-
[QUOTE=Fokken;4560895]Scans! Scans or we're pushing him out![/QUOTE]
there's a picture in the second post in this thread. that's the best he looks in the book. Sue takes him down pretty quick.
anyways, i must admit to feeling a sense of satisfaction at seeing someone actually doing something to physically effect Sue, for once. she's usually portrayed as invincible; a possible overcorrection on her early days as a damsel in distress.
-
[QUOTE=Michael Watkins;4562581]there's a picture in the second post in this thread. that's the best he looks in the book. Sue takes him down pretty quick.
anyways, i must admit to feeling a sense of satisfaction at seeing someone actually doing something to physically effect Sue, for once. she's usually portrayed as invincible; a possible overcorrection on her early days as a damsel in distress.[/QUOTE]
Yeah every hero should have weaknesses, Sue's are sonic attacks and light attacks. She could defend against them, but she has to know they're coming.
-
[QUOTE=Nyssane;4560553]I certainly wouldn't push that Argent fella outta bed.[/QUOTE]
I would.... he looks like [old] Tom Waits.
-
I liked the idea of having Sue operate in a spy adventure, and I think Waid has managed to characterise her decently enough (with only some few missteps on the way). But the plotting here is just abysmal. I know the comic book medium is not that suited for complex plotting, but here we have all the bad habits of spy thrillers on display: fallen foes carrying the clue to the next point of interest, leading to the next foe with the next clue. Or misrepresenting the world of smoke and mirrors as a place with constant double-crosses. Or the absolutely atricious technobabble.
-
[QUOTE=kjn;4568556]I liked the idea of having Sue operate in a spy adventure, and I think Waid has managed to characterise her decently enough (with only some few missteps on the way). But the plotting here is just abysmal. I know the comic book medium is not that suited for complex plotting, but here we have all the bad habits of spy thrillers on display: fallen foes carrying the clue to the next point of interest, leading to the next foe with the next clue. [B]Or misrepresenting the world of smoke and mirrors as a place with constant double-crosses.[/B] Or the absolutely atricious technobabble.[/QUOTE]
Since I don't know much about how intelligence work is like, how exactly is this inaccurate?