The Atomic Think Tank

by **Nathaniel Essex** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:28 pm

http://www.milehighcomics.com/firstlook ... rpage.html

Go to that link and read the first pages of the new Warlock. I loved this 1st issue it actually is very close to a character I thought to make up. Great read!

by **The Trapster** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:07 pm

BLAH!!!

*shakes head, and walks away.*

*Shouts back* "I guess the Whole Marvel Universe is going to get NEW origins over the next few years."

Website · by **GrayPumpkin** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:17 pm

Yeah as a stand-alone story origin story it was ok, though bringing the artist seemed far-fetched. But why did they have to rewrite Adam Warlock! And for all their carrying on about how corny the original looked I think he was way cooler looking than the revamped version.

by **Nathaniel Essex** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:58 pm

But why did they have to rewrite Adam Warlock!

Because his books never sale and no one (young people 13+) know or give a crap about him.

BLAH!!!

*shakes head, and walks away.*

*Shouts back* "I guess the Whole Marvel Universe is going to get NEW origins over the next few years."

One could only hope so. Why is it when these comic companies get the good idea to drop 10-15 years of dead weight it's considered horrible or offensive? I mean the new Batman movie is doing it and I hope that the Superman movie is also. I read Adam Warlock and do you know the worst thing to happen to Adam Warlock? He went into space. Seriously why is the savior of all man kind going into space? It would be different if he had a reason/purpose to going and staying in space but why not come back to Earth? Oh that's right he did but not Earth some funky New Earth were he died to be the Messiah and then he became some funky thing: the Magus. That would sell brilliantly with the young people of today. I'm more into sci-fi now than anything and that's what Adam Warlock should be. Not 'bad' space opera. I mean where you people this upset when Peter David first started the Hulk? Remember he didn't have the psychological issues in the 70's. That's all Peter David with a little inspiration from John Byrne.

Website · by **GrayPumpkin** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:30 pm

I mean where you people this upset when Peter David first started the Hulk? Remember he didn't have the psychological issues in the 70's. That's all Peter David with a little inspiration from John Byrne.

Meh, never read Peter David’s Hulk. I’ve never liked the Hulk.
Though there is a difference in writing a character with more depth or putting a new spin on character and just rewriting him from scratch. Peter David didn’t reboot the Hulk he just apparently added more depth to the character. Allen Moore took the Swamp Thing a character that had gone nowhere for many years, and started a comics revolution that is still felt today. Yes he retconned his origin, but it was still the same character and it didn’t wash away the characters past.
If the writers wanted to get away from Space Opera, not there anything wrong with space opera, plenty of good stories in that genre, (bad ones too but that can be said about anything) but if they wanted to, they could have found a way to tie him to earth without rebooting. But the most important thing, and it’s what Moore did with Swamp Thing, is to make the character intresting.
Like I said about this reboot, as an origin story this was OK, but just OK, all in all pretty standard fare, I saw no great re-envisioning or depth added, he’s just different and looks goofier, but wasn’t made any more intresting.

by **Strict31** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:57 pm

Nathaniel, take a second and breathe, my good man. No need to go on the defensive.

There's nothing wrong with change when something isn't working. There's nothing inherently wrong with change, itself. Problem is, more often than not, in this and other entertainment industires, change often means something stupid. Or change for the mere sake of it. Maybe Batman's new flick will kick ass. But the exact same thing you said about that movie can be applied to Catwoman. I don't know if you liked that flick, but lotta folks thought it was dumb.

It's not so much that change is bad. Just that if it must change, change it into something good.

I'm not technically a purist; I go with whatever works. So, I don't have a problem with the new Warlock. I have questions, but this doesn't bother me. But in the same respect, if they take something that was okay, thinking to make it great, but it comes out crappy, I got a problem with that. Since we've seen so many new crappy directions taken over the past few years, changes made to appeal to a new market that either didn't attract that new audience, or simply were poorly done, most people equate "change" with bad.

Strictly Speaking

by **The Trapster** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:38 pm

Nathaniel Essex wrote:Why is it when these comic companies get the good idea to drop 10-15 years of dead weight it's considered horrible or offensive?

Because it is.

If you are saying (and you probably aren't) that it is good to keep the brand going BECAUSE it is recognizable. But, the reason it is recognisable is not important. I guess Ultimate Comics Line is better because it has no history.

I would have a lot more respect for the Warlock Comic if it was not replacing the old Warlock. ( :idea:

Hum... Maybe it isn't! To bad they did name him Cain Warlock.)

:?:

Hey! Where did you get the idea that the original HIM! Was the savior of humanity? That is not part of his original origin. He became the savoir of counter-Earth (the first one).

- Hey! I just had an idea. The Artist in the story is their because in the ORIGINAL origin the Hive science (jerks) ists didn't know what they had created and kidnapped Alicia Master (blind sculptress) to make find out for them. (For those who don't know - Warlock's origin was in the Fantastic Four.)

by **Dr Archeville** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:52 pm

While I agree that a Crisis on Infinite Earths-esque "reboot" would be a good thing for Marvel, doing it piecemeal isn't the best way to go about it (and adding in new titles is about as effective as trying to stop a raging bonfire by throwing more sticks into it).

by **The Trapster** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:59 pm

OOPS!
I should thank you Nathaniel I'm happy to see the Preview. ThanK You very Much!

by **JayBeeThoth** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:10 pm

Dr Archeville wrote:While I agree that a Crisis on Infinite Earths-esque "reboot" would be a good thing for Marvel, doing it piecemeal isn't the best way to go about it (and adding in new titles is about as effective as trying to stop a raging bonfire by throwing more sticks into it).

I have to agree with that. The way for them to get more readers is to make the current books more worthwhile reading, not to dilute it even more by giving us more books to read instead.

I'll pass on this. Just cam't afford to add more titles to my reading list.

by **Iron Poet** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:04 am

For some reason, that cover totally reminds me of Divis Mal, of Aberrant infamy...

by **Dr Archeville** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:16 am

Ah-HA! I knew that pic was reminding me of someone.....

And, on several levels, the comparison works, too....

by **Iron Poet** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:40 am

Yeah, I thought about that as soon as the name popped into my head. The very thought process behind Adam's creation seems like such a Teragen philosophy it's not even funny.

by **Nathaniel Essex** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:07 am

For some reason, that cover totally reminds me of Divis Mal, of Aberrant infamy...

Exactly what I thought.

While I agree that a Crisis on Infinite Earths-esque "reboot" would be a good thing for Marvel, doing it piecemeal isn't the best way to go about it (and adding in new titles is about as effective as trying to stop a raging bonfire by throwing more sticks into it).

I agree, maybe that's what Marvel needs. Actually that's exactly what they need. That way you can change everything that didn't work and keep everything that did work.

Sorry about coming off as an attack dog. But it was a bad day.

by **Strict31** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:10 am

Iron Poet wrote:Yeah, I thought about that as soon as the name popped into my head. The very thought process behind Adam's creation seems like such a Teragen philosophy it's not even funny.

It has its similarities.

Looking at the costume, I'm trying to figure out something: if they're gonna change/update his look, why the costume? It seems so derivative. In other words, it's a costume for the sake of being a costume. Given the general flamboyance of the average super-dude, the suit doesn't seem particularly regal or symbolic. Prolly better than a pair of worn-out jeans, but not any greater a symbol.

Does the new costume have an appeal? I don't think I'm capable of determining these sorts of things anymore...

Strictly Speaking

The Atomic Think Tank

New Warlock!

New Warlock!

Who is online