Monday, November 13, 2017
Elongated Man, Oh Man!!!
I am a HUGE Elongated Man fan; have been since I first saw him in Justice League of America #190. His ability to crack wise in the face of world conquering starfish just did something for me. Only later, through DC's Who's Who series did I learn that he was originally a Flash character rooted in the art of detection.
His relationship with his wife, Sue was a joy to watch throughout the Justice League's Satellite, Detroit and BWAH-HA-HA eras. It was loving, supportive and equal. The exact opposite of so many of the relationships we were given in comics.
And then, Infinite Crisis came along and destroyed them.
Their treatment over the past decade has been abysmal but man, just seeing this one screenshot reminds me of the fun I used to have whenever he was on the comics page.
Sue and Ralph were returned to comics in post-New 52 Secret Six but haven't been seen in DC's newly minted DC Rebirth continuity. I hope to see more of these two in comics.
Solving mysteries, nose twitching. Smiling and most of all, happy together, again.
Until then, seeing Ralph find a new, wider audience brings me immense joy.
And kudos to the Flash's casting director and actor Hartley Sawyer for just nailing Ralph Dibny.
Labels: Elongated Man, The Flash
Comments:
<< Home
Yeah, what the hell was wrong with DC that they thought wrecking the Dibnys would make things better in some fashion?
I also hear that, in "Infinite Crisis", Didio felt that somebody had to die for there to be any emotional weight to the story, and the original Superman wasn't enough, so he was ready to kill off Dick Grayson too. What the shit ... ? What sort of brain-damaged attitude towards DC's characters, universe, and history is that?
People complain about character resurrections, but really, the resurrections aren't the problem; the problem is people killing off the characters in the first place. It's like the kid who breaks all the action figures in the community toy box because he feels it's not a good play session if all the toys remain intact. That kid earns every swirlie he receives.
I also hear that, in "Infinite Crisis", Didio felt that somebody had to die for there to be any emotional weight to the story, and the original Superman wasn't enough, so he was ready to kill off Dick Grayson too. What the shit ... ? What sort of brain-damaged attitude towards DC's characters, universe, and history is that?
People complain about character resurrections, but really, the resurrections aren't the problem; the problem is people killing off the characters in the first place. It's like the kid who breaks all the action figures in the community toy box because he feels it's not a good play session if all the toys remain intact. That kid earns every swirlie he receives.
If anyone ever lost their mind and handed me Justice League, Ralph would be my first pick.
I think he's a character full of unlocked potential.
I think he's a character full of unlocked potential.
This blows my mind. I freaking LOVE EM. I remember the "and stop tugging on my ear" like from (I think) a Batman comic. I remember from the Satellite JLA comics when HE was the one who saved the team after they were all locked up in some sort of stasis. Kudos sir. So psyched to see a great write up of him.
You know a character is great when you begin to refer to them by birth name. Ralph is the greatest and his best solo adventure, IMO, was in The Elongated Man mini from the mid-eighties.
Drawn beautifully by Mike Parobeck and Ty Templeton, it, unfortunately, was written by Gerard Jones who's currently facing child pornography charges so it'll never be reprinted and pushed me to shred my copies.
Drawn beautifully by Mike Parobeck and Ty Templeton, it, unfortunately, was written by Gerard Jones who's currently facing child pornography charges so it'll never be reprinted and pushed me to shred my copies.
Well, damn. I always liked Gerard Jones. Now I feel bad even associating Ralph Dibny with marzipan frogs.
Here is my official stance on Jones: we don't necessarily have much control over who or what we're attracted to, so the fact that he has a thing for underage kids, I can't hold him responsible for. What I CAN hold him responsible for, is what he has done or hasn't done.
So far, there are no allegations that he actually molested any actual children. That's good.
What we don't know is what exactly his Internet activities were, and that's where there's some grey area. There is moral culpability in supporting businesses that exploit children for sex. So, what sort of material did he actually have? Was it videos of teenagers getting it on consensually? I'll respond to that with "eww" but I don't think it makes Jones a monster. Did he traffic in involuntary underage porn? That crosses a line.
Somewhere I read that some of his material involves children as young as one year old, but I need more info on that. That could mean sexually abusing a child, or it could mean there was a one-year-old in the room while his or her mom was knocking boots. The charges are too unclear to really know.
Post a Comment
So far, there are no allegations that he actually molested any actual children. That's good.
What we don't know is what exactly his Internet activities were, and that's where there's some grey area. There is moral culpability in supporting businesses that exploit children for sex. So, what sort of material did he actually have? Was it videos of teenagers getting it on consensually? I'll respond to that with "eww" but I don't think it makes Jones a monster. Did he traffic in involuntary underage porn? That crosses a line.
Somewhere I read that some of his material involves children as young as one year old, but I need more info on that. That could mean sexually abusing a child, or it could mean there was a one-year-old in the room while his or her mom was knocking boots. The charges are too unclear to really know.
<< Home
