Really, really, really disapointing. Goodness Gracious! After the interviews I've read with Mike Bullock, I thought that we were going to get some quality stuff. Not this crap! Why is the Phantom dishing off one liners like Spiderman? And the story was all over the place. I don't mind non linear stories, but this just didn't make sense.
The Chuck Dixon story was way better than this. At least his Phantom sounded like a grown adult man. Not a teenage boy on a sugar rush. This is not the hero I grew up on. This is an idiot. And to think I criticised Ben Raab, this is just as bad.
I like the Phantom, but I'm not sticking with the book if it's going to be more of the same. I'm giving it 3 more issues.
Moonstone, if you guys can't put out quality stories, then maybe you should really consider publishing the English version of Egmont's Phantom. This book wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Sorry you didn't like it, Emma.
Thanks for posting your comments.
Just one thing that drawed my attention to your review Emma....
The one liners, the Phantom was the original one liner comment guru before Spiderman and the others... If you read the early Falk stories he is ALWAYS shouting off one liners...
I will not comment on the rest seeing I am yet to read it. I hope you are a minority though as I do have high hopes for this saga of Mike Bullock.
The Chuck Dixon story was way better than this.
Take it from someone who has read hundreds of Chuck Dixon comics books, be they Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Phantom...Chuck mailed that one in. Big time. It was as cookie-cutter as the Pilsbury dough boy at a Christmas party. Although I raised the occasional eyebrow reading the latest offering (#13), at least Mike Bullock seems to have a bit better of a feel for The Phantom and his surroudings. A question, though, about the opening summary on page 1: Was Christopher STANDISH the first Phantom or Christopher WALKER? I'm confused.
Christopher STANDISH was the first Phantom. He later changed his name to Walker so it would fit better with the Ghost Who Walks legend, sort of like a code name.
Emma, there is constructive criticism and then there is flat out abuse. If the book is so terrible you write a better one. Isn't it always said that those who can't criticize?
Emma, there is constructive criticism and then there is flat out abuse. If the book is so terrible you write a better one. Isn't it always said that those who can't criticize?
Come on, there's nothing wrong with her critique. Isn't she allowed to say her opinion? And you certainly don't need to be able to write a better story to criticise something a professional writer has done, thank you very much (if that was the case, what would the point be of a discussion group?). I could not write a better novel than Stephen King, but that doesn't mean I can't criticise some of his later work.
Emma: I am curious to see how you'd like the Phantom to be portrayed? What Phantom stories did you grow up with? The Sy Barry stuff?
Moonstone, if you guys can't put out quality stories, then maybe you should really consider publishing the English version of Egmont's Phantom. This book wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Emma, today's Egmont stories are VERY varying in quality, going from the tragic to the magic from week to week. Besides, I don't think their kind of storytelling would fare well with American readers at all.
If Emma doesn't like it, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If we all had the same views & beliefs, life would be dreadfully boring.
If Emma doesn't like it, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If we all had the same views & beliefs, life would be dreadfully boring.
I agree. Still, I'm sad I didn't get my issue yet. 
Though I got Infiniteens.
Emma, there is constructive criticism and then there is flat out abuse. If the book is so terrible you write a better one. Isn't it always said that those who can't criticize?
I thought I was giving constructive criticism. There is nothing abusive in what I wrote.
Come on, there's nothing wrong with her critique. Isn't she allowed to say her opinion? And you certainly don't need to be able to write a better story to criticise something a professional writer has done, thank you very much (if that was the case, what would the point be of a discussion group?). I could not write a better novel than Stephen King, but that doesn't mean I can't criticise some of his later work.
Well put.
Emma: I am curious to see how you'd like the Phantom to be portrayed? What Phantom stories did you grow up with? The Sy Barry stuff?
I grew up reading the strips from the 80's.
I would like to see The Phantom portrayed like a grown adult man who takes his job very seriously, and has the weight on his shoulders of living up to a 400 year old legacy. The four issue Peter David penned in '89 (?) is a great example of a good Phantom portrayal. A hero and serious operator with compassion for others. Not someone who rippes of one liners like a comedian and acts like a smart mouthed college boy. I also found the dialogue painful to read, and the vallains cliched.
Take it from someone who has read hundreds of Chuck Dixon comics books, be they Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Phantom...Chuck mailed that one in. Big time. It was as cookie-cutter as the Pilsbury dough boy at a Christmas party. Although I raised the occasional eyebrow reading the latest offering (#13), at least Mike Bullock seems to have a bit better of a feel for The Phantom and his surroudings. A question, though, about the opening summary on page 1: Was Christopher STANDISH the first Phantom or Christopher WALKER? I'm confused.
I didn't say that Chuck Dixon should have been awarded the Pulitzer for his run on the Phantom. I said it was way better than issue #13. But at least it was far more reminiscent of the Phantom I knew. A hero from a long line of heroes. Who looked after and protected the weak.
And Chuck's story had much better pacing.
I grew up reading the strips from the 80's.
I think this is part of the difference of opinion, as the the majority of my Phantom work is based on the earlier years where he was more sarcastic, darker and more emotional.
I would like to see The Phantom portrayed like a grown adult man who takes his job very seriously, and has the weight on his shoulders of living up to a 400 year old legacy. The four issue Peter David penned in '89 (?) is a great example of a good Phantom portrayal. A hero and serious operator with compassion for others. Not someone who rippes of one liners like a comedian and acts like a smart mouthed college boy.
As for the quiping being like Spider-Man, I think you might be misinterpreting the motivations of each character as to why they make the wise cracks.
Stan Lee once said Peter Parker cracks jokes to take the edge off of his own fear.
Lee Falk once said the Phantom cracks jokes to add some levity to the seriousness of his mission, as evidenced by your "the weight on his shoulders of living up to a 400 year old legacy".
I didn't say that Chuck Dixon should have been awarded the Pulitzer for his run on the Phantom. I said it was way better than issue #13. But at least it was far more reminiscent of the Phantom I knew. A hero from a long line of heroes. Who looked after and protected the weak.
And Chuck's story had much better pacing.
Chuck is a master storyteller with thousands of stories under his belt. I'm a journeyman with less than 25. To even be considered in the same league as Chuck is an honor.