Pretty, Fizzy Paradise

I'm back! And reading! And maybe even blogging! No promises!

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Interesting bit from Flash!

Okay, I'm prefacing this with the admission that I haven't yet bought my comics this week (had waaay too much crap due to even think about making the trek) but Living Between Wednesdays posted this image from Flash 233 that I simply HAD to steal and re-upload here.

Okay. 1) Pwn3d. I admire Batman and all, but Wally's kind of right about this one. Even the surviving Robins need severe therapy. Also, since he's one of Dick's best friends, he can totally say that too.

(Interesting contrast with Bart, who WASN'T Wally's student, and Wally had made damn sure had two very good mentor figures who could do the job better than he could. Bart may have died, but it's a markedly different situation than Jason or Steph.)

I love Roy's expression too.

2) I admit, I'm really iffy about people trying to tell other people how to parent if there isn't a clear-cut case of mistreatment. Especially when the others aren't parents. I mean look at that group:

Diana? Clark? John*? Hal (I'm presuming that's Hal, as I said, I haven't read the issue myself yet.)? Sure, they're nice folks, but they're hardly parents.

Admittedly Jefferson and Roy ARE parents, but, assassin mother aside, their daughters are hardly in the same situation. And like Wally so admirably points out.

Personally, I think Wally and Linda are not making the right decision here, either, but I like that they have fairly valid reasons for their choices.

... Somewhat annoyed that they had to explain themselves, but maybe that'll read better in context.

3) Four Robins. :-) I'm not an advocate for a case or anything, but I like that Steph's been acknowledged here. This should brighten some folks' day.

You know, I always thought Steph and Wally had a lot of similarities as characters. One of these days I ought to write that post up.

I hope the rest of the comic's this good. :-)

Edited to Add: (And thank you, guys, I *do* see John there. :-) I just forgot to type his name, which has been edited in now. :-) I do know the difference. I mean the brunet, left corner, last panel as possibly Hal. I'll find out for sure when I read the issue. :-))


  • At October 27, 2007 10:00 AM, Blogger CalvinPitt said…

    Judging by those panels, it's John Stewart, not Hal. Which doesn't really change the point, since John isn't a parent (is he?).

    I flipped through the issue at the shop, and when Wally dropped that line on Bats, I had to shout about it. I really love it when someone rocks Batman back on his heels a bit.

    Later on I remembered that Wally said "four Robins", and thought that was nice.

  • At October 27, 2007 11:26 AM, Blogger Anthony Strand said…

    Yeah, it's John.

    As for the rest of this comic, I thought it was fun. Especially the back-up story by John Rogers (writer of my favorite current comic) starring Jay Garrick (my favorite superhero ever in the history of anything).

  • At October 27, 2007 1:08 PM, Blogger ShellyS said…

    I read it and liked it more than I'd thought I would from the cover. It was a nice way to explain to the reader why the kids were so much older and the nature of their situation. And the last panel of that story looks to open a can of worms that Wally and Linda will have to deal with.

  • At October 27, 2007 1:18 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Guys, I know it's John in there. I can see him. I am Lantern fan enough to know the difference.

    I mean the brunet in the corner at the bottom. THAT looks like Hal to me. So I think it's both of them.

  • At October 27, 2007 1:48 PM, Blogger SallyP said…

    This book was really very very good, and I shouted aloud with glee when I read this particular page! Haw!

    Don't you love how sheepish they all look in the last panel?

    As for the brunette in the corner, I thought it might be Hal too, but I THINK that it is supposed to be Superman, however the colorist made a mistake in his hair and eyebrows. I think.

    And the part a little bit later where Wally explains the whole bit about the weird age acceleration of the kids is excellent.

  • At October 27, 2007 1:58 PM, Blogger Flidget Jerome said…

    This bit made me uncomfortable. At first I thought it was because I thought it was rather OOC for all involved but that's not really it.

    You know what it is?

    It's how bitter this scene is going to read when the twins are inevitably killed off so they can re-set Wally.

  • At October 27, 2007 3:47 PM, Blogger Anthony Strand said…

    Actually, that's Wally. You can't really tell because of the extreme close-up, but his hair is supposed to be red. And I think he's supposed to have an expression of "So just shut and quit telling me what to do".

    Kalinara - Yeah, I was baffled as to why you seemed to think John was Hal.

  • At October 27, 2007 7:44 PM, Blogger tavella said…

    It's how bitter this scene is going to read when the twins are inevitably killed off so they can re-set Wally.

    ...with the editor-in-chief of the day bloviating proudly about how he's putting a genie back in the bottle and how there are so many more stories you can tell with a single Wally?

    Heh. Cynical, but correct.

  • At October 28, 2007 9:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What I found funniest about this exchange is how Superman starts it off with incredibly poor word choice for someone who's a professional writer: "We've come for the children."

    It made me think of Clark as Michael Scott from The Office for the first time:

    Michael: “I took her to the hospital. And the doctors tried to save her life... They did the best that they could… and she is going to be OK.”
    Stanley: “What is wrong with you? Why did you have to phrase it like that?


  • At October 28, 2007 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that on the left in the last panel, that's supposed to be Superman, but his eyes and hair were miscolored as Wally's. The full page is here:

    suedenim: Yeah, you'd think Clark of all people would realize how "We've come for the children" would go over. He probably should have said, "We're here about your kids." Non-threatening, displays concern, wouldn't piss off Wally and Linda.

    Then again, we wouldn't get the "four Robins" comment.

  • At October 28, 2007 1:52 PM, Blogger Mike Haseloff said…

    The dirty-stinking-pathic-wannabe writer in me just keeps screaming, "Batman would never say that!!!"

    Maybe it's the general attempts to lighten him up that are undermining his suffocating brilliance, but I still like to think this man obssessed with failure would NEVER dare bring up something so close to home without making the tone VERY specific.

    Batman does not walk into a knock-out zing like that!

  • At October 29, 2007 5:23 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Tav -- Aren't you getting Didio mixed up with Quesada there?

  • At November 01, 2007 2:29 AM, Blogger tavella said…

    I was thinking more of a future, theorectical EIC.


Post a Comment

<< Home