Comic book annuals used to be something exciting that were "must haves" because they featured the debut of a new character (Rogue in Avengers Annual #10 from 1981), featured a big reveal (Jade and Obsidian discover their mother is Rose/Thorn in Infinity Inc. Annual #1 from 1985), or wrapped up an important storyline ("The Judas Contract" finale in Tales of the Teen Titans Annual #3 from 1984). They also used to be annual.
I think the big two comic companies have lost sight of the purposes for annuals. They're not just to increase sales in the summertime. They're supposed to give the readers something in return, too. I used to look forward to DC's and Marvel's annuals. Now they just feel like a huge waste of money. $5+ for a comic in which they test out on me new writers with bland, generic stories and artists with dubious art? No thanks.
I've been reading the "Zero Year" storyline in DC's New 52 Batman series. Unfortunately, I've been less than impressed. So when I saw that the latest Batman Annual #2 (2013) also featured part of the storyline, new writer Marguerite Bennett, and about 16 different artists, my first impression was, "Ugh." What happened to quality storytelling? What happened to consistency in artwork throughout one freakin' comic book? Those were questions I asked myself as I set aside some extra time and waded reluctantly into Batman Annual #2.
As I began to read it, I was quick to note that the dialogue was very appealing. It didn't feel amateurish, forced, or untrue to character (hello, Felicia Henderson). It wasn't full of crappy action scenes with no direction or plot. I didn't even notice the changes in artists. Everything felt seamless. And I was actually drawn into the story and into Arkham Asylum, where the entire story takes place. The introduction, history, and character of the Anchoress, Arkham's longest resident, was intriguing as well. I think Bennett did a wonderful job, and I'm actually a bit green with envy. (I overlooked the fact that this woman who looked like a frail 90-year-old was holding her own against Batman.)
Batman Annual #2 gives me hope in summertime annuals again.
When I heard last year that Ms. Marvel was being "promoted" to Captain Marvel and getting her own new series, I thought, "Well deserved!" Back in the day, Ms. Marvel was created as Marvel Comics' answer to DC's Supergirl; she was the female version of a male powerhouse. I've always liked her character since her days as Ms. Marvel in the 1970s and Binary in the 1980s. I also loved the connection between she and Rogue (back when Rogue was ultra cool, a bit wicked, and not some hooded no-personality with a daddy fetish). There was such animosity between the two that led to some great tension in the X-books. Ms. Marvel may have started out as a "super girl," but she became so much more.
My first reaction a year ago to the released images of Ms. Marvel as the new Captain Marvel was, "Why are they making this once-sexy woman look like a bird-headed dyke?" Yes, that was a brash and stereotypical thought and comment. However, it wasn't far from the truth. Her new hairstyle did look like that atop a cockatoo, and not unlesbian-like.
Despite my initial reaction, I gave the series a try, and I recently had the chance to read the first year of the new Captain Marvel series. Sadly, I'm underwhelmed. The stories and characterizations are very mediocre. The time-travel saga with the female pilots felt like I was caught in a time loop and couldn't get out. The highlight of Captain Marvel's first year was probably the guest appearances of Monica Rambeau, the 1980s Captain Marvel, another character I really liked. She could make for a great regular supporting character.
Fortunately, in the later issues, Carol Danvers is letting her hair grow long again and gaining back some of her feminine appearance, but the stories still feel lacking to me. Worse, the art has gotten poorer with Filipe Andrade's distorted imagery of Captain Marvel. For instance, what's happened to her face? It's enough to send children screaming. Is there a new Cubist movement?
I don't see myself continuing to read the new Captain Marvel series. It feels like such a letdown, which is disappointing because Marvel has so many great female characters in their universe, but too few solo female comic books. There's Captain Marvel and, um...Red She-Hulk. Is that it? Am I missing any? Even Marvel Comics' new upcoming female-only X-book is simply titled X-Men. What's that about, ladies? Marvel would probably reply, "Female-driven comic books just don't sell." The reality, though, is that crappy comic books don't sell. It doesn't have to do with sex; it has to do with quality storytelling (and art).
Ever since Gambit first appeared in the X-Men comics in 1990, I thought he was a pretty cool character, despite rarely being able to understand what he's saying because of his Cajun accent. I loved the flirtation between he and Rogue, before she got into daddy figures (see: Magneto). Plus, you've gotta admire a straight dude that can pull off purple (see also: Hawkeye). But what's with the long overcoat? Doesn't that get in the way of battle...or make the Louisiana Bayou heat even more unbearable?
Unfortunately, Marvel hasn't really done Gambit justice, evidenced by the numerous attempts at solo series for him. The latest (2012) attempt isn't any better. After reading the first seven issues, I'm all, "A sphincter says what?" I couldn't even follow what was going on from issue to issue because I was so disinterested. There was battle sequence after battle sequence with little to no character or story development. Sure, we got to see some Gambit nips as his costume was destroyed, but that hardly makes up for the lack of decent storytelling. Now he's supposed to be some sort of international James Bond? I just don't get it. And, frankly, I don't have to. This is just another Gambit series headed for cancellation due to lameness. Mon Dieu!
