-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

Fray #2 :: The Calling Comic Review

Fray #2 :: The Calling Comic Review - Reviewed by Kidzworld on Dec 27, 2006
( Rating: 3 Star Rating)

Kidzworld reviews Fray #2, a dark horse comic book by Joss Whedon.

Author: Joss Whedon
Dark Horse Comics


You know how you can meet some people and just get an ick vibe and then the next time you cross their path you get more of a warm 'n fuzzy vibe? That's how I feel about Melaka Fray, the girl who doth slay. She just doesn't give a good first impression. But with the introduction of her Watcher, Urkonn of the D'avvrus, the future, although it's all dank and Blade Runnery, looks a little brighter.


Having a Watcher who's a cross between a Fyral demon and Satan is a sway twist, and the Lurks (or the demons formerly know as Vampires as they now prefer to be called) are just as. No Spike or Angel in the bunch, so expect less hearts and flowers, and more arteries and angry eyes.


With the pretty pictures and wordy bubbles front, all flows well as Melaka deals with her slayer/destiny stuff. Karl Moline's bold art jumps goodly from the page, but all in all, it's still not the dream that Joss puts on the screen. Hey, Buffy wasn't built in a day.


Fray #2, not so toy!

Fray #2: The Calling Rating:3


Related Stories:

  • Fray #3 Comic Review
  • Fray #1 Comic Review
  • The Rose Comic Review
  • Howtoons Comic Review
  • Ger More Book Reviews Here!
  • 0 Comments

    Related Stories

    Fray #3 belongs to Urkonn the goat guy, as he spins a tale of slayers' past and lets our little r...
    F1048873702390

    Best Time to Read a Book?

    • In the summer when I'm not in school.
    • Only when my teacher assigns a book report.
    • Any time's a good time to read.
    • When all my fave shows are re-runs.

    Random In The Forums

    Myshkin
    Myshkin posted in Debating:
    "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:One human being doesn't have more value than another "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:If one believes life has intrinsic value in the first place (can't be proven, touched measured, just is) then how can you go about distinguishing the amount of value someone has? Life having intrinsic value doesn't mean that a person's value can not increase or stagnate based upon their actions and character. Mass murderers, for example, are viewed as having less value (either to you or I, or society in general, but either way we perceive them differently) than an ordinary law-abiding citizen. In a similar way, a man has greater worth than a woman in certain situations, and a woman greater worth than a man in certain situations. It's not necessarily strictly based upon being a man or woman either, it's just what their general behavior is viewed as: for example, women are generally held to be more empathetic than men, therefore more people prefer to open their heart up to women because they believe they will be given a more sensitive response. Short of attaining ego death, you're always going to value people differently. It's very nice to say from an abstract, intellectual standpoint that all people are equal, but even in solely your own life you know this isn't how you actually look at things, unless you really are prepared to tell me that the worth of your parents or siblings or close friends or distant friends are not worth more to you than a stranger on the street. I just want to point out in bold that I'm making a distinction between intellectual (or hypothetical/theoretical) understanding of people being equal, either in general or between men and women, and the actual application of trying to apply that principle. It likely leads us to view the two as more equal than if we didn't hold the intellectual view that they're equal, but nonetheless there is always going to be a hint of bias located somewhere. One last thing just for any additional clarity it might provide, because I recognize I might be getting vague here: "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote:I'm saying at bottom one s//x does not have more value than another. I am saying that all people have different values, be they man or woman, but in many situations one is preferable to the other and therefore their value as you perceive it is greater at that time (context).
    reply 14 minutes
    CaptJolee
    CaptJolee posted in Debating:
    like  I said it also could be another serial killer
    reply 15 minutes
    Pink_Cool_Girl
    Well, go to his website and there is a picture of a new animatronic: Baby. But there is more than one animatronic, so why would he say one? :/
    reply 16 minutes
    Unrung
    Unrung posted in General:
    "inkdeath" wrote: "Unrung" wrote: When a child cries because her favorite pet died, you wouldn't tell her she has no right to be upset because children are starving in Africa, would you? A favorite pet dying is not as tragic as a child starving in Africa.    I get it now. You have the iq level of a fish.  Yes. I agree 100%. A favorite pet dying is not as tragic as a child starving in Africa. But that has no bearing on how a child should feel if their pet dies, was my point.
    reply 26 minutes
    Jolly-Rancher206
    "Myshkin" wrote: "Jolly-Rancher206" wrote: "Myshkin" wrote: It means that men and women are not inherently equal, though certainly you can view their worth as being about equal. Only about? Only about. You might be able to delude yourself into thinking the two have the exact same worth but that will never actually happen due to unconscious biases, nor does the principle translate into the real-world very well where people are not made of the same stuff and the worth of a person is based upon context and character. Hold up. Yeah people are biased and some may see one s//x as better than the other. And yes people don't live that way in the real-world. I'm saying at bottom one s//x does not have more value than another. One human being doesn't have more value than another. I don't believe someone's character or personality changes that. I can think someone is a bad person, does bad things, but still affirm they have as much worth as a person as I do. If one believes life has intrinsic value in the first place (can't be proven, touched measured, just is) then how can you go about distinguishing the amount of value someone has?
    reply 37 minutes