Blade Runner 2 (November 1982)

19700.jpg
There are some real problems this issue–Goodwin’s got to adapt the stuff without Deckard (who in his adaptation isn’t just not a replicant, but is also a lot more the Deckard from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and it’s just a mess. The way Goodwin structures it–the noir with Deckard and Rachel–it just doesn’t work for following the rogue replicants. Wait, aren’t they all rogue?

Anyway, Goodwin pulls it together for the conclusion, with a beautifully narrated sequence. Did Goodwin do any detective comics? I’d love to read them.

The stuff with Deckard and Rachel is a lot different from the movie and, if it weren’t for the structure, I’d argue Blade Runner the comic is a completely different animal.

Goodwin ends it with a postscript, a little line about blade runners. I Googled the line. He wrote it himself… makes for a lovely comic book.

CREDITS

Writer, Archie Goodwin; pencillers, Al Williamson and Carlos Garzon; inkers, Williamson, Garzon, Dan Green and Ralph Reese; colorist, Marie Severin; letterer, Ed King; editor, Jim Salicrup; publisher, Marvel Comics.

The Uncanny X-Men (1981) #196

Xmen196

I thought this issue was going to be a mystery, but it’s not. It doesn’t even have the pretense of one, except for Professor X asking the X-Men to investigate something. It’s too bad, since it might have been a better comic book with that approach.

It’s an X-Men book so I can identify the more popular ones, but when it comes to all the girls, I’m lost. What’s the difference between Kitty Pryde, Rogue and Rachel Summers? How do people keep up with this stuff? And do X-Men readers make fun of soap opera fanatics; they really shouldn’t.

Claremont packs the issue, which is impressive, I suppose, and desirable for its audience. I just couldn’t wait for the damn comic to end.

The artwork is incredibly loose and uninteresting.

The Secret Wars tie-in is all red skies.

I don’t get X-Men comics at all.