Burton's sound and fury, so we have steamy streets that go in impossible angles and buildings that look like typewriters and giant balloons of deformed monsters and back alley plastic surgeons and weird props and oddly colored 50's costumes. That is just not enough. As an exercise in lighting and set dressing I'm sure it's quite a demo reel, but there's no movie there. BATMAN RETURNS is both better and worse. Better in that at least it commits to its idea of the city gone mad, and and the movie has an infectious gonzo energy. Worse because it's so much more of what made the first one not-Batman. More insane gadgets, less actual plotting, less for Batman to do other than show up and let things happen around him. Now, at least, we know the fault lies completely with Burton. We've had 3 or 4 successful animated features and one big budget theatrical Batman. We know it can be done with care taken for a logical story and with respect for the character."

As I conceded last week, Buton's films work better as exercises in atmosphere and the Gothic gone insane. The characterizations and stories haven't aged particularly well, and I can certainly understand your objection. However, I find both films so visually compelling that I'm willing to forgive a lot. I just acknowledge their flaws.

"So, in short, I will not be picking up the new Batman box sets."

I wasn't sure there for a minute. Thanks for writing.

Daniel Klos writes, "The mistake that I think most people make when watching Tim Burton's Batman films is that they approach them expecting them to be one thing and are disappointed when they don't meet those expectations. BATMAN RETURNS especially is probably the most subversive summer blockbuster films ever made (and one of the best films of the 1990s, in my opinion)."

And, thus, Warner Brothers gave us BATMAN FOREVER.

"I think both films work best if viewed through the prism of being a reaction/homage to James Whales's FRANKENSTEIN and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. BATMAN RETURNS's relationship to the original BATMAN eerily parallels BRIDE's relationship to the original FRANKENSTEIN (the first film in each series was much darker and more melancholy, while the second one has a more biting and pointed sense of humor, at times almost becoming a parody of the first one; in the second one the main character (the monster and Batman) are gone for long stretched of time while the eccentric supporting cast is given an opportunity to develop; the characters of Dr. Praetorious and Max Schreck always struck me as being similar, both in their flamboyant appearance, as well as in the way the plots of their respective films were largely dictated by them and their machinations; the introduction of a 'mate' (I don't think it's any accident that Catwoman's costumed is stitched together in much the same way Elsa Lanchester's character was stitched together) whose creation is initiated by the Praetorious/Schreck character; the Gothic forest that the Batmobile rides through in part one always looked to me like the barren forests in BRIDE; the subtle yet significant changes in the production design from the first film to the second in both series; the second parts of each series were largely shot indoors on soundstages and do little to disguise this artificiality, instead wearing it as an aesthetic badge of honor). I could go on and on. I think Burton's films are two flawed masterpieces. Imperfect to be sure, but their good points far outweigh the bad."

I'm not sure if the parallel between the Frankenstein films and the Batman films was intentional or not, but it's certainly worth noting if you see one. The dynamic between the four main characters in BATMAN RETURNS is significantly different than that of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, which convinces me less that Burton meant such a comparison. I included your letter because I felt the observation was interesting and thought others should read it, even if I can't totally see the parallel.

Marc Hudgins writes, "What seems most interesting to Burton in both of his films is not the tortured, vengeful soul of millionaire Bruce Wayne but those raving psychotic monsters that populate the city that Wayne so ruthlessly attempts to fight. His films, while illustrating Gotham City with a darkly lush, Expressionistic verve as perfectly as any filmmaker can ever hope, fail to give the Dark Knight the proper psychological dimensions to make the stories truly click on an emotional level. Michael Keaton's performance is pensive and brooding enough, I suppose, but at times he seems too much to be channeling the manic energy of, well, Michael Keaton to attain the right balance of curiosity and sympathy that Wayne engenders in the comics. He is also not given much screen time in either film to make up for these thematic inconsistencies; in Burton's haste to explore the villains Bruce Wayne is merely a side character, at times even a puppet that just seems to show up and fight on cue in the midst of a villain deliciously chewing through the scenery."

I found this flaw the most painful of Burton's films. Keaton showed flashes of promise as Bruce Wayne, yet neither the script nor Burton really allowed him out of his cage. BATMAN RETURNS offered a more developed view of the character, but still, it fell short.

"Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker may not represent the character's true origins or motivations, but the wild, psychotic bravura with which he charges his scenes is at time's as chilling as anything in the comics. In Batman Returns, the same can be said for Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer, whose turns as The Penguin and Catwoman are equally inspired and insane. As I've said before in conversations to my friends, Batman Returns is probably the most pure Tim Burton film Tim Burton has ever made. Gotham City is now a frenzied, grotesque nightmare inhabited by crazed circus killers, noses gushing blood, and Christopher Walken. Burton's flair for the bizarre and the Gothic is taken to the ultimate level, and while the result effectively creates the dark atmosphere required in a Batman film, it is at times extremely indulgent; I've often described it as something akin to Tim Burton's brain just violently exploding all over the silver screen with no boundaries of imagination or reason (or taste)."

Aptly put BATMAN RETURNS almost feels like FREDDY GOT FINGERED for the Goth set. In both, a madcap director left unchecked spun celluloid insanity. Obviously, Burton's more talented than Tom Green, but the principle remains.

Again, and even more so this time around, Batman is just the lone crime-fighter who saves the day, devoid of any engaging character development; it is the villains that Burton explores with such perverse curiosity. Therefore, these are not so much Batman films as they are portraits of the darkest sort of criminals that must face Batman as a common enemy. While Wayne and his constant struggle with his own inner demons...drives the comics, the external criminal forces that caused such a struggle in the first place are the stars of the films; a better title for them might have perhaps been GOTHAM and RETURN TO GOTHAM. However, after all this pretentious film school rambling, I think what the films ultimately accomplish very strongly is an immense faithfulness to the spirit of the comics. The first...true Batman film would not come until Christopher Nolan's masterpiece, but as an unforgiving representation of the dank wasteland of Gotham and all of the evil characters slithering throughout its alleyways, Burton's vision is bold, unusual, and fiercely entertaining."

I think Nolan's film wins the day, but only by a hair. Burton's atmosphere trumped that of BATMAN BEGINS hand over fist, but it lacked the character development and stellar performances that made Nolan's film shine. As I said, I like Burton's films, but I acknowledge their shortcomings. But, I think this final letter reiterates the importance of Burton's films.

Dave Pomes writes, "I agree with your deconstruction of the films and your conclusions, both positive and negative. I'd say that you left a serious strength off the list, though- context. At that point in time, comics were not taken seriously by the movie biz at all. This may be y bad memory talking, but the only quality comic book movie prior to Burton's BATMAN was SUPERMAN, which was better than a decade before. Characters had become commodities for studios to plug into second-rate stories with second-rate actors and second-rate production values. (Remember Dolph Lundgren's PUNISHER?) For all intents and purposes, Burton's Batmen existed in a vacuum. To take an established character and portray him in an established universe and treat him seriously was revolutionary. The film drove complete neophytes into the world of comics and superheroes, it drove studios to realize the potential of comic-driven projects done right, and made so many things possible as a result. Would Raimi's SPIDER-MAN even exist without Burton's 'Batmen'? (I apologize for any bad memories or painful flashbacks caused by the Lundgren 'Punisher' reference.)"

I forgive you. Yes, Dave, Burton's films showed Hollywood and filmgoers what a comic book film could be. It also took movie marketing to a new level with a merchandising assault comparable to that of STAR WARS. Regardless of one's opinion of Burton's films, we can't understate their importance in comic book history and their trail they blazed for future film adaptations.

That's all for now, guys. Tune in next week same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.

DARK HORSE

Aeon Flux #2 (of 4) $2.99
While filming this movie, Charlize Theron threw her back out and now says she'll never do her own stunts again. Say it with me: WUSS!

Chosen TP (RES) (MR) $9.95
Mark Millar brings on the Jesus.

Conan & The Demons Of Khitai #2 (of 4) $2.99
Dude, they could release a book called CONAN AND THE SHOPS OF PARIS and I'd read it. Yeah, they got me.

Eden Vol 1 TP Its An Endless World $12.95

Kotobukiya Boba Fett Vinyl Model Kit $99.99
Al: Kotobukiya! Man, that's a lot of fun to say.
Kurt: But not nearly as much fun to buy.

Kotobukiya Clone Trooper #2 Vinyl Model Kit $94.99

Kotobukiya Star Wars Darth Maul Model Kit $99.99

Kotobukiya Yoda Soft Vinyl Model Kit $44.99

Kotobukiya Yoda Soft Vinyl Model Kit $44.99
I feel like I'm in an over-budget Japanese conceptual art film.

Simpsons Bobble Heads Ser 4 Gacha Capsule PI
Al: Gacha capsules are my favorite kind of capsule.
Kurt: I thought you were more of a roofies kind of guy.

Simpsons Bobble Heads Ser 4 Gacha Capsule PI

Star Wars X-wing Rogue Leader #2 (of 3) $2.99

DC COMICS

Batman Batmobile Maquette $89.99
This is the cartoon Batmobile, not the Tumbler. In case you were wondering. Which you weren't.

Batman Gotham County Line #2 (of 3) $5.99
Niles does the Bat. Wait, he doesn't "do" the Bat like you're thinking, but...aw forget it.

Blood Of The Demon #9 $2.50

Catwoman When In Rome HC $19.99

Desolation Jones #4 (MR) $2.99
Woohoo! This series rules all. Hitler porn! Hitler porn!

Detective Comics #813 $2.50
All right, Dave Lapham's a pretty good writer, but a 12-issue arc's kind of pushing it. This means that whenever it wraps, I'll have to take time out of my busy schedule to read a YEAR'S worth of issues. I mean, come on! I'm a busy man! Do you think my wife's going to accept, "No honey, I can't take you out to dinner. I have to read CITY OF CRIME in its entirety." Of course she won't! Lapham's arc isn't just long, it ruins marriages and breaks homes! Hey wait! Come back here!

Firestorm #19 $2.50

Jlu Black Canary Maquette $89.99

Jonah Hex #1 $2.99
Advance word on this is pretty good. Last few series have been bloody awesome. I'm in.

JSA #79 $2.50

Justice League Unlimited #15 $2.25

Looney Tunes #132 $2.25

Omac Project TP $14.99

Originals SC (MR) $17.99
Al: Comic books do THE OUTSIDERS...I mean the movie THE OUTSIDERS, obviously, not the comic book.
Kurt: Some of us were just born outsiders, Al.

Outsiders #30 $2.50

Seven Soldiers Klarion The Witch Boy #4 $2.99

Seven Soldiers The Bulleteer #1 (of 4) $2.99
Introducing: sexy Bulleteer! Whee! Unfortunately she's still got a bullet for a head.

Showcase Presents Jonah Hex Vol 1 TP $16.99

Smax TP $12.99
Written by Alan Moore.

Superman #223 $2.50

Swamp Thing #21 (MR) $2.99

Swan Vol 5 $9.99

Vigilante #2 (of 6) $2.99

Wildsiderz #2 (of 5) $3.50
Al: Hey, do you like things that suck? Well, do I have a comic for you!
Kurt: You mean, TWENTY-FIVE TO LIFE: THE AL BROWN STORY? Yeah, that book did suck, especially that shower scene with the Neo Nazis. Oh wait, that was AMERICAN HISTORY X.

Winter Men #3 (of 8) (MR) $2.99

IMAGE

Bone Rest #5 (MR) $2.99

Flaming Carrot Comics #4 $3.50

Invincible Vol 5 Facts Of Life TP $14.99

Mith Vol 1 Operation Smoking Jaguar GN $9.99

Necromancer 9.6 Cgc Graded Sgn #1 $59.99
Al: If you buy this, you deserve it.
Kurt: Yeah, I agree. Have fun not reading it.

Tyler Kirkham Vice #2 Litho $19.99

MARVEL

Captain Universe Hulk $2.99
Al: One Hulk, Two Hulk; Green Hulk, Blue Hulk!
Hulk: So many Hulks. Hulk's head hurt. Real Hulk just trying to express himself. Hulk cry in corner now.

Captain Universe Power Unimaginable TP $19.99

Essential Marvel Two In One Vol 1 TP $16.99

Excalibur Classic Vol 1 The Sword Is Drawn TP $19.99

House Of M #8 (of 8) $2.99
Should we have a dead(ish) pool on which mutants get de-powered? We already know about Cable, Jubilee and Blob (from Generation M cover previews). I'm already on record as saying that most of Grant Morrison's characters will be de-powered, with the probable exception of the Stepford Cuckoos (because everyone seems to have taken the concept of "hot teenage quintuplets" remarkably well). Son of M #1's cover implies that Quicksilver is out. My guess is that the quick shot of Dr. Strange doing something with his hands (right after Wanda said "No more mutants") was him casting some sort of spell to protect the mutants who happened to be in his immediate vicinity. That leaves us with a number of question marks: what about Molly from Runaways? Various X-Men who didn't happen to be at the scene? And wasn't Blob there? Anyway...I'm putting my money on Sunfire, Callisto and about half the kids from Academy X. And also, y'know, most everybody else. Cast your bets in the comments section!

House Of M Bachalo Variant Cover #8 (of 8) (PP #687) $2.99

Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #9 $2.50

Marvel Knights Spider-Man Vol 1 HC $29.99

Marvel Nemesis Imperfects Digest TP $7.99

Marvel Team-up #14 $2.99
Al: Starring Image Comics' Invincible! C'mon, admit it: this is gonna be fun.
Kurt: Somebody should buy Robert Kirkman something nice, like, I don't know, a cheeseburger or something. Man, I could use a cheeseburger. Stupid low-carb diet.

Nightcrawler #11 $2.99

NYX X-23 HC $34.99
Al: This is a good idea; now fans are sure to notice that X-23 was written as completely different characters in these two series. I wonder if Marvel has any intention of ever explaining how she got from "vicious runaway killing machine" to "goth hooker who doesn't talk".
Kurt: Goth hooker that doesn't talk, you say? Where might I meet this intriguing young lady?

Powers #14 (MR) $2.95

Punisher #27 (MR) $2.99

Sentinel #1 (of 5) $2.99
Volume II of Sean McKeever's Sentinel, a series about a kid who finds and befriends a Sentinel robot. The first 12-issue arc was critically adored, but it only sorta did it for me; there were some really nice parts but I wasn't, like, totally slain by it.

Sentry Rough Cut #1 $3.99

Spider-Girl #92 $2.99

Spider-Man House Of M #5 (of 5) $2.99

Spider-Man Unlimited #12 $2.99
If you like Spider-Man, but you hate this awful "Other" storyline, this may be your only salvation.

Supreme Power Nighthawk #3 (of 6) (MR) $2.99
Al: Does anyone like this besides me? 'Cause I'm getting the feeling that I'm the only one. Which is okay, y'know. I can handle it. It just...just gets a little lonely, is all.
Kurt: I thought the last issue was ass-a-riffic, but the one before that was great.

Ultimate Marvel Flip Magazine #6 $3.99
Has anyone figured out what these flip magazine things are yet? And why anyone should pay $3.99 for one?

Ultimate Spider-Man #85 $2.50

Ultimate Tales Flip Magazine #6 $3.99

X-Men Colossus Bloodline #3 (of 5) $2.99
Al: It's weird...Joe Q insists that the new policy at Marvel is to make limited series "matter", and then follows up with series like "Ororo: Before the Storm" and this freak-ass thing. Does he know what titles he's putting out?
Kurt: Doubt it. I just got a pretty nice advance from him for my new series STICK FIGURE ADVENTURES. I think he just signs off on anything these days.

X-Men Deadly Genesis Poster $5.99
As opposed to the X-MEN: SEGA GENESIS poster.

Young Avengers Vol 1 Sidekicks HC $19.99

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at comicscape@cinescape.com.