Conservative Comic Book Pundit

Friday, November 10, 2006

What? Comic Reviews?

(New) Battlestar Galactica #3: Well, I've discovered that there aren't very many (percentage wise) people who are fans of both "New" and "Classic" Battlestar Galactica.

Dynamite is publishing comics in both universes, though their shipping schedules have been erratic so far. However, it seems they are intent on merging the two universes in small ways, making me wonder about the canonical status of these comics. The Classic BSG comic series deals with Starbuck returning to a colonial world and finding a resistance group there, paralleling a plot line in the new BSG. The third issue of this New BSG comic series ends with - well, go look at the last page, if there's still a copy at your local shop.

The first few issues of the New BSG have been rather odd and confusing. This third issue was better, and the story suddenly made a lot of sense (so much so, I went back and re-read the first few issues and they made a lot more sense in the light of this issue - perhaps this is a problem with the "paced for trade" storytelling in modern comics). So I now look forward to new issues in this series - although the artist has apparently never seen a woman smile, since all the women in this issue have odd, unnatural smiles.

However, the mixing of Classic and New BSG elements bugs and thrills me. On one level, I think: COOL!!!! But I wonder how well it will go over with the many fans who are only fans of one series or the other. Most people I know think the Classic series was horrid and love the New version, but there are those who have such fanatical loyalty for the older series they hate the new series on principle.

It will be an interesting ride.

Oh, and Dr. Strange: The Oath is the best comic (outside of Planet Hulk) that Marvel is currently publishing. Too bad it's so underhyped. Ignore the crappy, unnuanced politics of Civil War and enjoy a good, fun ride with the "Hoary @#@!$@ing Hosts of Hoggoth."

{As for the recent election - My verdict: Great for conservatives, but horrid for Republicans. The Democrats only won because they ran very conservative candidates in many districts, and the ballot referendums that passed were for the most part, conservative in nature. Basically, the Democrats won by becoming more conservative, and the Republicans lost because they had become more liberal. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.}


  • "Basically, the Democrats won by becoming more conservative, and the Republicans lost because they had become more liberal. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

    That's not what Al Queda thinks, judging by comments made by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the talking head from the latest Al Queda video update.

    From an article published on the CBS News website:

    In the tape, al-Muhajir praised the outcome of Tuesday's elections in which Democrats swept to power in the House and the Senate, in large part due to U.S. voter dissatisfaction over the handling of the war in Iraq.

    "The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections." He did not explain his logic.

    I love that last line added by the AP reporter.

    So, counter to your "new boss, same as the old boss", the Democrats obviously differ sharply from the Republicans in one, very important area (some may argue the MOST important area).

    By Anonymous Mark Engblom, at 8:13 AM  

  • Oh, here's the link to the article I cited above:

    By Anonymous Mark Engblom, at 8:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home