Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

What I Wrote About The Extinction Parade

Let me explain.

I wrote this about Titan Books: Max Brooks The Extinction Parade (collected trade vol.1) :

"Another book full of Avatar Comics well known brand of so far over the top gore and violence that calling it "over the top" is getting to be rather prosaic.

The story, well, I read it unlike most other reviewers who seem to be wetting themselves that Max Brooks wrote this. sigh

So, here goes:

Max Brooks, the best selling Zombie writer in history, unleashes an all-new horror epic! As humans wage their losing fight versus the hoards of the sub-dead, a frightening realization sets in with the secretive vampire race: our food is dying off.

This is the story of the vampire's decent into all-out war with the mindless, hungry hordes of the zombie outbreak as humanity tries to survive them all!

This collected edition contains the entire first chapter of Extinction Parade (ssues #1-5) and a massive undead cover gallery! Max Brooks' best-selling novel, World War Z, has been adapted into one of 2013's biggest blockbuster movie releases, bringing increased media attention to this acclaimed author.
Legendary Pictures announced they have optioned Extinction Parade for a TV series.

Right, wetting your knickers yet? I've read the World War Z script. "Best selling zombie writer in history" now this is either very badly phrased English or Max Brooks is a zombie in reality. If that is the case then yeah, hot ziggedy doo-dah he deserves praise because those things can barely walk let alone hold a pen or type! If they mean he is "the best selling zombie genre writer" then all I have to say is..meh.

There is nothing new here. Zombies. They were BIG in the 1980s and by now, like rap music, should be a dead genre. Humans are dying off and becoming zombies which vampires think is a laugh until they realise their "food" is dying off. Wow that is "so" original, isn't it? Literature for the not-so-bright or someone who wants a quick read in a lunch break.

The art, well, not a lot I can show because CBO tries to be family friendly as well as take into account that some of our visitors overseas might get into trouble if caught viewing certain content.

Blood coming from eyes, rotting corpses, graphic gore and blood splattering everywhere is to (prosaic phrase coming up) over the top that it is just boring. Boring, boring, boring -and I have been a huge horror movie/comics fan all my life!

Here is where the absolute stupidity and dullard thinking shows through: all of this graphic gore and, as the two female characters walk out of the bedroom after an obvious (though not shown) night of saphic delight, the one naked female has her breasts covered by the other who also covers up said naked lady's "magic furry fairy purse" (sigh. You realise that is a euphemism for "vagina", right?) by holding a towel in boob covering arm. And disrobing later the naked lady has her bottom covered up by a guy holding her robe.

Seriously? "Let's intimate these women are lesbians and naked at certain points but do not show that! But let's show them in a double pager leaving a blood covered body with blood spattered everywhere!"
This is not the greatest artwork but I think that might just be the gore and blood masking the art...or its improving it.

As I've already written, this is tedious and boring and just plain awful. Not a single redeeming feature that I could find."

The point was that these people churn out the gore -blood, brains, you know the kind of thing. They do this because it makes them hard core challengers of "regular comics" that shy away from this stuff. "No holds barred".....uh, but an uncovered breast or nipple...well, maybe not that far. But the odd penis in the past is okay?

Gore, gore and more gore. It's entertainment for small minds with no imagination. "Blow up a zombie!" "Stake a vampire!" -more blood and that is NOT great writing. Now when it comes to all the implied lesbianism (these comics seem to think guy-on-girl action is okay, though) I think a touching scene of intimacy -no, not just sex- might have broken things up so that there was some characterisation. This, according to someone TWO YEARS on from the review, means I was upset there was no lesbian sex shown. That was his "take away" from the review.

My response to that was going to be very rude but, instead, I wrote:

"My take away from your comment is that you either did not read it properly or my point was far too subtle for you. It also proves that you are NOT a regular reader of CBO and are just jumping in to be awkward. The point I'm making is VERY clear."

Get us to have sympathy with the characters. Show them being more intimate which does not mean having sex. Even if they are vampires it means you get the reader to sympathise with their plight and call into question the prejudice against vampire characters.

I'm aware that Brooks is Mel Brooks' son but so what? He seems to be just a zombie book/comic writer and even when World War Z was to be made into a movie he admitted that he was not a good enough writer to adapt it and so J. Michael Straczynski wrote the first version of the screenplay.

My point again: I do not necessarily want to see lesbian vampire sex. I want to see characterisation that gets the reader sympathetic with the characters. Maybe he couldn't handle writing two women being intimate (without sex)?

Do I care any more?  Not any more.  And certainly not when it comes to a comment by someone with no content on their own page (and, seriously let's think about our recent friends "Anonymous" etc with the same style of writing).

But it gives me the chance to expand on my old criticism that still holds.

No comments:

Post a Comment