Wonder Woman death in JLA? QUESTION! Please help!
Jim Smith
Alec Holland wrote:
>
> In JLA #10 GL mentions that Wonder Woman is "dead". To what is he refering.
> What in the WW monthly am I missing here? If anyone has answers please e-mail
> me
He's referring to the events of WONDER WOMAN #125. In fact, a large
number of Leaguers appear in the book--you may wanna pick it up.
Andrew Barnett
Dswynne wrote:
>
> Yep, she's dead (killed by Neron).
Care to elaborate? Is she dead for good, or is someone replacing her, or
are we without Wonder Woman for the forseeable future? Also, please
E-mail me the response because I will be out of town the next few days
and the article will be expired by the time I get back.
Alec Holland
Dswynne
Peter Meilinger
Jim Smith <5sm...@wworld.com> wrote:
> He's referring to the events of WONDER WOMAN #125. In fact, a large
> number of Leaguers appear in the book--you may wanna pick it up.
It's a damn good issue, too. I flipped through it in the store, then
ended up reading it in the store, then bought it because I always buy
any book I read entirely in the store, even if I never read it again.
Keeps me honest.
But did Diana actually die? I might have a defective comic here. In
the one I bought, the last page of story is the one where Supes shocks
Diana, J'onn exits here body and the doc says "It didn't work." Then it
cuts to the letter page, and only in the "Next Issue" box did I learn
Diana is actually dead. Did I get screwed or something?
Pete
thad a doria
In article <5roq5o$dt1$1...@news.abs.net>,
Alec Holland <imp...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> wrote:
>In JLA #10 GL mentions that Wonder Woman is "dead". To what is he refering.
>What in the WW monthly am I missing here?
"Missing" implies that there's anything of quality in the WW monthly.
You're not missing anything at all.
--
-Thad Doria
It's the Summer of Love...***Dude Love***!
thad a doria
In article <33E00B...@wworld.com>, Jim Smith <5sm...@wworld.com> wrote:
>Alec Holland wrote:
>>
>> In JLA #10 GL mentions that Wonder Woman is "dead". To what is he refering.
>> me
>
>He's referring to the events of WONDER WOMAN #125. In fact, a large
>number of Leaguers appear in the book--you may wanna pick it up.
>
Yeah, you can see Byrne derail his plot to try and retcon 10 years worth
of Etrigan stories.
kingnothing
thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
<EE6su...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> "Missing" implies that there's anything of quality in the WW monthly.
>
> You're not missing anything at all.
>
I take it, then, that you aren't reading WW.
(Other than trying to be "clever", thad, what possessed you to post this
message?)
WW is a very solid monthy. It is what most books aspire to be: it tells a
cohesive, linear story (few crossovers and had only three primary writers
in the past ten years). Great art work, rich history, good supporting cast.
Strong recommendation, here.
Logan
On 1 Aug 1997 07:17:04 GMT, "kingnothing" <kingn...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
why is it that everybody recommends these pissweak books
Mikko Aittola
medi...@deathsdoor.com (Logan) writes about Wonder Woman:
> why is it that everybody recommends these pissweak books
If you look at anything DC has put out in last 25
months, you'll find that most of the titles can't
hold as solid quality month after month.
John Byrne's Wonder Woman has done it.
(I guess Power of Shazam has been pretty good too,
but I used to hate Peter Krause's art before Giordano
made it work. Or maybe I should just give a second
look at those earlier issues... )
Batman (& Robin) Adventures doesn't count, because it was
restarted and hasn't reached #25 yet. BTW, #25 is the last B&R Adv.
issue...
I think other DC titles have had "fill-in issues" in terms
of quality writing or at least quality art. If you don't like
Byrne, that's ok, but I think he has been very consistent
with his work on WW.
/Mikko
thad a doria
In article <01bc9e5c$06545060$b5bd2581@default>,
kingnothing <kingn...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
><EE6su...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
>
>> "Missing" implies that there's anything of quality in the WW monthly.
>>
>> You're not missing anything at all.
>>
>
>I take it, then, that you aren't reading WW.
Read the latest issue on the stands. Crap.
>WW is a very solid monthy. It is what most books aspire to be: it tells a
>cohesive, linear story (few crossovers and had only three primary writers
>in the past ten years). Great art work, rich history, good supporting cast.
Sure, when Perez was in charge.
>Strong recommendation, here.
Couldn't disagree more. Typical of Byrne's work in the past 10 years:
No real emotion
Cardboard characters
Uninspired plots
Clumsy dialogue
Just stating my views.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
kingnothing wrote:
>
>
> I take it, then, that you aren't reading WW.
> message?)
I'm not gonna say you're wrong, cause I don't read it now. But I did read
Byrne's first few issues so...
>
> WW is a very solid monthy.
When did this happen.
>It is what most books aspire to be: it tells a
> cohesive, linear story
Granted.
> (few crossovers and had only three primary writers
> in the past ten years).
OK. But let's look at the current run.
> Great art work,
Not currently.
> rich history,
Did John bring this back?
> good supporting cast.
Has he developed one now?
> Strong recommendation, here.
YMMV.
--
Yes, I've finally resorted to a Spam block.
To respond, remove the letters BLOCK from my address.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rich.
R P Apaya
On 1 Aug 1997, Mikko Aittola wrote:
> If you look at anything DC has put out in last 25
> months, you'll find that most of the titles can't
> hold as solid quality month after month.
>
> John Byrne's Wonder Woman has done it.
Not quite. JB's Wonder Woman has been CONSISTENT over his run, whether or
not this represents `solid quality' is a different question.
John Byrne is the kind of top quality creator which the Wonder Woman title
deserves, and I enjoy his work very much. Unfortunately his interpretation
of Wonder Woman leaves me a liitle bit cold, precisely because it is much
more `Wonder Woman' than `Diana'.
I wholly support his efforts to firmly establish Diana as #2 in the DC
Universe, after Superman (leaving aside `cosmic' entities, etc.).
However, Byrne's WW is surprisingly devoid of emotion, 2-dimensional and
pushed aside in her own title by a circus of supporting characters. Rather
than adding to Diana's world, they simply detract from her. Byrne does
`Wonder Woman-the warrior' very well, but he seems to forget the `woman'!
Diana was always so much more than just a warrior; she strove for
solutions rather than victory through violence. But when it was
necessary to fight she never hesitated in her duty (eg. the decapitation
of Deimos). She was always quietly observant and thoughtful, instead of
overly analytical. In fact, the scene in the last issue involving Donna
and Green Lantern stood out for me because it WAS emotionally charged and
worked very well. An exception to recent issues.
Byrne doesn't seem to find enough interesting aspects of Diana's character
to fill her own book, hence the reliance on secondary characters, some of
whom have nothing to do with her mythos (eg. the Demon).
Shadow Leader MegaBee
Logan <medi...@deathsdoor.com> wrote:
> On 1 Aug 1997 07:17:04 GMT, "kingnothing" <kingn...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
> >thad a doria <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
> ><EE6su...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> >
> >> "Missing" implies that there's anything of quality in the WW monthly.
> >>
> >> You're not missing anything at all.
> >>
> >
> >(Other than trying to be "clever", thad, what possessed you to post this
> >message?)
> >
> >cohesive, linear story (few crossovers and had only three primary writers
> >in the past ten years). Great art work, rich history, good supporting cast.
> >
> why is it that everybody recommends these pissweak books
I'm just taking a guess, here, but maybe it's because the people making
the recommendations don't think the books are pissweak?
Differing opinions, folks. You probably read a few books that I'd describe
as 'pissweak'.
----
H. Jameel al Khafiz, Physicist-At-Large, still giddy from BotCon
"Burn, traitor, burn!" --Inferno, Beast Wars
"Burn him in the butt!" --Beavis
The Happy Fun Page --> http://www.dhp.com/~spectre
Mikko Aittola
do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) writes:
> Yeah, you can see Byrne derail his plot to try and retcon 10 years worth
> of Etrigan stories.
Oh, it's that that oh door guy again. He rarely posts anything
unless there is a good chance to slam JB. You see, rumour
has it that JB did run over t.a.d. or maybe it was tad's
dog. Who knows for sure?
Anyway, he's usually incapable of back his claims up.
/Mikko "just in case there's one newbie hangin' 'round
hereabouts..."
Chant along with Swami Elmo
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> writes:
> (I guess Power of Shazam has been pretty good too,
> but I used to hate Peter Krause's art before Giordano
> made it work. Or maybe I should just give a second
> look at those earlier issues... )
Pete's art started really working around the beginning of the second year;
he's been improving by leaps and bounds since the beginning and he is
vastly to be commended both for his skill and for his improvement.
Giordano, I'm sad to say, has seen better days. His inking now is
not up to the standard of yore--but then, like Charles Schultz's work on
Peanuts, the standard of yore is so high that even a massive comedown
is still better than average.
--
"Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet, and I had to kill a PI out in 'Frisco to
get a lead statue of a bird containing a micro film copy of a story in which
Vi and Ayla discuss their relationship. It also had a backup story of Ivy's
origin. Gordon and Giffen art on the backup. Okay story."--Mike Chary
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Brian H. Bailie
In article <EE8L4...@midway.uchicago.edu>, do...@midway.uchicago.edu
(thad a doria) wrote:
>
> Couldn't disagree more. Typical of Byrne's work in the past 10 years:
> No real emotion
For my money, the handful of panels with Batman showed more emotion than
anything I've seen in an O'Neill-edited book this decade.
Nice to see Batman done right.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Mikko Aittola
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." wrote [quoting kingnothing]:
>> WW is a very solid monthy.
It didn't "happen" in any particular moment. WW just has been
a solid read the last 25 months. Remember that we're talking
about a monhtly comic-book. There are ups and downs, but
the overall quality has been very solid.
If you don't like Byrne's storytelling style, that's another
thing. People just tend to complain about the things like
"why he has to put Demon in WW" or other as stupid. If
Byrne writes WW/Demon team-up, I try to think if it's
a good WW/Demon team-up or not. I don't complain why he didn't
write such and such story. I try to take everything for
what it is.
>> rich history,
> Did John bring this back?
It never went away. Things just got a little confused
during the end of Loebs' run. People are crazy if they
think Byrne should refer to all of Diana's history
in the first couple issues, just so they can be sure
the history still exists. I can't understand where
people got this idea. Diana just moved to another city,
that's it.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
R P Apaya <rp...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Byrne does `Wonder Woman-the warrior' very well, but he seems to forget
> the `woman'! Diana was always so much more than just a warrior;
> she strove for solutions rather than victory through violence.
SNIP!
> In fact, the scene in the last issue involving Donna and Green Lantern
> stood out for me because it WAS emotionally charged and
> worked very well. An exception to recent issues.
What about the ending to the Lansinar story or Cheetah story or
Champion/Amazons-turned-into-stone story?
I can't see the "exception" anywhere. I think Byrne has main-
tained a balance of sorts between battle and brains.
/Mikko
kingnothing
> >WW is a very solid monthy. It is what most books aspire to be: it tells
a
> >cohesive, linear story (few crossovers and had only three primary
writers
> >in the past ten years). Great art work, rich history, good supporting
cast.
>
>
I ,too, preferred the Perez run -especially the first two years when he
also drew the issues. However, Byrne's two years on WW have drawn such
heavy criticism from this ng that I feel compelled to defend him. It seems
to me that most of the negative posts are from people who are not reading
the current issues. I feel they are responding to either the silly Diane
Prince or Lynda Carter tv-show era, or still have a grudge against Byrne
for the Post-Crisis revision of Superman et all. Pick up the current
issue.
Granted, in Byrne's two years, there are too many tie-ins with Kirby's DC
characters. But, on the other hand, he is -almost singlehandedly -keeping
them alive. (Compare his 4th World issues with the first nine or so issues
of New Gods that preceded his. They were poor in comparison to his.)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Mikko Aittola wrote:
>
> "Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." wrote [quoting kingnothing]:
>
> It didn't "happen" in any particular moment. WW just has been
> a solid read the last 25 months. Remember that we're talking
> about a monhtly comic-book. There are ups and downs, but
> the overall quality has been very solid.
Well put. I disagree of course. But I see your point.
>
> If you don't like Byrne's storytelling style, that's another
> thing.
Actually I do. But only on his own characters (Next Men, Alpha Flight, etc.)
Something about his grasp of established characters bugs me. I'll still like
to see his take on Hawkman though.
> People just tend to complain about the things like
> "why he has to put Demon in WW" or other as stupid. If
> Byrne writes WW/Demon team-up, I try to think if it's
> a good WW/Demon team-up or not. I don't complain why he didn't
> write such and such story. I try to take everything for
> what it is.
Good point. Are people complaining about Etrigan being in WW or about his
background being wrong? The first is a good thing (I liked the Superman/Demon
stories Byrne did), the second is a valid complaint.
>
>
> >> rich history,
> > Did John bring this back?
>
> It never went away.
You're right of course. He didn't erase it, he ignored it.
> Things just got a little confused
> during the end of Loebs' run. People are crazy if they
> think Byrne should refer to all of Diana's history
> in the first couple issues, just so they can be sure
> the history still exists. I can't understand where
> people got this idea. Diana just moved to another city,
> that's it.
It sure FELT like she got a personality transplant, lost her support
mechanisms, and no longer had a backstory. It felt like ground zero.
From what I hear he has all these elements up and running again so I
might come back. Now if I can find a copy of 125...
Alleigh
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." wrote [quoting kingnothing]:
>>> WW is a very solid monthy.
>> When did this happen.
>
> It didn't "happen" in any particular moment. WW just has been
> a solid read the last 25 months. Remember that we're talking
> about a monhtly comic-book. There are ups and downs, but
> the overall quality has been very solid.
> If you don't like Byrne's storytelling style, that's another
> thing. People just tend to complain about the things like
> "why he has to put Demon in WW" or other as stupid. If
> Byrne writes WW/Demon team-up, I try to think if it's
> a good WW/Demon team-up or not. I don't complain why he didn't
> write such and such story. I try to take everything for
> what it is.
>
My problem with his version is the art. Wonder Woman (IMO) looks like
a guy with breasts. I didn't understand why Diana witnesses the death
of Artemis and then the next issue was in a different city.
>>> rich history,
>> Did John bring this back?
> It never went away. Things just got a little confused
> during the end of Loebs' run. People are crazy if they
> think Byrne should refer to all of Diana's history
> in the first couple issues, just so they can be sure
> the history still exists. I can't understand where
> people got this idea. Diana just moved to another city,
> that's it.
Off-topic question (sort -of)
I have a question. Was Diana's aunt named Antiope? If so its kinda
interesting that Diana's mother and aunt are tech the same person.
According the Mythology book I got last week Hipolyta was also know as
Antiope. And Diana's grandfather would be Ares (if they went by
certain stories of Mythology)
> /Mikko
ShutUpRob
In article <b.h.bailie-01...@magnum.larc.nasa.gov>,
b.h.b...@larc.nasa.gov (Brian H. Bailie) writes:
>For my money, the handful of panels with Batman showed
>more emotion than anything I've seen in an O'Neill-edited
>book this decade.
>
>Nice to see Batman done right.
>
>
Not only that, but Wally's reactions to Donna . . . Awww!
OTOH, I'm waiting for JLB to cut down on the awkward
exposition so that he can start applying the same attention
to characterization to Diana herself.
I think that JLB's WW is a pretty solid monthly, but I
think it's still got quite a-ways to go until it reaches the
level of Flash, Young Heroes In Love or Spectre. (And
what a disparate group of titles that is!)
-- Rob Jensen
"Soon after producers of Chicago Hope announced plans for an
all-musical episode of the popular drama, Joe Straczynski
announced similar plans for his ground-breaking science-fiction
opus. Coming Soon: Beach Blanket Babylon 5." Ekojasisiht!
Rob Hansen
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 04:02:32 GMT, rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) wrote:
>Off-topic question (sort -of)
>I have a question. Was Diana's aunt named Antiope?
Yes.
>If so its kinda
>interesting that Diana's mother and aunt are tech the same person.
>According the Mythology book I got last week Hipolyta was also know as
>Antiope. And Diana's grandfather would be Ares (if they went by
>certain stories of Mythology)
From my own reference, Bernard Evslin's _Gods, Demigods, & Demons_:
HIPPOLYTA: Queen of the Amazons, whom Heracles subdued in his ninth
labour, and whose girdle he took in completion of his task. Some
legends say he subdued her in single combat with a sword and spear.
Others say he out-wrestled her. In another legend, Hippolyta falls in
love with Heracles and gives him her girdle as a love-token. In still
another tale, she becomes the wife of Theseus and mother of the
woman-hating, horse-taming Hippolytus. In this last legend her
identity seems to have been confused with that of her sister, Antiope
- also cited as wife of Theseus and mother of Hippolytus.
I've never come across _any_ version of the myths in which Ares is
Hippolyta's father , so I'm a bit puzled by the notion he could be
Diana's grandfather.
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
thad a doria
In article <idnafj1...@beta.hut.fi>,
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) writes:
>> Yeah, you can see Byrne derail his plot to try and retcon 10 years worth
>> of Etrigan stories.
>
"oh door"..."odor". Hey you're cool!
> He rarely posts anything
> unless there is a good chance to slam JB.
Not quite true, but when the opportunity is there, sure. I also post if
there's a good chance of steering the conversation toward talking ape
comics, why don't you bring up that?
> You see, rumour has it that JB did run over t.a.d. or maybe it was tad's
> dog. Who knows for sure?
Just a joke. (hey it always works for Elayne...)
> Anyway, he's usually incapable of back his claims up.
Claim? Unless it's a plotline involving an impostor Merlin, the retcon is
right there in the issue. And how many IMO's must I include in my Byrne
bashing before you understand that it's purely subjective? *In my
opinion*, John Byrne has produced an astonishingly small number of good
stories in the past 10 years. He is producing hackwork on a regular basis.
Some here agree with my assessment. Some don't.
Agree to disagree.
thad a doria
In article <01bc9f47$344d3220$50bd2581@default>,
kingnothing <kingn...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >WW is a very solid monthy. It is what most books aspire to be: it tells
>a
>> >cohesive, linear story (few crossovers and had only three primary
>writers
>> >in the past ten years). Great art work, rich history, good supporting
>cast.
>>
>> Sure, when Perez was in charge.
>>
>
>I ,too, preferred the Perez run -especially the first two years when he
>also drew the issues. However, Byrne's two years on WW have drawn such
>heavy criticism from this ng that I feel compelled to defend him. It seems
>to me that most of the negative posts are from people who are not reading
>the current issues. I feel they are responding to either the silly Diane
>Prince or Lynda Carter tv-show era, or still have a grudge against Byrne
>for the Post-Crisis revision of Superman et all. Pick up the current
>issue.
>
>Granted, in Byrne's two years, there are too many tie-ins with Kirby's DC
>characters. But, on the other hand, he is -almost singlehandedly -keeping
>them alive.
Doesn't Byrne demand exclusive control over their appearances now?
Otherwise Kesel and Ordway could be using them.
> (Compare his 4th World issues with the first nine or so issues
>of New Gods that preceded his. They were poor in comparison to his.)
True. Actually, I've been complimentary toward JK4W so far (but I just
don't think it's good enough to sit through that crossover so I'm dropping
it). Ceratinly a step up from Pollack's attempt.
But this thread was about WW.
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> My problem with his version is the art. Wonder Woman (IMO) looks like
> a guy with breasts.
I think this guy (or girl) needs desperately buy an anatomy
book. Byrne's WW is much more close to real "powerful woman"
anatomy compared to "Deodato woman" or "Wildstorm woman".
Can you give an example what it is with WW that looks like
a guy? Do you REALLY have trouble to pick apart "Byrne man"
and "Byrne woman"?
/Mikko
Edward Mathews
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. (rich...@erols.com) wrote:
: kingnothing wrote:
: >
: >
: > I take it, then, that you aren't reading WW.
: > (Other than trying to be "clever", thad, what possessed you to post this
: > message?)
: I'm not gonna say you're wrong, cause I don't read it now. But I did read
: >
: > WW is a very solid monthy.
:
: When did this happen.
Wonder Woman #120, recapping 10 years of the Amazing Amazon's history in
rich detail. I highly recommend it as a starting point. Perez did the
cover.
Ed (who rarely posts reviews unless the book is really outstanding or
incredibly poor, WW#120 falling into the former category) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
Shawn Hill
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr. (rich...@erols.com) wrote:
: > If you don't like Byrne's storytelling style, that's another
: > thing.
: Actually I do. But only on his own characters (Next Men, Alpha Flight, etc.)
: Something about his grasp of established characters bugs me. I'll still like
: to see his take on Hawkman though.
I was just thinking he would be perfect for resurrecting Hawkman from his
morrass of discontinuity. Much better than he has been at destroying
Diana's.
: Good point. Are people complaining about Etrigan being in WW or about his
: background being wrong? The first is a good thing (I liked the Superman/Demon
: stories Byrne did), the second is a valid complaint.
It's valid to complain about the Demon being in WW if you hate the
f&*&*&(g Demon as much as I do. And Byrne's fetishization of him. Alan
Moore was the only one who ever did anything slightly interesting with
him. Oh, but he's a KIRBY KREATION, so Byrne must now possess him.
Gotcha.
: It sure FELT like she got a personality transplant, lost her support
: mechanisms, and no longer had a backstory. It felt like ground zero.
: From what I hear he has all these elements up and running again so I
: might come back. Now if I can find a copy of 125...
Sort of. More like up and limping. I like Artemis, though. And I think
my favorite Byrne/WW issue by far was the Pulp Heroes annual, which forced
him to leave scifi behind and really do some mythology for a minute or two
(and a sustained, dark emotional tone). Of course, even that had a
flubbed ending.
Shawn
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"I see my long lost home in his eyes/
he sees a nice hotel in mine"
--j. hatfield,
"forever baby"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
sh...@husc.harvard.edu Shawn Hill
Mikko Aittola
do...@midway.uchicago.edu (thad a doria) writes:
> Couldn't disagree more. Typical of Byrne's work in the past 10 years:
> No real emotion
> Cardboard characters
> Uninspired plots
> Clumsy dialogue
>
> Just stating my views.
Without giving examples or proof of ANY kind?
Obviously you either can't or don't dare discuss things.
After you stop being so afraid, I'm ready to discuss here
every DC-Byrne-book I've read and share my thoughts about
them. But you have to learn how to back your claims
first, and how to give an specific example that one can
respond to.
/Mikko
Alleigh
Mikko Aittola <mait...@beta.hut.fi> wrote:
How about his art sucks. Is that better. It has nothing to do with the
bodys that he draws it is Byrne's faces. I haven't liked his art
since the Sensational She-Hulk.
> /Mikko
Westbrook
Only coming through in waves, rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) wrote:
>How about his art sucks. Is that better. It has nothing to do with the
>bodys that he draws it is Byrne's faces. I haven't liked his art
>since the Sensational She-Hulk.
I wouldn't say that his faces suck. I kinda like both of them.
-------------
My Comics Want List:
Adventure Comics: 460-462, 466 Amazing World of DC Comics: 1-18 Infinity Inc.: 10, 34
Isis: 2, 5-7 Justice League of America (pre-1973.):
1-19, 21, 25,28, 29, 31-33, 35-38, 40-43, 45-47, 50-55, 58,61, 68, 73-74, 79, 85, 94, 111, 112,
115 Limited Collectors' Edition C-46 (JLA issue) Superfriends: 1, 3, 6, 10, 12-15, 17,
19, 21, 24-27, 29, 31, 32, 41 Special: 1 Superman: 257
*loose covers: JLofA 9, 112, 115; Teen Titans (1st series) 53
*partial books: JLofA 14, 52, 61 (inquire as to which pages)
Please list individual prices for each issue and email all offers to west...@hsnp.com.
-------------
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6663/
Mikko Aittola
rog...@airmail.net (Alleigh) writes:
> How about his art sucks. Is that better. It has nothing to do with the
> bodys that he draws it is Byrne's faces. I haven't liked his art
> since the Sensational She-Hulk.
Really?
Some people say that Byrne's WW is exactly like She-Hulk -
they look the same etc.
Then you put out an argument like that...
Well, can you tell me what's wrong with Byrne's faces and how
are they different compared to his She-Hulk era faces?
/Mikko