^Johns is okay. I wish he hadn't gotten so big. Not because I have anything against him, but he's not a formalist in the way the game-changers of old were, your Frank Millers and Alan Moores, or even John Byrnes. He's just, you know, competent. And competence is nothing to sneeze at, but it's also nothing to elevate. And in many regards--not just workload--I think Johns has been the victim of his own success, in that he's not been pushed to exceed his limitations. I don't think he has any ambition to revolutionize the genre, let alone the medium, like Miller, Moore, Morrison, or other people whose names start with M did.
If anything, I'd say the best direct comparison is probably Chris Claremont, but even that doesn't work, because in a lot of ways Claremont did revolutionize the form. And, beyond that, Johns' latterday work lacks much of the heart that Claremont's did. I'd say it lacks the patience, too, but that's not Johns, that's the audience.
And in a way he's too, I don't know, aware of the audience? Like, for example...
The artwork in both issues are good, loved the look of Mera and AC and overall, yeah I think I like this one!
Wow.
I like an Aquaman title. What have I become?
Someone who is breaking free of the nearly 20yrs of cliched SuperFriends jokes that he's lame and "only talks to fish".
Now if only its writer had broken free from that too.
***
Now all that said, there's the subversion and hints of dissatisfaction in his Justice League and Green Lantern that please me. If I may be allowed to project a little, I can almost hear him thinking "My work's really been a bit complacent, isn't it? But what if I got a little wacky?"
Heck, even Aquaman has this sort of feel, it just didn't quite land.
but the comics certainly gave me a bit more interest in the character as the books are very well done. He's a little less lame in my mind now. 
