Comments on: A writer’s guide to Invincible’s flaws

By: Ragged Boy

Ragged Boy — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:45:37 +0000

Is Invincible a younger Superman?

I remember watching the motion-comic of issue#1 of Invincible, it was okay. The only thing I remeber is that he was trying to find a superhero outfit and his dad fought a dragon in Asia.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:57:51 +0000

So far, I can think of five instances of sex (two with Invincible and one each with a fishman, Mark’s mom and Allen). Also, there was an interspecies tongue kiss. I think that it’s fair to say that there is more than a bit of sexual content.

Novels aren’t strictly comparable to comic books, of course, but James Bond only gets laid about once every 150 pages. In Invincible, someone gets laid about once every 8 issues (184 pages, right?). James Bond scenes get into more detail, though.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 22 May 2009 08:22:13 +0000

Not that there’s much sex in Invincible.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:58:56 +0000

Would you like me to erase or edit it? Not that I think it’s necessarily embarrassing, but I wouldn’t want anyone to feel embarrassed by something that they had written.

Personally, I find sexual pandering annoying because it implies to me that the writers/artists think that comic book readers are so sex-starved that they need their comics to be mmsexy. Long-term, I don’t think that’s a winning approach to convince readers that reading comic books is a mainstream activity. Oversexing comic books makes comic book stores feel creepy. I suspect that’s the main reason that women are much, much more inclined to read superhero novels than comic books.

By: Banana Slug

Banana Slug — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:50:18 +0000

…Oh, gosh, I wish I hadn’t written that…

By: Banana Slug

Banana Slug — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:49:23 +0000

I’ve never read Invincible, but I have no tolerance for comic books involving sex.

Why does it populate so much of our fiction? It seems that most comic books have sex, but isn’t it supposed to be an embarrassing subject? It does not strengthen your plot or characters, and all it does is appeal to sleazy teens who shouldn’t be encouraged. And for every person against it, there are a million saying, “git over it luser itz a fact of life!!” So’s going to the bathroom. Nobody wants to read about that.

When did lust win over love?

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:01:05 +0000

I think the supporting characters are great too, even the villains who appear for a single issue (or single page – single frame – sometimes). I just don’t really like the walk-ins of other Image characters for no real reason.

By: Stefan the Exploding Man

Stefan the Exploding Man — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:49:29 +0000

Yes, I think the change of artist with issue 7 was a good choice all around. Incidentally, seven is my favourite issue of the series. Say what you like about the amount of supporting characters, but I find myself caring about each and every one of them.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:06:07 +0000

I agree that there's a lot of talking, but I regarded that as more of a plus than a minus. I think the talking was the only reason I made it past issue 2. The art was pretty bad, the action was banal, the characters sounded mostly boring, and the backstory-- or what we had been told about the backstory, in any case-- was hopelessly trite. Thankfully, the story made remarkable improvements on all of those fronts.
For example, here's the cover for Invincible #1. It's a kind of boring angle, nothing is happening, and the quality of the art is distinctly subpar. There's no personality.
Here's the cover for #56. Much, much better. The pose is interesting, the shading and anatomy are solid and removing the image of Invincible from the upper-left hand corner was a good call. This has much more emotional impact and says something about the character. I'm not a fan of his ripped muscles, but I can live with it.

By: Stefan the Exploding Man

Stefan the Exploding Man — Wed, 20 May 2009 12:48:31 +0000

I’m thrilled that you’re reviewing Invincible, because I love it. I never noticed Invincible’s Mary Sue-ish tendencies before this, but they seem a lot clearer now. Also, Robert Kirkman’s characters tend to be very talky. Not as talky as anyone written by Brian Bendis, but still sometimes distractingly verbose.

Can’t wait for the “good” review.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:27:37 +0000

Yeah, I’m looking forward to it.

By: B. Mac

B. Mac — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:47:09 +0000

I agree with you about the crossovers. They feel gratuitous both from a storytelling perspective and an economic perspective. Marvel puts Wolverine on everyone’s cover because he sells.

I’m torn about the bloodshed. On the one hand, I think that blood underscores the brutal elements of the plot, and of the Vitrusian empire particularly. That said, sometimes the gore gets creepy. Characters lose eyes so often that I have a tally going. (So far I’m up to 4).

There’s a lot I really like about Invincible. In fact, so much that I felt I needed to do a separate article to fit it all. More on that later.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 19 May 2009 07:10:14 +0000

Haha! You’re right.

I think you could also say it suffers because it seems to bring in ‘guest characters’ for no real reason, and drawing on the Image Universe list of characters is never going to bring interesting characters into those kinds of stories.

Another drawback, especially later on is the gratuitous gore in some of the fight scenes. I think that’s because of Kirkman’s fascination with zombies, but I don’t think it’s needed here.

BTW, I love the Invincible comics, but they aren’t perfect. Good, shiny fun.