|
Post by jordan on Jul 12, 2013 0:24:08 GMT -5
#1 is up! It is just the beginning of an epic story and sets up many, many mysteries for the first story arc and the entire series!
|
|
|
Post by Drake on Jul 12, 2013 19:16:09 GMT -5
I liked it a lot. I wouldn't say I loved it. To be honest, it was a bit confusing at times. I'm sure this was intended, but it ended up to me being more negative than positive. I wasn't like 'Hm...an intriguing mystery. I can't wait for more.' I really felt like 'Hm...I know what's going on, but I have no fucking clue what's going on at the same time...Hm...'
My only other problem was the declaration that it's the flagship Cosmic title. Frankly, I don't give two shit what's considered more important than anything else, but, well, it didn't really feel flagship-y. I know that sounds stupid, and who's to judge what seems like a flagship title, but honestly it just felt...big. Epic, I suppose. But not flagship. At least in my opinion. If you are curious what I think makes a good flagship title it'd be this:
-Importance, yes, but not over importance. For example, Trinity of Sin: Phantom Stranger (by DC) is like this. Is it flagship? No. Is it epic and huge and fucking gigantic as all hell? Yes. Justice League/JLA is a good example of what a flagship title should be like. It's important. It directly relates to the "Next Big Event." (ugh!...Usually.) It also tends to tell fun stories, not overly serious dramatic epics.
-It needs to be big, and yet small. Your F4 series is a great example. It had a HUGE scope, but frankly it's pretty small if you really look at it. Which is a good thing, by the way.
-I mentioned this earlier, but it needs to be fun. Any really good story needs at least a hint of fun. That's not to say this isn't good. It is. But it isn't really good.
7/10. Frankly, if we're considering this the flagship title then I'm expecting more. Not just epicness, but, well...more.
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Jul 12, 2013 19:23:41 GMT -5
In all honesty, I only called it the flagship title because I needed one more scene divider and that was the best thing I could come up with. I didn't really men flagship as in "the most important" I meant flagship as in "the first one." The New 52 advertised JL as the flagship, while JL and Action Comics (replaced by JLA recently) are the CORNERSTONE titles, the titles most directly connected to the next big thing (although Action had nothing to do with anything else). I understand your view of my calling it the flagship, but I really didn't mean anything by it other than the fact that it was the first one. Because, honestly, at this point, I have absolutely no clue if it will be related to any next big thing or not, all though it will be epic.
|
|
|
Post by ReadingTrance on Jul 12, 2013 20:27:49 GMT -5
It was alright. It was really well written, but way too confusing for way too long. I enjoyed bits and pieces, but was kinda lost through a good portion of it. 6/10
Just my opinion. I might be too slow to follow this, haha.
|
|
|
Post by Stardrifter on Jul 13, 2013 17:58:22 GMT -5
It was okay. It felt like it was epic for epicness' sake and not because the story called for it. It was a bit too vague in parts and kinda just boring.
Which isn't to say it wasn't well written. It's just the content that disappointed me, not the writing. Keep em coming.
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Jul 14, 2013 17:38:29 GMT -5
It was okay. It felt like it was epic for epicness' sake and not because the story called for it. It was a bit too vague in parts I'm really not sure what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Stardrifter on Jul 14, 2013 18:54:52 GMT -5
The language used felt all bluster and no content. Like it was needlessly complex. More style than substance.
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Jul 15, 2013 1:18:31 GMT -5
I completely understand where you are coming from and honestly kind of agree. Kind of. The way I'm writing Quasar, it's a heavy blend of metatext, story and vision. They way I describe things "It is a nothingness beyond nothingness" "and from where nothingness once was, now there is something" "and the black nothing arm, the part that just was not there, moved through the vaccuum air of nothingness and struck" lines like that aren't necessarily about moving the story forward, it isn't about the content, instead it is the style. Its the poetry of this story that should move you, with the story being the filler.
My inspiration for writing is Grant Morrison, and where his stories are good, his metafiction and metatext and the style and poetry of his writing are what move me, and that's what I'm trying to do: Entertain you with a story (or, for this issue, the setup for one) but move you with style and poetry. I know it isn't for everyone, but I can't please everyone. I just ask that you give issue #2 a try, as characters will actually begin to be established with names and stuff.
|
|
ls34
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by ls34 on Aug 2, 2013 4:58:35 GMT -5
It's fine to write in a poetic style, but that shouldn't be used in lieu of plot and content, because otherwise what's being communicated? Abstract ideas work well when they click together, and you get that feeling of "getting it". If there isn't any idea behind the abstract language, it's just overly confusing. Of the three examples you listed, none of them really justified the writing style, and it just seems like you're mentioning "nothingness" as a cheap way to seem abstract. Aside from that, there just wasn't much there in this issue.
|
|