Kingdom Come...Decent, if that

[Chairman Pow]

So, I just got done with KINGDOM COME, the tour de force that's on par with...some other DC comics that I've never read (have to admit a Marvel bias though). A drastic reworking of the heroes and their roles in society.

Competely average (except for the artwork of course).

I thought they were going to do something interesting like, each generation has its time and when they're done, it's time to go home. Stop playing in a world that you made, but failed to make it the one you want. Leave youth for the young, etc.

Instead, we get the standard, "heroes don't do as good as they thought, then get all pissy like Mark Prior when he gets homered on and stomp off, leaving the world to its own devices. Then they come back and realize that things have gotten out of hand and that people need them to keep things straight and they learn what it means to really be human. Or a hero. Or something."

The generation gap thing was cool, but never developed, instead it read like a bunch of guys writing in all their City of Heroes characters (or, in this case, heroes they created when they were 11, according to the preview issue) because they need some quick extras.

Ok, so Superman failed. Then he tried to do make up for it and failed again. Then Batman shows him up. Then Shazam shows him up and Supes gets all pissy and shows everyone what an emotionally underdeveloped egomaniac he truly is. And people love him.

And Batman learns to make a joke.

There were two ideas implied in his series that weren't addressed that would have made for some substantially better reading:

1) The heroes failed. They couldn't control their offspring/antecedents and gave up. Some just went away (I like how GL stayed on his Asteroid M and watched for extraterrestrial problems despite the fact that no aliens wanted anything to do with the Earth. I wonder if he knew that. If he did, that would have been cool) and some became facsists (Flash and Batman, who later digs at Supes for being a facist and when Supes rebuts doesn't have an answer).

They come back and nearly destroy everything anyway. Luthor had (we presume) the situation under control and would have destroyed the weaker heroes in time. Would the humans have been better off? Probably not, but they woudn't be at the mercy of the superheroes, just themselves.

2) Humans aren't worth protecting. Humans by themselves can't be relied upon to do what's right and need these "metahuman" shepards. So, why bother?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Why's it supposed to be so great?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Timing played a big role. IIRC, it came at a time when the industry was in a slump (it's been a while, so I may be wrong).

The artwork is stunning, though.

After you've read it, go here and check out all the "hidden" background jokes and such.

[Askia]

Kingdom Come was merely decent. The true energy and innovation comes from Alex Ross' artwork, backgrounds, hidden jokes and character designs; the script judged on its own merits is mostly pedestrian with maybe five really good ideas. The whole things leads up to that unforgettable Superman/Captain Marvel battle, who came up with the execution and hook (magic lightning fucks up Superman) that made it work.

To get an idea what Kingdom Come is like without Ross' magic, see the "Kingdom" follow up. The only chapter remotely readable is the Plastic Man/Frank Quitely one-shot.

I am a DC booster and I freely admit that Marvels captures the Marvel Universe better and with a denoument that the creators snuck in... at some point, everyone falls in love with Marvel Comics, and at some point everyone gets sick of them. Phil Sheldon's quitting and passing on his equipment to his assistant mirrors a real-world collector giving up his collection and passing it on to a younger reader.

[JDeMobray]

Originally Posted by Askia

I am a DC booster and I freely admit that Marvels captures the Marvel Universe better and with a denoument that the creators snuck in... at some point, everyone falls in love with Marvel Comics, and at some point everyone gets sick of them. Phil Sheldon's quitting and passing on his equipment to his assistant mirrors a real-world collector giving up his collection and passing it on to a younger reader.

The thing is, in the case of Kingdom Come, Marvel did the exact same thing only better with Squadron Supreme.

The only advantage KC has is the Alex Ross art, which is worth it by itself but I didn't find the actual plot to be revolutionary, groundbreaking or even very well written.

But personal opinions will vary.

[Cisco]

I thought Kingdom Come was horrible. The only memorable part in the whole book is when Superman dissapears while Batman is talking and Bruce says "So that's what that feels like..."

Other than that it was crap. Good-looking crap but crap.

[Orbifold]

I disagree with most people about the artwork. While Alex Ross is clearly a good artist, I don't think his art makes for good comic books. It's so realistic that it hampers both the sense of closure between panels and my ability to get drawn into the story. It ceases to be a comic book and instead becomes a photo album: "What I did on my summer vacation after Kansas exploded."

That said, it was purty to look at.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Orbifold

I disagree with most people about the artwork. While Alex Ross is clearly a good artist, I don't think his art makes for good comic books. It's so realistic that it hampers both the sense of closure between panels and my ability to get drawn into the story. It ceases to be a comic book and instead becomes a photo album: "What I did on my summer vacation after Kansas exploded."

That said, it was purty to look at.

This is a good point. I love his posters but when it comes to actual comics I think his art definitely gets in the way of the story.

Give me Erik Larsen or one of the Kuberts or Romitas any day.

[CandidGamera]

Okay, wow. I thought everybody loved Kingdom Come.

Wes Dodd's final moments; the Superman/Captain Marvel fight; the sheer contempt between Wonder Woman and Batman; Batman's dig at Luthor at the end; the revelation that the Shazam-looking figure we see most of the time is just Billy Batson, who grew up to look just like his superheroic alter ego; traumatized Martian Manhunter; the ultimate irrelevance of the Riddler, reduced to an afterthought of Selina's; Batman's 'control' of Gotham; etc.

I mean, no, it's not the greatest thing ever, but it's got a lot of good moments.

[RikWriter]

Sorry, but I have to totally disagree with you. Kingdom Come was a masterpiece, particularly for the artwork, but the story was very well done also. Your "summary" of the story was incredibly oversimplistic and missed the main points of it, particularly the point that humans are the EQUAL of the metahumans ethically and should be treated as such.

[Master Wang-Ka]

It's also a sly commentary on the state of the comics industry at the time.

Waid went on record as stating that Magog represented everything he didn't like about the direction of the "superhero" as of the late eighties and early nineties -- big, loud, cyborged, megamuscled, possessing an attitude, and willing to kill... sometimes for the most trivial reasons. Magog is the basic Image Comics superhero. The only thing missing is the gun bigger than his torso... replaced by a golden spear that shoots energy blasts (with which he kills folks).

Superman is about justice. Batman is about righteous vengeance. Magog is about kicking ass and taking names, sometimes on the flimsiest of pretexts.

In the story, Magog's popularity eclipses Superman's. Outraged that the people want a champion who wantonly kills, Superman retires. Meanwhile, Batman's identity collapses under the weight of age and plot devices; he retires to the hidden Batcave, and keeps Gotham's underworld in check by using robot Bat-Knights. The Olde Heroes vacate, disappear, retire.

...leaving the new ones to do as they like. They have multiplied, the children and grandchildren of the Silver Age, to the point where the night sky is full of flying people...

Magog becomes the dominant paradigm, the major role model... until his irresponsibility leads to disaster and mass destruction.

...in much the same way that Image and its imitators became the dominant newsstand comics of the early nineties... until the market collapsed under the sheer weight of product, and sheer paucity of anything actually worth reading.

Weirdly enough, Kingdom Come was actually kind of prophetic, too. Image is still around, but publishing a fraction of what it once was. Most of the small indy outfits of the time are dead or bought out. Marvel's still around, but struggling (although high-profile movies have helped in recent years)... whereas DC is doing remarkably well, back in the number one slot, and producing some fine, quality material. The old guys must have known what they were doing...

[Ludovic]

[worst hijack i've done in months]The downside to Kingdom Come is that you can't have a website without people thinking it's for more questionable purposes. Same dealio with a website named after one of our humanoid ancestors, who walked upright....[/hijack]

[Chairman Pow]

Originally Posted by RikWriter

Sorry, but I have to totally disagree with you. Kingdom Come was a masterpiece, particularly for the artwork, but the story was very well done also. Your "summary" of the story was incredibly oversimplistic and missed the main points of it, particularly the point that humans are the EQUAL of the metahumans ethically and should be treated as such.

I'll bite: why should I like it?

Master et. al.: I got the Magog/Image reference, but should I be reading it as an allegory about how comics should, to save themselves, get all touchy-feely with their fans and return to the old values that have kept them staid for umpteen years? That's kind of lame.

I can see it though. Every year I check out Waid's speech at the ComiCon and he always harps on how superhero comcis need to go and get back to their roots, etc. But he gets whiny when he talks about how decompressed storytelling is ruining the industry.

I also have to admit that the only in-joke I got was the Hollis Mason book in the bookstore window.

[JDeMobray]

Originally Posted by RikWriter

Your "summary" of the story was incredibly oversimplistic and missed the main points of it, particularly the point that humans are the EQUAL of the metahumans ethically and should be treated as such.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one (although I wish I had my book here with me so I could pull out specific images and dialogue). The humans screwed everything up at the end of the book. Without human intervention, the big metahuman conflict would have resolved itself in a comparitively non-fatal way.

Look at the set-up for the climactic resolution; Superman has Billy Batson gripped and is in the process of "turning" him back to good. Batman's forces have entered the battle with the intent of stopping the fight. Superman has already realized what he should have known all along; that the gulag doesn't work. Everything is set up for a (comic book world) "happy ending."

Then the humans drop a bomb on them and, but for the literal deus-ex-machina, stand within a few seconds of being smooshed. Hundreds, if not thousands, of metahumans die in one senseless act of fear and distrust.

The ending to Kingdom Come was the Scourge plotline magnified to the thousandth power. Metahumans acting up? Too many characters to keep track of? Causing you trouble as a writer? Just kill all the ones that don't sell 4 titles a month. Sounds good to me.

(Also, I thought that Norman McKay's/The Spectre's lack of judgement at the end basically obliterated any possible reading of the book as any kind of morality tale . Essentially there was no moral. It was, to quote Homer Simpson, just a bunch of stuff that happened. Or didn't happen as the case may be.)

[BraheSilver]

I liked it for the incredible art (of course), but for me one of the most interesting things is all the inside references. Like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I had a lot of fun finding the obscure asides and not-so-subtle allusions to other works.

[Askia]

Originally Posted by JDeMobray

The humans screwed everything up at the end of the book. Without human intervention, the big metahuman conflict would have resolved itself in a comparitively non-fatal way.

Had the riot in the Gulag been successfully contained, I would agree. But the Gulag was breached. Prisoners were escaping. Batman and the others could only minimize the bloodshed, but the superhuman murderers of the Gulag wouldn't have let THAT stop them. Once Wonder Woman killed Von Bach, that was it, the tide had turned. By the time Superman had Billy Batson nuetralized there was no way even he could stop the escalating violence from exploding worldwide, impending nuclear strike or not.

There are some comic book fans who won't agree with me on this next point: Kingdom Come's script was an abbreviated, watered-down version of Alan Moore's far superior Twilight of the Superheroes proposal.

KC kept the idea of a futuristic superhero dystopic view, the nihilistic tone, the idea of a Superman/Captain Marvel final fight, the "Captain-Marvel-is-not-what-he-seems" twist, the separate superhero "camps", superhuman bar with aging Plastic Man, commited older Green Arrow/Black Canary couple, etc. Those, plus a few other bits of Waid's (superman being immune to Kryptonite and maybe the theme restaurant), make it a fairly conventional amalgam of Moore's overall hook (future DC superheroes battle to death and mankind is saved from superhuman fascism and Thangarian alien invasion, plus the discovery of "The Fluke") and a less elegant story by Waid (humans attempt to kill off superhumans, and let's change "The Fluke" to Hypertime).

Some of waid's ideas, Ross's visual in-jokes and the extra 12 page epilogue saves KINGDOM COME from being a complete rip-off, although it is painful to see how lacking Waid is with the talented artists who tried to do THE KINGDOM sequel. It sorely needed Alex Ross.

[rjung]

Not to hijack the thread too much, but I thought the big problem with The Kingdom was that -- instead of exploring superhuman social issues with nifty art the way Kingdom Come did -- it was all just a bloated excuse to trot out the idea of Hypertime.

Eh, I still like Kingdom Come. Fun read. Not sure if I'd rank it above Astro City, though.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

[worst hijack i've done in months]The downside to Kingdom Come is that you can't have a website without people thinking it's for more questionable purposes. Same dealio with a website named after one of our humanoid ancestors, who walked upright....[/hijack]

...a website called "Australopithecus?"

Originally Posted by Chairman Pow

Master et. al.: I got the Magog/Image reference, but should I be reading it as an allegory about how comics should, to save themselves, get all touchy-feely with their fans and return to the old values that have kept them staid for umpteen years? That's kind of lame.

No.

First of all, the thing to keep in mind is that ANY allegory is simply the opinion of the writer. You're quite free to disagree.

I did not interpret the allegory quite the same way that you did.

First of all, the real crux of the story, the major turning point in the central part of the book was:

SPOILER:

when Magog fried the Joker. "Creep had been deserving worse than cuffs for years, so I took it upon myself to lay him down. I can't be judged for that."

...now that's something I've thought to myself for years now.

SPOILER:

Jaysus, the Joker kills, what, fifty people, every time he gets out? Howcome some clever Gotham cop hasn't iced the grinning bastard by now? But Gotham has no death penalty... so they lock him up again... and he keeps escaping... and killing... and Batman catches him... and they lock him up again...

Magog's "solution" doesn't seem THAT extreme, at first. It's something I, and a zillion other comic fans have thought about, and a lot of us went "YEAH!" when the moment happened in Kingdom Come.

The authors' point is the fact that this moment -- however justified -- despite the fact that Magog WAS judged, fair trial, and found innocent -- marked a moral rubicon. Magog had crossed a line, and set himself up to become the destroyer of Kansas, the unintentional murderer of a million people. And the people of Metropolis cheered him on, all the way.

The heroes weren't the only corrupt ones. Society, in some ways, made them what they were and egged them on... and then wanted to blame them when things got totally out of control.

Remember the scene in the Gulag, where Stripesy is shouting at the hologram? "Who toasted Ras Al Ghul? Who bagged Eclipso? We saved LIVES, man!" Sounds like he DID, in fact... which begs the question: how do you judge those who murder in order to save lives?

Well, in Kingdom Come, the Justice League's solution seems to involve stuffing all the bad guys into the Gulag -- a solution that seems to not be working all that well, even BEFORE the MLF and the United Nations start screwing with things.

Oh, yeah, the United Nations. Another important theme. All these Very Important People, who get all KINDS of bent when they realize that the reins of control have been quietly lifted from their hands. They aren't in control any more. Is it any wonder they decide to start throwing nukes around?

There's more than one allegory, here... and it takes a few readings to decipher the layers. If you doubt me on this, try explaining the plot to someone who's never read the book, but knows the superhero characters, and you'll see what I mean. You'll be up for hours, filling the poor guy in on all the damn details.

So what'r' the authors trying to say? I interpreted it two ways:

1. Heroes should be heroes. A comic book superhero should not only be a vehicle for power fantasies... he should be a role model, something to look up to, an ideal to strive for. I will never have heat vision, but I can work on my integrity, now, can't I?

2. There can be no human solutions without the human element. The climax of the story reveals that most of the problem came about as a result of people, forgetting their connections with other people, and acting based on their POWER, rather than their basic humanity. Superman and the JLA are guilty of this. So is the United Nations, and certainly, the MLF (although, being villains, we expect this of them).

Was the ending touchy-feely? I dunno. I interpreted it more as "power may come out of the barrel of a gun, but real solutions ain't anywhere near as easy as pulling a trigger." With great power, comes great responsibility. And responsibility, as any teenager can tell you, is boring, dull, and wouldn't you rather blow something up?

Well, maybe, but you just can't solve the world's problems that way, as much as some -- comics, fans, or politicians -- might want to believe.

Anyway, I thought it was pretty good. Of course, I freely admit that my interpretation may be completely full of doggy doodle...

[paulberserker]

Does anyone want to spoil the Kingdom for me? I resist buying it because everyone says its so crappy.
Back to the OP, I read KC about once a month and still keep noticing new things in it. I'm no major DC reader, but both the story and especially the artwork rule. It just seems so much bigger than the usual run of mill stories. It would be interesting also to read Moores Twilight of the Superheroes proposal.
cheers!

[RikWriter]

Originally Posted by paulberserker

Does anyone want to spoil the Kingdom for me? I resist buying it because everyone says its so crappy.

Those who say that simply don't know what the hell they're talking about, frankly.

[CandidGamera]

Mark Waid's follow-up sans Ross to Kingdom Come.

Unlike KC, The Kingdom is in continuity. It is not an Elseworlds.

The gist is this : in a future that's almost but not quite identical to the Kingdom Come reality, a traumatized man is empowered by the Quintessence - he travels back through time, murdering Superman, each time a day earlier.

The guardians of the Timestream, the Linear Men, figure this should be impossible. There's only supposed to be one timeline. This act should be causing beaucoup paradox.

Only it doesn't, because as it turns out, there are innumerable alternate timelines. Analogous to the multiple Earths of pre-Crisis reality, but not so closely linked.

Some folks from the Kingdom Come-esque time travel back to the modern day to help the current DCU heroes deal with the marauding menace.

It's not as reference-heavy as Kingdom Come, I think, and the characterization is sparser. But it's still a fun little read.

By the way : he's not the Phantom Stranger. You'll see.

[Askia]

CandidGamera. What this? An even handed synopsis of The Kingdom that doesn't feature the words "crap", "crappy", "craptastic", "crap-o-rama", "craptacular, "crapola", "craptivating", "crapdiddiliocious", "supercrapifragilicioisexpialidocious" and "Crap-on-a-stick-is-tastier." You are as tactful as everyone says you are.

For paulberserker, who asked so nice.

Note that Moore's "Uncle Sam" paragraph is a precise synopsis of Ross' US two-part comic about Uncle Sam that he did right AFTER finishing Kingdom Come. Also, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn Warren Ellis swiped the idea for "a secret council of the immortals" from this screed: Planetary uses this motif several times.

[CandidGamera]

Originally Posted by Askia

CandidGamera. What this? An even handed synopsis of The Kingdom that doesn't feature the words "crap", "crappy", "craptastic", "crap-o-rama", "craptacular, "crapola", "craptivating", "crapdiddiliocious", "supercrapifragilicioisexpialidocious" and "Crap-on-a-stick-is-tastier." You are as tactful as everyone says you are.

Thanks!

I think.

[Chairman Pow]

Originally Posted by Master Wang-Ka

1. Heroes should be heroes. A comic book superhero should not only be a vehicle for power fantasies... he should be a role model, something to look up to, an ideal to strive for. I will never have heat vision, but I can work on my integrity, now, can't I?

Fair enough. Superman's "intergrity" though led him to fail at some pretty spectacular times and required others who were willing to act (Magog in a metaphorical sense and WW in a literal one) to cause him to act. Superman's always been reactive to a degree that I could never even beging to like him. In fact, I think he's most uninteresting superhero out there (other than Daredevil, but that's a close one).

Granted, I don't read any Superman, but he always seems like a foil to something rather than a character on his own.

2. There can be no human solutions without the human element. The climax of the story reveals that most of the problem came about as a result of people, forgetting their connections with other people, and acting based on their POWER, rather than their basic humanity. Superman and the JLA are guilty of this. So is the United Nations, and certainly, the MLF (although, being villains, we expect this of them).

Again, fair enough, but this is general enough that I think we could apply this to nearly any superhero story

Was the ending touchy-feely? I dunno. I interpreted it more as "power may come out of the barrel of a gun, but real solutions ain't anywhere near as easy as pulling a trigger." With great power, comes great responsibility. And responsibility, as any teenager can tell you, is boring, dull, and wouldn't you rather blow something up?

This does bring up the interesting idea of limits, but then again, every superhero story deals with these.

For the record, I loved the much-maligned EARTH X.