O.M.A.C.

I’m always up for more work from Keith Giffen, and while his art here is particularly polished and the coloring is nice, I’m missing the overall strangeness of his Doom Patrol or the goofiness of books like Ambush Bug. The title of the story “Office Management Amidst Chaos” made me laugh and hope they continue to play with the “OMAC” acronym, there isn’t much established for me about the book save for the involvement of Cadmus from the Superman books.

Again, the coloring is excellent, and works well with Giffen’s style, which seems a little more difficult to color extremely well compared with other art styles.

There is a lot left to be revealed about what exactly this OMAC is about – in fact, I’m still not entirely sure what the whole book is about, but compared with many other launch titles I’m not nearly as curious to find out. Giffen’s involvement will likely make me come back to the second issue, but I can’t help wishing that the Doom Patrol and/or Ambush Bug would have been part of the new 52 instead, as OMAC does not feel like it fills any needed niche.

I feel a bit guilty giving this book a “C+” since it’s by no means bad (though neither is a C+ if you’re not an overachieving honors student, maybe), but I’m grading on a bit of a curve here.

- Ed

 

OMAC stands for One Man Army Corps.  It is an old concept that there a lot of people out there with affection for it.  I don’t think I ever read any of the previous stuff, so I’m getting the concept cold.

I’m a big Giffen fan.  His writing is usually packed with fun (and funny) stuff, and his art is usually serviceable.  But I found that too many times it felt like he was trying so hard to Kirby.  I appreciate it when he is doing Kirby’s dynamic action style, but I hate when he apes Kirby’s faces.  The woman’s face on page 2 is just awful.  And the ‘Gobblers’ seem like they stepped out of 1964, they are every Kirby minion all merged together.

I didn’t really understand the purpose OMAC had in this issue, or where the comic intends to go forward with?  Maybe I just don’t get it?

D —-   Don

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>