Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Next Up: Lone Wolv' And Hulk-Cub (PCS Repost)

I want to give a big thumbs up to one of the most satisfying comics I've read in a long time--Mark Millar and Steve McNiven's Old Man Logan--which just concluded with this week's Giant-Sized Old Man Logan #1. Hot damn, that was a good book!

I get a little spoilery when I gush, so watch out. (And ew.)

Like Future Imperfect, Peter David's inspired "What If?"-like digression during his run on The Incredible Hulk, in which he introduced one possible future where Bruce Banner outlived all the other Marvel mainstays by giving in to his dark side and becoming The Maestro, Old Man Logan is a digression into another possible imperfect future. It also involves the Hulk, as well as several other heroes, villains, and next-generation shades of gray, outliving the old world and the old ways. And, of course, it involves Wolverine, aka Logan, in what I think should go down as one of the great character-defining stories involving the old Canucklehead.


And in case you weren't aware, Millar and Marvel have done more with this mini than just tell an awesome What If: Wolverine story. Old Man Logan actually ties directly to Millar's other two recent Marvel projects--the enjoyable 1985 and his ambitious year-long run on Fantastic Four, which introduced the characters currently in the spin-off book Fantastic Force.


Old Man Logan is the only must read of that bunch, but I think it is admirably creative on the writer's part to think outside the panel box like this and craft three stories simultaneously that are all bigger than themselves. The reader wasn't beholden to any one story to understand or enjoy the rest, but if you happened to read all three like me, you got an enhanced experience. (So, thanks for that, MM.)


So what do you think--was Old Man Logan the book of the week? Could it be the best series of the year? Would you buy a "Lone Wolv' and Hulk-Cub" sequel that filled in the 20+ year gap between this and the characters' reappearance in Fantastic Four?


No comments: