Is there any way of critiquing this book without comparing it to its predecessor? Or maybe better yet, should I have to try and review this book without mentioning the original series? I want to give it a fair shake but I am having a hard time trying to block the original series out while I talk about the current one.
Kurt Busiek picks up right where he left off with his groundbreaking original series. The dialogue and tempo don't skip a beat, lining up very well with the 1994 masterpiece. Busiek is excellent at communicating; in a very relatable way, about non-relatable topics (in this case, living on a planet with superheroes). I find myself, page after page, in the unusual position of contemplating, "What would I do in this situation?" For this, I would consider Busiek very successful.
Once again we are treated to the birth of a superhero world through the eyes of freelance photographer, Phil Sheldon. Just when he though his life could be no less mundane, the "Marvels" start appearing around New York City again. There seems to be some strange overlap between this series and the last though. This book introduces events to look like "first appearances" of current superheroes, but I distincly remember many of them from the last book (e.g. Fantastic Four, X-Men). I can't imagine that this is an editing mistake, so it must be some form of recap. Personally, I could do without. Either that, or make it clearer that this is a retelling of old events.
Jay Anacleto is a skilled artist, but he just doesn't capture the "feel" the same way Alex Ross does. And in hindsight, this previous comment does not seem very fair. What contemporary illustrative painter can compare to Ross?
I think this series will turn out well. It is tough to judge its direction based on this issue, as #1 was clearly an introduction to the series. This issue spent plenty of time developing the main character and the environment. I look forward to the next book. I am hoping they can take the mutant angle in a new direction this time round.