|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Produktinformation
|
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Greg Pak auf Amazon
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Greg Pak auf Amazon
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Vorgeschlagene Tags zu ähnlichen Produkten(Was ist das?)Setzen Sie den ersten relevanten Tag hinzu (ein Schlüsselwort, das mit diesem Produkt in engem Zusammenhang steht).
|
Eine digitale Version dieses Buchs im Kindle-Shop verkaufen
Wenn Sie ein Verleger oder Autor sind und die digitalen Rechte an einem Buch haben, können Sie die digitale Version des Buchs in unserem Kindle-Shop verkaufen.
Weitere Informationen
Kundenrezensionen
Es gibt noch keine Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.de
5 Sterne
4 Sterne
3 Sterne
2 Sterne
1 Sterne
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4 Rezensionen
9 von 10 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
OK, but disappointing.
13. August 2010
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
More like 2 1/2 stars
I came to this a little late so I read the Gaiman '1602' Marvel 1602 TPB (New Printing) and went directly to these two sequels. I was disappointed. The Gaiman/Kubert original was something special, well thought out and flawlessly crafted. These two sequels are much more pedestrian and read more like standard run-of-the-mill Marvel monthlies with slightly different window-dressing and plot holes big enough to sail the Titanic through.
'New World' was the biggest letdown. It's as if the writer (Greg Pak) learned nothing from Gaiman and tossed out most of the unique quality of the original concept. It seems to have no focus and the dialogue does not convey the feeling of the 17th century. Gaiman didn't formulate his dialogue exactly the way Elizabethans spoke but he gave the flavor of it. Pak pretty much has the characters speaking contemporary English most of the time with pseudo-Elizabethan lines thrown in randomly. As far as plotting, the whole Spider-Man storyline is particularly poor with the Jonah Jameson newspaper angle especially ridiculous and forced.
When David (Bruce) Banner undergoes his first transformation he immediately refers to himself as "The Hulk" (why?) and shouts the trademarked "Hulk smash!" line which makes no sense especially considering he is the intelligent gray-skinned version of the Hulk who is perfectly capable of forming complete sentences. Who told him he was "The Hulk"?
There is also a scene of dinosaurs running through the village that seems like it will never end. When Spider-Man (or "The Spider") finally appears, Peter seems to have manufactured his costume in a matter of minutes, complete with the familiar red webbed cowl and a shirt with a large spider insignia on it. Very lame and sloppy overall.
"The Fantastick Four" fares a little better under Peter David. The story is slightly more focused and the dialogue is much better (although still not up to Gaiman's standard). The whole Shakespeare angle, however, where we (and he) keep hearing lines from his future plays coming out of the mouths of other characters, is far too cutesy and gets old fast. While I read the original '1602' very carefully and savored it, I found myself speeding through these two stories with increasing disinterest.
The whole '1602' concept has just become another property to exploit, with the wonder and art of the original swept under the rug in favor of more standard worn-out superhero scenarios and a significant drop in I.Q. points.
I came to this a little late so I read the Gaiman '1602' Marvel 1602 TPB (New Printing) and went directly to these two sequels. I was disappointed. The Gaiman/Kubert original was something special, well thought out and flawlessly crafted. These two sequels are much more pedestrian and read more like standard run-of-the-mill Marvel monthlies with slightly different window-dressing and plot holes big enough to sail the Titanic through.
'New World' was the biggest letdown. It's as if the writer (Greg Pak) learned nothing from Gaiman and tossed out most of the unique quality of the original concept. It seems to have no focus and the dialogue does not convey the feeling of the 17th century. Gaiman didn't formulate his dialogue exactly the way Elizabethans spoke but he gave the flavor of it. Pak pretty much has the characters speaking contemporary English most of the time with pseudo-Elizabethan lines thrown in randomly. As far as plotting, the whole Spider-Man storyline is particularly poor with the Jonah Jameson newspaper angle especially ridiculous and forced.
When David (Bruce) Banner undergoes his first transformation he immediately refers to himself as "The Hulk" (why?) and shouts the trademarked "Hulk smash!" line which makes no sense especially considering he is the intelligent gray-skinned version of the Hulk who is perfectly capable of forming complete sentences. Who told him he was "The Hulk"?
There is also a scene of dinosaurs running through the village that seems like it will never end. When Spider-Man (or "The Spider") finally appears, Peter seems to have manufactured his costume in a matter of minutes, complete with the familiar red webbed cowl and a shirt with a large spider insignia on it. Very lame and sloppy overall.
"The Fantastick Four" fares a little better under Peter David. The story is slightly more focused and the dialogue is much better (although still not up to Gaiman's standard). The whole Shakespeare angle, however, where we (and he) keep hearing lines from his future plays coming out of the mouths of other characters, is far too cutesy and gets old fast. While I read the original '1602' very carefully and savored it, I found myself speeding through these two stories with increasing disinterest.
The whole '1602' concept has just become another property to exploit, with the wonder and art of the original swept under the rug in favor of more standard worn-out superhero scenarios and a significant drop in I.Q. points.
4 von 5 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Not the 17th Century
30. Dezember 2010
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
This title pales in comparison to the original. Perhaps it is unfair to compare Peter David to the great Neil Gaiman or even Pascal Alixe to Andy Kubert, but I will. It is probably the fault of both David & Alixe that noone speaks Elizabethan, or dresses in Elizabethan clothes, or believes 17th Century notions. Most of the clothing looks just like 21st Century clothes. And it is possible to do this right since Jeff Parker & Ramon Rosanas have more success (although still not as good as Gaiman & Kubert) with 1602: Spiderman.
I would recommend that Peter David might want to actually read the original. For instance, one storyline has Reed Richards (whose name occasionally switches to Richard Reed) not believing in God. This contradicts both history & Gaiman. ALL 17th century scientists assumed the existence of God as a given. The Religion vs. Science bit is new. Back then they were synonymous. Also, in Part Eight of Marvel 1602, Gaiman has Reed say "One divides them into categories, in order to think with them, but still, there is but one table, which is God's Creation."
So much promise, so much failure.
I would recommend that Peter David might want to actually read the original. For instance, one storyline has Reed Richards (whose name occasionally switches to Richard Reed) not believing in God. This contradicts both history & Gaiman. ALL 17th century scientists assumed the existence of God as a given. The Religion vs. Science bit is new. Back then they were synonymous. Also, in Part Eight of Marvel 1602, Gaiman has Reed say "One divides them into categories, in order to think with them, but still, there is but one table, which is God's Creation."
So much promise, so much failure.
3 von 6 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Pretty good
20. Mai 2010
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
3 stars means I liked it a good amount and would suggest it under the right conditions.
The conditions I would suggest this book under would be if you liked 1602.
This followup is not however nearly as good as Gaiman's original run of that magnificent comic book. But many of the same characters return in these two separate series and they are fun to read.
The first of these two stories is in many ways what I had hoped a follow up would be after reading 1602. Set in the New World it in many ways deals with prejudice and the Native Americans. Although do not be fooled this story is about Peter, Bruce, Virginia, and one other hero you would not expect. The story has some clarity problems. but overall it is a good read and a thoughtful tale. It has many elements which will probably be far more familiar to people who big spider-man fans. It is however the lesser of the two stories.
The second story is focused on the Fantastic Four and includes the bard himself as a nice compliment to the story. It is funny and riddled with Shakespeare quotes which is always great. A solid overall story and one I would even personally give four stars to on its own.
Any questions?
The conditions I would suggest this book under would be if you liked 1602.
This followup is not however nearly as good as Gaiman's original run of that magnificent comic book. But many of the same characters return in these two separate series and they are fun to read.
The first of these two stories is in many ways what I had hoped a follow up would be after reading 1602. Set in the New World it in many ways deals with prejudice and the Native Americans. Although do not be fooled this story is about Peter, Bruce, Virginia, and one other hero you would not expect. The story has some clarity problems. but overall it is a good read and a thoughtful tale. It has many elements which will probably be far more familiar to people who big spider-man fans. It is however the lesser of the two stories.
The second story is focused on the Fantastic Four and includes the bard himself as a nice compliment to the story. It is funny and riddled with Shakespeare quotes which is always great. A solid overall story and one I would even personally give four stars to on its own.
Any questions?
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
