Paul Levitz, the Legion and Hyper Time
zoroa...@my-deja.com
Crisis hit the Legion hard. They took the hit and kept going. When
volume 4 came out the crisis events really took form. They eliminated
Superboy from the mythos. A fact that I didn't like but v.4 was so
good...i couldn't complain much.
The recent stuff...is really bad. I always thought DC did a great job
in revamping characters. Giffen's volume 4 was a good example. It went
downhill after Giffen left.
I didn't mind a reboot...I didn't mind younger characters...but they
changed everything! The Legion tradition and history was it's strength.
The characters got "old"? Fine retire some and create some new ones.
Since Levitz wrote my favorite legion stint...and he is such a big
shot...why doesn't he do something???
I have hated the little kid legion...
With Hypertime they need to reboot...once again...for good. Back to a
post-Levitz era. Retire some of the characters. Keep some of the
members. Let some new younger members carry the legacy.
Stop drawing them like 12 year olds!!! I miss the real Legion....why
hasn't Paul done something about them?! Hypertime gives them the
perfect solution to fix things.
Jorge
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TheLargeCahoona
would be a good starting point, and they could make the proper adjustments
of retconning based on what's happened since. Either get rid of M-onel and
bring back a new one or bring back Laural Gand ( I miss that character.).
Retract the whole "Legend of Valor" storyline. Have, Lar show up on earth
now and encounter the new Superboy, and do a variation of the original
origin. That might work.
Just throwing out some ideas. Hell, they couldn't mess the LSH any worse no
matter what they do. I stopped buying it about the time they started calling
Braniac 5 "Brainiac 5.1" and had him walking around with a monkey on his
shoulder. I just couldn't take it anymore.
--
TheLargeCahoona
"Charlie don't surf!"
<zoroa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f96e0$4ps$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
VertigoDC
everything John Byrne's ever done on DC property would be gone. If it were up
to me, Hal Jordan would be just another dead guy and not the living incarnation
of God's wrath. If it were up to me, Batman would be a known entity, fight
freely in the daylight, and Robin would be able to reveal his identity to YJ.
If it were up to me, there would only be two Batman and Superman books
respedctively. If it were up to me, Sandman Mystery Theatre would still be
running, as would Sandman. If it were up to me, Planetary would be on a
monthly schedule. If it were up to me, J. Scott Campbell and Joe Madureira
would be fired and vnever allowed to work for DC again. If it were up to me,
DC would apologize to Alan Moore, and get him writing Superman. If it were up
to me, Warren Ellis would ahve his own imprint with Wildstorm. And so on, but
I think you get the idea. Point being, not everyone thinks the Legion needs
fixing (including me).
Please just call me Mike instead of VertigoDC.
Not all who wander are lost- J.R.R. Tolkien
Elayne Riggs
> Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
approval of higher-ups.
Thing about the Legion is, the fans tend to bitch no matter what's done
with the books, and they buy them anyway. And different fans bitch about
different things, as with many other books. Quite often two fans will
have completely opposite opinions (as with the Giffen Legion, which some
love and others loathe). That's why I think it's usually if not always a
good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
- Elayne
Bill Roper
The current story line may be the one that finally eliminates that
particular syndrome. I bought my first LSH book back in 1963 or thereabouts.
Whatever Legion stories have been available have been on my shopping list
since I started reading comics again in college in the mid-70s.
Now that the Titans/Legion mini is over, I have no LSH books on my pull list.
This makes me sad, but not as sad as I'd be if I were actually buying the
books.
The writing may or may not be ok. I've been unable to separate it from
the artwork which (sadly) causes my eyes to bleed. I've seen worse art
in comics, but not on any series which I'm buying on a regular basis.
So I bitch. And I don't buy.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Omarichu
>the artwork which (sadly) causes my eyes to bleed. I've seen worse art
>in comics, but not on any series which I'm buying on a regular basis.
>
>So I bitch. And I don't buy.
Don't cry. Too bad the Legion is the most readable it's been in ten years. It's
okay.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I think it's usually if not always a
> good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
> think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
> base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
I agree ... but in this case, I'm no longer sure that's true about Legion:
Lost. Unlike previous runs, more people seem to have stopped talking about
this book; it's not inspiring discussion so much as apathy among certain
people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
quickly.)
[Followups to rac.lsh.]
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
List Owner, Legion-List @ egroups.com -- for all kinds of LSH talk!
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
Johanna Draper Carlson
> How do Legion: Lost sales compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of
> their runs?
The estimates posted monthly have L:L 2 at just over 19K. LSH and
Legionnaires were around 25K about the time of Team 20; Legion of
Superheroes #125 was 17.5K, Legionnaires #81 was 17K. (Again, by estimate.)
So Lost is doing better than the final issues, but it dropped 8% between #1
and #2, with another drop expected (due to usual ordering patterns). If that
drop is the same or greater, it's below the numbers of the previous final
issues ... and those numbers are at Aquaman's level, if that's a valid
example to judge by.
> Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post.
Strange that the same thing hasn't happened with the v4 discussion; you'd
think people would have had much more time to get tired of that. :)
You have a point, but you're speculating as to reason. There's all kinds of
evidence that can be interpreted all kinds of ways to suit one's opinion. I
think it's sad that, for example, a chat that used to fill the AOL rooms
twice a week now considers 5 fans good attendance, and some weeks has more
pros than fans attending. Can that be put down entirely to the quality of
the work? Of course not. Is it entirely due to other reasons? I don't think
so.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Silver Age, Aquarium, Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
Murray Fox
Elayne Riggs wrote:
> VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> happened to mention:
> > Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
>
> In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
> approval of higher-ups.
I think you've got that backwards. I believe tha the higher ups make the
decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
follows through.
murr
Murray Fox
k...@tsoft.net wrote:
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales -- I'm too busy enjoying
> > the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
> > personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
> > compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
>
> > Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> > those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> > are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
> > that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
> > said :) )
>
> I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
> frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
> his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
> that they see. I dunno.
>
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
> say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
> facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
> has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
> wind, I guess.
I like his art, too. For what it's worth. Quite a lot. The Legion hasn't looked
this good in years and years. I'm hoping he'll stick around for a long long time.
And that the book is around for a long long time, too, as well. Cuz there's not
much point in keeping Coipel if there isnt' a book for him to illustrate.
murr
Murray Fox
Elayne Riggs wrote:
> Murray Fox <mur...@kw.igs.net> happened to mention:
> Your belief is incorrect.
Maybe. But I don't think so.
murr
Murray Fox
Omarichu wrote:
> >I think you've got that backwards. I believe that the higher ups make the
> >decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
> >follows through.
> >
>
> What an idiot. So what would the point of his job be if all he did was follow
> orders?
That's the point of his job. To make sure that the directions he receives from
the powers that be are followed through upon.
> Do the top staff make the directional decisions for all titles?
I don't think that's what I said. Look carefully. I said, "I believe that the
higher ups make the decision about the direction of the Legion..."
That's pretty clear to me, but let me spell it out for you, just in case what I
think I'm saying isn't coming across properly. When I say that the higher ups
are making decisions about the Legion, I'm talking about any comic in which the
Legion stars. So unless the Legion is starring in all titles that DC puts out,
I don't believe that the powers that be are unduly influencing other books.
> Get a
> brain.
Already got one, thanks. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary for such a
hostile response, though. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility
that there are folks at DC who may not be editors, but who still have a great
deal of power and influence and who would want to pull strings on the title.
But obviously you disagree.
Is that because you think Mike is doing wonderful job as editor? I'd be curious
to hear why you might think so (assuming you do feel that is the case).
Murray
Kevin Daniels
Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's usually if not always a
> > good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
> > think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
> > base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
>
> I agree ... but in this case, I'm no longer sure that's true about Legion:
> Lost. Unlike previous runs, more people seem to have stopped talking about
> this book; it's not inspiring discussion so much as apathy among certain
> people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
> now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
> it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
> quickly.)
>
I haven't been paying too much attention to sales -- I'm too busy enjoying
the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
said :) )
Plus, the book becoming a monthly instead of what was essentially a
biweekly has cut down posting frequency.
--
Kevin Daniels
BHMarks
>Thing about the Legion is, the fans tend to bitch no matter what's done
>with the books, and they buy them anyway.
I've been a DC reader, a Marvel fanatic, and a non-buyer altogether. Exccept
all that time I always managed to pick up the Legion. Can't tell you why, for
sure.
This is the first time since they've had their own series that I'm not buying
the Legion. They finally took a great concept and lost my interest.
As ever,
Bennet
Omarichu
>decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
>follows through.
>
What an idiot. So what would the point of his job be if all he did was follow
orders? Do the top staff make the directional decisions for all titles? Get a
brain.
zoroa...@my-deja.com
the Magic Wars. No specified time is needed. I would have retired
some old characters and had a few introduced post Magic Wars..pre-new
series. Probably update some of the names...Ultra Boy becomes Ultra
Man...Tinya becomes Apparition, etc. Probably have some old names with
new characters. Retire Thom and get a brand new young Star Boy.etc
As for the SuperBoy stuff...i would keep like it was. A alternate
Superboy was part of the Legion...the Superboy we all knew and loved.
I would probably have them meet the new Superboy...though he states he
has met another younger Legion. I would probably introduce a new
female daxamite...but not a Supergirl clone. No Laurel Gand...just
Super Girl...who is dead.
I would have XS, Gates, and a few other young ones in there. Ultra Man
as leader....i like this.
With Hypertime it can work!
Jorge
In article
<33B8A3CC13409549.B25BDB85...@lp.airnews.net>,
"TheLargeCahoona" <thelarg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I say they go back and fill in the "five year gap" created by Giffen.
that
> would be a good starting point, and they could make the proper
adjustments
> of retconning based on what's happened since. Either get rid of
M-onel and
> bring back a new one or bring back Laural Gand ( I miss that
character.).
> Retract the whole "Legend of Valor" storyline. Have, Lar show up on
earth
> now and encounter the new Superboy, and do a variation of the
original
> origin. That might work.
>
> Just throwing out some ideas. Hell, they couldn't mess the LSH any
worse no
> matter what they do. I stopped buying it about the time they started
calling
> Braniac 5 "Brainiac 5.1" and had him walking around with a monkey on
his
> shoulder. I just couldn't take it anymore.
>
> --
> TheLargeCahoona
>
> "Charlie don't surf!"
>
zoroa...@my-deja.com
Our tastes surely differ. I actually like SOME (not all) of the stuff
Byrne has done. I never liked Warren Ellis. I like Hal as the new
Spectre....and i hate the current Legion. I think many other people do
as well...if ya look at the current sales of the book.
But I know that people have different tastes...and that is a good
thing.
:)
Jorge
In article <20000509154618...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> happened to mention:
>> > Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
>>
>> In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
>> approval of higher-ups.
> I think you've got that backwards. I believe tha the higher ups make the
> decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
> follows through.
Your belief is incorrect.
- Elayne
--
"He has his head so far up his arse he can't see the shit hit the fan."
- Mark Farmer (as quoted by A. Davis)
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>And different fans bitch about
>>different things, as with many other books. Quite often two fans will
>>have completely opposite opinions (as with the Giffen Legion, which some
>>good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
>>think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
>>base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
> The current story line may be the one that finally eliminates that
> particular syndrome.
Which one, the bitching-and-buying-anyway, or the fans-having-opposite-
opinions? :)
> The writing may or may not be ok. I've been unable to separate it from
> the artwork which (sadly) causes my eyes to bleed.
I think Olivier what'shisname is an acquired taste. His layouts are
fairly dynamic, but I don't find his surface drawing very pretty. As most
fans seem to look no further than the surface, I can see where this would
be a problem for many of them. So far I've read the first two issues of
LEGION LOST (just got the third in the comp box yesterday), and I really
like what Dan and Andy are doing with the writing.
Edward Mathews
: I think Olivier what'shisname is an acquired taste. His layouts are
: fairly dynamic, but I don't find his surface drawing very pretty. As most
: fans seem to look no further than the surface, I can see where this would
: be a problem for many of them. So far I've read the first two issues of
: LEGION LOST (just got the third in the comp box yesterday), and I really
: like what Dan and Andy are doing with the writing.
Copiel. Maybe he's growing on me, but I like his Kid Quantum and those
bug critters were cool designs. I also think he's done the best Monstress
to date. I still don't like the cover art, though. Might be nice to
have a different person doing covers.
DNA are writing up a storm. It takes some talent to get me to like
Monstress.
Ed (IMHO) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.nyu.edu/~em11/
"Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the
undertaker will be sorry." -Mark Twain
zoroa...@my-deja.com
Jorge
In article <8f9s3a$q0p$1...@news.panix.com>,
Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> happened to mention:
> > Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
>
> In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
> approval of higher-ups.
>
> Thing about the Legion is, the fans tend to bitch no matter what's
done
> with the books, and they buy them anyway. And different fans bitch
about
> different things, as with many other books. Quite often two fans will
> have completely opposite opinions (as with the Giffen Legion, which
some
> love and others loathe). That's why I think it's usually if not
always a
> good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the
editor/creators
> think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular
fan
> base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
>
> - Elayne
zoroa...@my-deja.com
good I ended up liking it. I am not stuck on continuity...the story
takes precedence. In the case of Legion Lost...it is MUCH better than
the previous Legion & Legionairres series. What I like about Legion
Lost? It is not bad...the art is good and story is allright. If the
characters didn't look 12 years old I might like it better. All in all
I still want a return to the old days.
Jorge
In article
<kevindaniels-0...@1cust200.tnt70.chi5.da.uu.net>,
kevind...@earthlink.net (Kevin Daniels) wrote:
> In article <8fa88d$2s7$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Johanna Draper
> Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
> > Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it's usually if not always a
> > > good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the
editor/creators
> > > think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any
particular fan
> > > base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
> >
Bill Roper
Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Bill Roper <ro...@typhoon.xnet.com> happened to mention:
>> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>different things, as with many other books. Quite often two fans will
>>>have completely opposite opinions (as with the Giffen Legion, which some
>>>good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
>>>think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
>>>base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
>
>> particular syndrome.
>
>Which one, the bitching-and-buying-anyway, or the fans-having-opposite-
>opinions? :)
The bitch and buy, of course. Sara Lee doesn't make comics.
>> The writing may or may not be ok. I've been unable to separate it from
>> the artwork which (sadly) causes my eyes to bleed.
>
>I think Olivier what'shisname is an acquired taste. His layouts are
>fairly dynamic, but I don't find his surface drawing very pretty. As most
>fans seem to look no further than the surface, I can see where this would
>be a problem for many of them. So far I've read the first two issues of
>LEGION LOST (just got the third in the comp box yesterday), and I really
>like what Dan and Andy are doing with the writing.
I enjoyed the last two issues of LSH/Legionnaires where they had a different
artist working with them.
As far as not looking any farther than the surface, Legion: Lost is the
*only* comic book I've ever stopped buying because of the artwork. (This
includes the ugly but serviceable art in the Thomas/Robbins Invaders.)
This should say something.
I couldn't tell you whether the layouts are dynamic or not. All I can
tell you is that the artwork doesn't assist in telling the story and,
in my opinion, actually makes it harder to understand what's going on.
In that, it completely fails at what should be the primary goal of
comic art.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Robert Seward
: people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
: now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
: it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
: quickly.)
: [Followups to rac.lsh.]
I'm living in the boonies. I haven't even seen A LL issue,yet.
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> : I think Olivier what'shisname is an acquired taste. His layouts are
> : fairly dynamic, but I don't find his surface drawing very pretty. As most
> : fans seem to look no further than the surface, I can see where this would
> : be a problem for many of them. So far I've read the first two issues of
> : LEGION LOST (just got the third in the comp box yesterday), and I really
> : like what Dan and Andy are doing with the writing.
> Copiel.
Aren't you missing an "i" somewhere? I seem to remember he's "the artist
with lots of 'i's in his name." :)
> Maybe he's growing on me, but I like his Kid Quantum and those
> bug critters were cool designs. I also think he's done the best Monstress
> to date.
Agreed all around, I think he has a good design sense. And yes, Monstress
isn't *supposed* to look pretty.
> I still don't like the cover art, though. Might be nice to
> have a different person doing covers.
It may have been a package deal. I might ask Mike about that if I
remember.
Elayne Riggs
> I couldn't tell you whether the layouts are dynamic or not. All I can
> tell you is that the artwork doesn't assist in telling the story and,
> in my opinion, actually makes it harder to understand what's going on.
> In that, it completely fails at what should be the primary goal of
> comic art.
Wow, really? When I found I didn't care too much for the surface form
either, I did that experiment (reading the comic without looking at the
balloons and captions), and found the story pretty easy to follow from the
art alone, which I couldn't do with most of the other Legion artists in
the past half decade or so. Guess I'm just getting weird in my old age.
:)
TheLargeCahoona
team an opportunity to prove themselves. I just think that the LSH as it has
been written for the last few years has been really bad. There have been
points in the LSH's history where I had no complaints at all, just enjoyment
in reading them. Levitz's run was one, Giffen's another.
But this time I actually did stop buying the book.
It doesn't end my world, because I know they'll be back. I've seen it happen
too many times.
I don't bitch about it either. I only responded to someone else's bitch! And
besides, it's only my opinion, I could be wrong...
--
TheLargeCahoona
"Charlie don't surf!"
"Elayne Riggs" <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8f9s3a$q0p$1...@news.panix.com...
> VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> happened to mention:
> > Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
>
> In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
> approval of higher-ups.
>
> Thing about the Legion is, the fans tend to bitch no matter what's done
> with the books, and they buy them anyway. And different fans bitch about
> different things, as with many other books. Quite often two fans will
> have completely opposite opinions (as with the Giffen Legion, which some
> love and others loathe). That's why I think it's usually if not always a
> good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
> think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
> base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
>
> - Elayne
TheLargeCahoona
I'm not trying to suggest that we the fans should decide who or what needs
fixing. We do have the power to discontinue buying a book if we begin to
dislike it. I do that all the time. And you know what? If enough people
agree with me and do the same thing, there is a miraculous change of
creators on the book, or a reboot. We've both seen that happen. If Hal
Jordan were as bankable as Kyle Rayner to DC, he's still be Green Lantern.
If his incarnation as the Spectre is unpopular, we'll probably see very
little of him.
We just have a difference of opinion about the current state of that LSH,
that's all. We're all entitled to our opinions, which is what this newsgroup
(with a few exceptions) is all about.
Otherwise, it's all about the money trail. And we as consumers control that
portion of it.
--
TheLargeCahoona
"Charlie don't surf!"
"VertigoDC" <vert...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000509154618...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
Brian H. Bailie
> The recent stuff...is really bad. I always thought DC did a great job
> in revamping characters. Giffen's volume 4 was a good example. It went
> downhill after Giffen left.
>
> Since Levitz wrote my favorite legion stint...and he is such a big
> shot...why doesn't he do something???
>
> Stop drawing them like 12 year olds!!! I miss the real Legion....why
> hasn't Paul done something about them?!
He has.
Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
to speculate who that might be).
Good, bad, or indifferent, he DID try.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
VertigoDC
>thing.
>
My point exactly. :)
KillJokrz
blame "direct sales".
TheLargeCahoona
attempt to fill that void just didn't cut it. I'm not sure why, but that was
another big reason I quit buying the book. I didn't like seeing the LSH tied
to the Shazam family in any way, even though Cap and family don't bother me
at all in the "present" DCU. (That's just me though, as has been pointed
out, Legion fans are somewhat idiosyncratic.) Although what to do with
Mon-el/Valor/M'onel? That was a lot of peoples problem with the old Legion.
Once you have Mon-el, Superboy, Ultra-boy, Supergirl, and then Timber Wolf,
who was almost as strong and much more nimble...You've got way too much
power on your hands. Not to mention Element Lad. Throw him in and that team
alone could tackle just about anything in the known universe.
But Brainy still needs a big powerful blonde to be in love with. It's a big
part of the mythos.
--
TheLargeCahoona
"Charlie don't surf!"
<zoroa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8fbj0l$qem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > --
> > TheLargeCahoona
> >
> > "Charlie don't surf!"
> >
>
>
k...@tsoft.net
> the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
> personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
> compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
> Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
> that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
> said :) )
I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
that they see. I dunno.
I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
wind, I guess.
Oh, and I like the writing too, although the end of the Blight storyline
was a bit weak. It doesn't feel like a watered-down TV cartoon any more,
and the characters are getting distinct voices. Too bad the plot
direction (specifically, writing out more than half the team for a year)
is turning people off.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
conserving bandwidth by not having superfluous material in my .sig
Carl Fink
fans . . . but it did. The revived Legion post-Zero brought many of
us back. And now . . . the current atrocious Legion once more drives
us away.
What's needed is a new writer. I once again nominate Dwayne
McDuffie, in the absence of enough time for Paul Levitz to write the
book. Actually I'd love to see Jim Shooter back on the series, but
that seems not to be possible.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Sk8Maven
> What I like about Legion Lost? It is not bad...the art is good and story is
> allright. If the characters didn't look 12 years old I might like it better.
This is a really bizarrely ironic comment. All through Jeff Moy's (IMHO
outstanding) tenure on Legionnaires, a certain subset of fans bitched
and whined and moaned about how he was drawing a "kiddie Legion", a
"baby Legion", a "Legion of little kids", and an "Archies in space".
Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion", "they
all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with mid-life
crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently accept
no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
writing or drawing the zine.
Maven
Sk8Maven
> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
> the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
> to speculate who that might be).
The way I heard it, Giffen proposed this as a "pachage deal" -- BOTH him
AND Levitz or else *neither* -- and the DC higher-ups (Levitz is one of
them, by the way) weren't buying at that price.
Maven
TheLargeCahoona
think the only reason he posts at all is so that he can call people names.
Ignore him or treat him like the joke he is.
--
TheLargeCahoona
"Charlie don't surf!"
"Murray Fox" <mur...@kw.igs.net> wrote in message
news:3918B586...@kw.igs.net...
>
>
>
> Omarichu wrote:
>
> > >I think you've got that backwards. I believe that the higher ups make
the
> > >decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
> > >follows through.
> > >
> >
> > What an idiot. So what would the point of his job be if all he did was
follow
> > orders?
>
> That's the point of his job. To make sure that the directions he receives
from
> the powers that be are followed through upon.
>
> > Do the top staff make the directional decisions for all titles?
>
Dale Hicks
>
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
> say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
> facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
> has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
> wind, I guess.
I think if people are like me, their opinions are on record. There
are just a handful of regulars still around the ng, and I think I can
make good guesses on their opinion.
I myself dropped the title when (a) Moy was let go and (b) when the
new dark direction of the team was announced under the editorship
that had yet to thrill me with the stories.
But I have kept an eye on the issues that manage to stay on the stands
(although I wonder if this will drop as my comics store adjusts the
orders), and I think that Copiel has tremendous promise. His work
does have tons of energy, and he seems to be only breaking the anatomical
rules to further the dynamic look of the book, and not out of weak
chops.
I think it's too dirty for my tastes, but an inker that decided to
clean it up instead of following the sketchy pencils would cure that.
Contending Elayne's observations, I dropped the book, and I'm waiting
the next great rework of the Legion.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
zoroa...@my-deja.com
>
> This is a really bizarrely ironic comment. All through Jeff Moy's
(IMHO
> outstanding) tenure on Legionnaires, a certain subset of fans bitched
> and whined and moaned about how he was drawing a "kiddie Legion", a
> "baby Legion", a "Legion of little kids", and an "Archies in space".
>
> Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
> Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion",
"they
> all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
>
> I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
> what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with
mid-life
> crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently
accept
> no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
> writing or drawing the zine.
>
> Maven
>
I don't mind young characters. Lots of new characters start of about
16 to 20 years of age anyways. I don't mind 16 year old
characters...but I don't like pre-pubescent looking characters.
As for the middle aged Legion....I would probably like a few middle
agers on there. Or atleast mature characters...but I would also like
new young characters!
The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
years in that time and then making them 12 years old again. That is
why most fans don't buy the book. It's the actual of reboot of
history. Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition. The "let's start
all over" killed the Legion. Again...look at the sales. Before LL
they weren't even in the Top 100.
Jorge
JVV4sm
>think the only reason he posts at all is so that he can call people names.
>Ignore him or treat him like the joke he is.
>
I had an AOL IM session with once, and he is even more stupid when he has to
think on his feet.
Bill Roper
Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Bill Roper <ro...@typhoon.xnet.com> happened to mention:
>
>> I couldn't tell you whether the layouts are dynamic or not. All I can
>> tell you is that the artwork doesn't assist in telling the story and,
>> in my opinion, actually makes it harder to understand what's going on.
>> In that, it completely fails at what should be the primary goal of
>> comic art.
>
>Wow, really? When I found I didn't care too much for the surface form
>either, I did that experiment (reading the comic without looking at the
>balloons and captions), and found the story pretty easy to follow from the
>art alone, which I couldn't do with most of the other Legion artists in
>the past half decade or so. Guess I'm just getting weird in my old age.
>:)
I haven't had the leisure to read Legion: Lost, since I'm not buying it.
But I was pretty badly confused by Legion of the Damned. I don't appear
to have been the only one.
(I *have* glanced through the book in the store while waiting for my
dealer to finish running through my pull list. In those brief snippets,
I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that I should be paying
for this book. And please repeat after me, "The only message that a
publisher should pay attention to is the sales on the book, because if
people buy it anyway, why should they change?"
So I'm not buying it. :) )
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> Murray Fox <mur...@kw.igs.net> happened to mention:
>>
>> > Elayne Riggs wrote:
>>
>> >> VertigoDC <vert...@aol.com> happened to mention:
>> >> > Who decides what needs fixing and what the fix is?
>> >>
>> >> In the case of the Legion books, that would be Mike McAvennie, with
>> >> approval of higher-ups.
>>
>> > I think you've got that backwards. I believe tha the higher ups make the
>> > decision about the direction of the Legion, and then Mike, the toady,
>> > follows through.
>>
>> Your belief is incorrect.
> Maybe. But I don't think so.
I'm in a better position to know than you are, as Mike is my husband's
editor at the moment. Trust me on this, your suppositions are incorrect
right on down the line.
Elayne Riggs
> Logic doesn't work with Omar.
However, in this particular case Murray is wrong, so he's not using logic
in any case.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> What's needed is a new writer.
The Legion series just GOT new writers-- Dan and Andy.
Elayne Riggs
> In article <8fcap0$ich$3...@news.panix.com>,
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Bill Roper <ro...@typhoon.xnet.com> happened to mention:
>>
>>> I couldn't tell you whether the layouts are dynamic or not. All I can
>>> tell you is that the artwork doesn't assist in telling the story and,
>>> in my opinion, actually makes it harder to understand what's going on.
>>> In that, it completely fails at what should be the primary goal of
>>> comic art.
>>
>>Wow, really? When I found I didn't care too much for the surface form
>>either, I did that experiment (reading the comic without looking at the
>>balloons and captions), and found the story pretty easy to follow from the
>>art alone, which I couldn't do with most of the other Legion artists in
>>the past half decade or so. Guess I'm just getting weird in my old age.
>>:)
> I haven't had the leisure to read Legion: Lost, since I'm not buying it.
> But I was pretty badly confused by Legion of the Damned. I don't appear
> to have been the only one.
Ah, I see. I think LEGION: LOST is much stronger than LEGION OF THE
DAMNED in terms of layouts and such.
Elayne Riggs
> I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
> frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
> his art that I like so much.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think it's an acquired taste, and I
think many fans don't "read" art in the same way that they read words--
there's often a tendency not to be able to see past the surface form. And
to many people, Copiel's surface forms aren't very eye-pleasing.
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it.
Hey, I've been trying to study this kind of thing for the past couple
years and I still lack the artistic vocabulary! :)
Elayne Riggs
> I like his art, too. For what it's worth. Quite a lot. The Legion hasn't looked
> this good in years and years. I'm hoping he'll stick around for a long long time.
You and Karl are in luck. Copiel's just been signed to an exclusive with
DC, which means they're going to keep him busy for some time to come.
Elayne Riggs
> I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
> what...
Bingo.
Elayne Riggs
> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
> the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be"
Keith Giffen tends not to tell the full story. Think logically: if Levitz
wanted to write the Legion, don't you think he'd be able to? Levitz isn't
the problem here.
Elayne Riggs
>> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
>> to speculate who that might be).
> The way I heard it, Giffen proposed this as a "pachage deal" -- BOTH him
> AND Levitz or else *neither* -- and the DC higher-ups (Levitz is one of
> them, by the way) weren't buying at that price.
Much closer to the truth. Giffen isn't a DC employee, he's in no position
to initiate package deals. And frankly, IMHO there's far less of a demand
for his services on this book than he thinks there is.
Todd Kogutt
Dale Hicks wrote:
I myself dropped the title when (a) Moy was let go and (b) when the
> new dark direction of the team was announced under the editorship
> that had yet to thrill me with the stories.
Yep, I dropped LSH and LGS in protest over the firing of the creative teams and
the hiring of Abnett and Lanning, a writing team that has yet to produce
something I find readable.
---SCAVENGER
eternally
Elayne Riggs wrote:
> I'm in a better position to know than you are, as Mike is my husband's
> editor at the moment. Trust me on this, your suppositions are incorrect
> right on down the line.
on the other hand, Elayne has been wrong in the past about
some assertions she's based on her almighty marital connection,
so take that as you will...
-= e.
Carl Fink
>
>The Legion series just GOT new writers-- Dan and Andy.
Yes, I know. And it needs a *new* writer, now. Perhaps I can be
less polite and say "The right writer for the job."
Michael Alan Chary
>
>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>that they see. I dunno.
Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
He's a lousy artist.
>
>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
costume. It's just not true.
> And anyway, no one
>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>wind, I guess.
I took you to task over this before.
--
In memoriam Walter Payton, 1954-1999, the greatest Bear of all time.
"Being the fastest? I wasn't. Being the strongest? I wasn't. Being the biggest?
I wasn't. I had something that nobody else had. I think I was the smartest."
-- Sweetness
Sk8Maven
> I don't mind young characters. Lots of new characters start of about
> 16 to 20 years of age anyways. I don't mind 16 year old
> characters...but I don't like pre-pubescent looking characters.
So are you STILL bitching about the long-departed Jeff Moy, or has the
highly touted Olivier Coipel not lived up to your expectations?
> As for the middle aged Legion....I would probably like a few middle
> agers on there. Or atleast mature characters...but I would also like
> new young characters!
You're stuck with the present lot, which is less than *half* the
original team and includes several of the *least* mature members, for
another nine issues. (Several of the *most mature -- at least
emotionally -- are back on the U.P. side of the Rift, and only *one*
(M'Onel) has any chance whatsoever of showing up before L:Lost ends.
> The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
> years in that time and then making them 12 years old again.
That applied to exactly *one* character -- Jan Arrah, aka Element Lad.
He's the only one who was reverted all the way back to age 12. The rest
were introduced at ages ranging from 14 (Garth and Ayla) to 17-18 (Jo,
Tinya, Lyle?) -- and have aged several years since then.
> That is why most fans don't buy the book.
In your opinion. In other people's opinion the creative team ran out of
ideas and/or were hamstrung by an incompetent editor who replaced them
with TOO radically different newcomers when there only needed to be
*one* replacement (him!).
> It's the actual of reboot of history.
This sentence is a little incoherent. Mind clarifying?
> Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition.
And twisted it into pretzel shapes for shock value again and again and
again.
> The "let's start all over" killed the Legion.
Not true -- it was moribund *before* Zero Hour, and the reboot was a
stay of execution.
> Again...look at the sales. Before LL they weren't even in the Top 100.
They still aren't. So what does that prove, except that there has never
been a worthy successor ro Paul Levitz on the zine(s)?
Maven
Johanna Draper Carlson
> You and Karl are in luck. Copiel's just been signed to an exclusive with
> DC, which means they're going to keep him busy for some time to come.
Last I heard, the contract was only through August. Of course, they could
always renew it.
(Why is this thread still in rac.dcu?)
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Silver Age, Aquarium, Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Keith Giffen tends not to tell the full story. Think logically: if Levitz
> wanted to write the Legion, don't you think he'd be able to?
I believe Mr. Levitz, when writing, behaves as a writer, accepting the
authority of the editor. I don't believe he would abuse his power as
publisher to get himself the job.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I'm in a better position to know than you are, as Mike is my husband's
> editor at the moment. Trust me on this, your suppositions are incorrect
> right on down the line.
Except that Mike Carlin had to approve the direction of the book, so he's
not as wrong as you'd like him to be.
I mean, it's a corporation. People report to other people. There's no such
thing as a true one-person decision.
Jeff Troutman
news:391AE00A...@advtech.uswest.com...
I really liked their work on RESURRECTION MAN. When I heard they were
getting the Legion gig, I wondered if their style would fit those books.
So far, it just hasn't done much for me.
Jeff Troutman
Sk8Maven
> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think it's an acquired taste, and I
> think many fans don't "read" art in the same way that they read words--
> there's often a tendency not to be able to see past the surface form. And
> to many people, Copiel's surface forms aren't very eye-pleasing.
Which is like saying that the Fauvists used "rather strong colors", or
that the Cubists were "a little bit abstracted".
I wonder what would happen if Coipel did the rough layouts, somebody
else finished them up, and an inker who liked to streamline and simplify
(instead of slavishly copying every scratch, dirt smear and coffee ring)
did the inking?
Maven
Kevin Daniels
Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> kevind...@earthlink.net (Kevin Daniels) wrote:
>
> > How do Legion: Lost sales compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of
> > their runs?
>
> The estimates posted monthly have L:L 2 at just over 19K. LSH and
> Legionnaires were around 25K about the time of Team 20; Legion of
> Superheroes #125 was 17.5K, Legionnaires #81 was 17K. (Again, by estimate.)
> So Lost is doing better than the final issues, but it dropped 8% between #1
> and #2, with another drop expected (due to usual ordering patterns). If that
> drop is the same or greater, it's below the numbers of the previous final
> issues ... and those numbers are at Aquaman's level, if that's a valid
> example to judge by.
>
I'm intrigued to see the preorders on upcoming issues. Admittedly, these
are isolated examples, but the two Chicago comic shops I frequent have
been selling out Legion Lost, re-ordering and selling out the reorders.
Plus, this week there were more copies of LL#3 ordered than previous
issues -- a reflection of demand for the Legion of the Damned issues?
--
Kevin Daniels
David Goldfarb
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>There are no positive aspects to [Coipel's] art. No perspective, no anatomical
>sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>He's a lousy artist.
Say it, brother.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "You do it. I'm bitter."
aste...@slip.net | -- MST3K
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
zoroa...@my-deja.com
new continuity. Few old fans are accepting it and few new fans are
jumping on.
If Dan and Andy got a Levitz type of continuity a team of
adults/veterans with young new members it would be better for them.
I admit the art and story on Legion Lost is much better than anything I
have seen from the Legion in a while. But I can't get into these kids.
Brainiac 5.1? I think not!
Jorge
In article <slrn8hmcri...@home.nitpicking.com>,
zoroa...@my-deja.com
>
> That applied to exactly *one* character -- Jan Arrah, aka Element
Lad.
> He's the only one who was reverted all the way back to age 12. The
rest
> were introduced at ages ranging from 14 (Garth and Ayla) to 17-18
(Jo,
> Tinya, Lyle?) -- and have aged several years since then.
I meant the art makes them look 12 years old.
Also I meant that I believe one of the Legion's strength was it's rich
history. The reboot/s got rid of that.
>
> > Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition.
>
> And twisted it into pretzel shapes for shock value again and again
and
> again.
Your right. I agree with you there. At first it was fun seeing it
twisted but then it got old.
>
> > The "let's start all over" killed the Legion.
>
> Not true -- it was moribund *before* Zero Hour, and the reboot was a
> stay of execution.
>
> > Again...look at the sales. Before LL they weren't even in the Top
100.
>
> They still aren't. So what does that prove, except that there has
never
> been a worthy successor ro Paul Levitz on the zine(s)?
>
> Maven
Again your right. When I first got v.4 I hated it. Took me about 4
issues to get into it. But where was it going? As a
maxi-series/elseworld it would have been great. But the high concept
was doomed to go down.
That's all I ask is worty successor to Paul Levitz...and the "old"
continuity if possible.
thanks Maven,
Jorge
Elayne Riggs
Andy doesn't "slavishly copy." He does his job, which is to delineate the
pencils. Out of all the inkers tried on this book, his style actually fit
Copiel's best.
amac...@my-deja.com
> Actually Dan and Andy might not be the problem. It's the whole darn
> new continuity. Few old fans are accepting it and few new fans are
> jumping on.
I don't necessarily think that this is true. Up until Team 20
there were a lot of old fans accepting the new continuity. I know
I was really enjoying it. Since then, the direction took a wrong
turn.
> If Dan and Andy got a Levitz type of continuity a team of
> adults/veterans with young new members it would be better for them.
I don't think that falling back to an old continuity would be
any better. Too much time has passed, and that would create way
more havoc than just continuing what we have. I don't think that
all the fans that bought the Legion then would come back to comics
if they have quit. And it would confuse new fans.
Now if you want a mix of older and younger heroes, why not hope
that a half dozen years have passed during Lost, and that when the
lost heroes return they have to deal with working with their older
teammates. (I know, another gap. But then, of course, we can hope
for a second book telling us what happened during the lost Legionnaires
time away.)
> I admit the art and story on Legion Lost is much better than anything
> I have seen from the Legion in a while.
Everyone has their own tastes, and our opinions are just as valid.
I'm enjoying the story, with my reservations that I wish that I knew
what was happening to the rest of the team - I don't like to see the
team split like this. But, the art isn't doing anything for me. I
really don't like it. I much preferred the fill-in art team between
Damned and Lost. That would work better for me. Of course I'd still
prefer Moy...
> But I can't get into these kids. Brainiac 5.1? I think not!
I like the kids, but will agree with you on the Braniac 5.1. It
is a bad joke that has run too long already.
Angus
Sk8Maven
> I meant the art makes them look 12 years old.
Whose art? You never answered that question. If it's the *current*
artist, Olivier Coipel, that you' referring to, then that's one more
vote (besides mine) in refutation of the thesis that Coipel's version of
the Legion "looks more adult".
If it isn't the current artist, it no longer matters -- they've all gone
on to other assignments and will probably not be back.
Maven
Ben Weiss
> Andy doesn't "slavishly copy." He does his job, which is to delineate the
> pencils. Out of all the inkers tried on this book, his style actually fit
> Copiel's best.
Who the heck did they try? Doesn't DC have any clean inkers who can tighten the
figures and turn those blobs into recognizable faces? Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Elayne Riggs
Ben, you're missing something here. DC *likes* Coipel's style. That's
why they've signed him to an exclusive. Why would Mike ask Andy or any
other inker to change that style?
Elayne Riggs
> I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
exclusive contract.
TheLargeCahoona
than what was previously being served up. So it sold out. How many copies
did they print? Probably not many, if they were using past sales histories
as a guideline.
"Elayne Riggs" <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8fosdm$r8d$7...@news.panix.com...
Elayne Riggs
> I doubt it. Hardcore fans are just just glad to have ANYTHING that's better
> than what was previously being served up.
Your theory isn't borne out by a lot of the posts on this newsgroup.
- Elayne
Bill Roper
But, Elayne, that would depend on your definition of "better". :)
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Dwight Williams
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
>
> I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
> connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
> exclusive contract.
What the hey. I *know* Abnett and Lanning are competent. Surely they
must've had *something* to do with the sales figures being as they were.
Now how do we improve on that?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elayne Riggs
Nonsense, it would depend on your definition of "are." :) :) :)
Seriously, TLC seemed to be discussing the current mindset of fans, rather
than a wish-list mindset, but the current mindset of at least many fans on
this thread would seem to belie his optimism.
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
>>
>> I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
>> connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
>> exclusive contract.
> What the hey. I *know* Abnett and Lanning are competent. Surely they
> must've had *something* to do with the sales figures being as they were.
I don't think they've been signed to any exclusives, but I could be
misremembering. In any case, I believe the common wisdom is still that
art carries a book rather than writing (except if you're talking about a
writer with a cult of personality behind him/her).
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>
>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>that they see. I dunno.
> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
> He's a lousy artist.
All apologies, but I do not believe you.
>>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
> You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
> qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
> costume. It's just not true.
You're saying that my enjoyment of the expressions Copiel puts on his
small faces is equivalent to some kind of visual hallucination? Is my
satisfaction with his work some form of insanity? Should I be committed,
perhaps deprogrammed so that I get violently ill whenever I see Copiel's
art?
>> And anyway, no one
>>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>>wind, I guess.
> I took you to task over this before.
Yikes!
In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
conserving bandwidth by not having superfluous material in my .sig
Michael Alan Chary
>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>that they see. I dunno.
>
>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>> He's a lousy artist.
>
>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
>>>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>>>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>>>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>>>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
>
>> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
>> You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
>> qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
>> costume. It's just not true.
>
>You're saying that my enjoyment of the expressions Copiel puts on his
>small faces is equivalent to some kind of visual hallucination?
I'm saying he does not do a good job of portraying facial detail on small
faces. LL 3, Page 4, panel 1. Two faces smaller than normal (normal being
in comics panel terms about the size of a dime, maybe a little smaller).
No detail. Panel 2, again, two face, no detail. You don't need to believe
me. Everyone reading this post can open up the book and look for himself.
He doesn't put any detail into small facial expression. It's not there.
Either no features or a couple squiggly lines. An if you maintain that's
somehow enough, than you must be orgasmic over people like Dick Dillin or
Jeff Moy who actually stick in mouths and lips and teeth and eye brows and
so forth.
> Is my
>satisfaction with his work some form of insanity? Should I be committed,
>perhaps deprogrammed so that I get violently ill whenever I see Copiel's
>art?
Your satisfaction is a personal feeling. I am glad you like his art. But
tread carefully on the objective reality of what ends up on a page,
because we all have comics too, and all we have to do is open up to page
19, panel 1 LL 3, and watch the brilliantly detailed portrayal of Saturn
Girl's nose as a dot.
>>> And anyway, no one
>>>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>>>wind, I guess.
>
>> I took you to task over this before.
>
>Yikes!
>
>In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
>
>Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
>Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
for all I know but you you may be right.
david leon
> You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
> looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
> for all I know but you you may be right.
> --
Argh! Quoting Billy Joel? How can anyone top that. "It sucks!"
"No it doesnt!"
"It sucks and I'm right!"
"No it doesnt and your wrong!"
"oh yeah, well she's always a woman to meeeee!"
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <si3qvoc...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>>that they see. I dunno.
>>
>>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>>> He's a lousy artist.
>>
>>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
> You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
> textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
> compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
Utmost esteem is good...
I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
possible reason for different reactions:
The entire premise of a TV show or movie (let's call it "The X-Files") is
based on a whopping misinterpretation of how computers work, or how
neurochemistry works. As a computer geek, I find the episode
substantially weakened by this, but some other people who don't know much
about computers seem to enjoy it. Or my friend who's getting his PhD in
neuroscience is bothered by mistakes that I totally miss, so our enjoyment
of the episode differs.
So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
other level.
Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
That's what this all come down to, after all -- you're saying that "comic
art has objective rules" trumps the "tastes vary" argument. Some artists
have the skill to break those objective rules and be praised for it --
Bill Sienkiewicz, for example. Music is full of new trends that break old
rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
comic art in a good way or a bad way? Well... That's kind of
subjective... :)
All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person who likes things that
color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its flaws, somehow manages
not to confuse my understanding of the story. The left-to-right thing
doesn't confuse me. The squiggly faces and sketchy lines somehow get
assembled in my mind into attractive detailed figures. The illusion of
motion is evident to me despite the bizarre angles of the speed lines and
odd perspective. All the things you find wrong with Copiel contribute to
an overall impression in my mind in a way that other types of wrongness
you use as examples (Batman in a red cape, disappearing/reappearing
details in Liefeld's art) don't.
So... You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and
you don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these
things and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them
in ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
of the room. I do sincerely hope that Copiel's art improves to the point
where everyone else can enjoy it like I do.
>>In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
>>
>>Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
>>Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
Wow, I sure did drink a lot of coffee yesterday afternoon.
> You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
> looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
> for all I know but you you may be right.
Only the good artists die young.
Nathan Sanders
In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
>is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
>other level.
Entirely possible, of course. Horrible movies like TITANIC, whose
characters have fewer than one dimension of personality and whose
plot was boring, predictable, and trite, can end up making tons of
money appealing to the masses. Thus, on an objective artistic scale
(which --- I agree with Mike --- exists), TITANIC and Coipel are
miserable, but on an objective scale of "entertainment value" (sales),
TITANIC certainly succeeded (the jury is still out on Coipel).
I think the average person on rac* tends to care more about the former
scale (note the many vocal supporters of CHASE over on racdu), and
doesn't give a fig about the latter scale.
>Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
Breaking objective rules is one thing. Ignoring them is a different
matter. Flouting the rules only works when you know what the rules
are, and if you flout them in a meaningful way. Coipel might know
the rules (though it's hard to see evidence of that), but he's
definitely not flouting them in a meaningful way (for me).
>Music is full of new trends that break old
>rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
>the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
But jazz doesn't break the rules randomly and arbitrarily. Otherwise,
you'd get random notes and dischordant progressions. That doesn't
(generally) happen, so they're sticking to some sort of uber-rules.
>comic art in a good way or a bad way? Well... That's kind of
>subjective... :)
Just as there are objective rules for art, there are objective rules for
how to break those first rules (and so on...meta-rules all the way down).
>of the room. I do sincerely hope that Copiel's art improves to the point
>where everyone else can enjoy it like I do.
He'll have to start by not giving all the characters pig-faces. Or at
least, give each character a consistent pig-face from page to page.
Nathan
--
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Sk8Maven
> Only the good artists die young.
That's not true either -- Titian lived into his 80's or possibly 90's.
Maven
Ben Weiss
> >Music is full of new trends that break old
> >rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
> >the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
>
> But jazz doesn't break the rules randomly and arbitrarily. Otherwise,
> you'd get random notes and dischordant progressions.
Actually, I've been told that in jazz, the rule is "When you hit a wrong note,
repeat it."
But comic art, unlike, say, music on a CD, exists for more than its own sake;
it's there to tell a story. If a jazz artist suddenly decides to throw some
Tupac Shakur lyrics into the mix, it's novel experimentation. If the lead
actress in a Broadway production of "Oklahoma!" does the same, it's breaking the
rules.
Experimentation in comic art or stage singing is only appropriate if it's in the
service of the overall story. IMO, Coipel's art obscures, rather than
illuminates, what A&L are trying to communicate.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Carl Fink
Non sequitur. He said that only good artists died young -- not that
*all* good artists die young, which Titian would be a counterexample
to.
Sk8Maven
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 22:22:57 GMT Sk8Maven <sk8m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >kjhNO...@tsoft.net wrote:
> >> Only the good artists die young.
> >
> >That's not true either -- Titian lived into his 80's or possibly 90's.
>
> Non sequitur. He said that only good artists died young -- not that
> *all* good artists die young, which Titian would be a counterexample
> to.
Spoilsport. :-P
Maven
Michael Alan Chary
>>>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>>>that they see. I dunno.
>>>
>>>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>>>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>>>> He's a lousy artist.
>>>
>>>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
>
>> You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
>> textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
>> compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
>
>Utmost esteem is good...
>
>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>possible reason for different reactions:
I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively) Before you were talking
about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
>So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
>is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
>other level.
I'm not talking about enjoyment. I'm talking abotu dynamism, detail, panel
flow, structure, whether lines are straight and that sort of thing. It's
doesn't matter whether I like it or not. It's there.
>Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
>That's what this all come down to, after all -- you're saying that "comic
>art has objective rules" trumps the "tastes vary" argument. Some artists
No. I'm saying "Coipel does not have dynamism in his art and detail on his
small facial representations." That statement has nothing to do with
whether you or I like his art. It's a factual statement on a par with
"The Golden Age Green Lantern had red in his costume. The Silver Age Green
Lantern did not have red in his costume." Neither of those is a statement
about what the better way to design a superhero or even a Green Lantern
costume is. You said people fail to see positive qualities like facial
detail and dynamism. That's a factual statement. You're right to the
extent that I fail to see it, but I say there's a reason I fail to see
those qualities. They are not there.
>have the skill to break those objective rules and be praised for it --
>Bill Sienkiewicz, for example. Music is full of new trends that break old
Bill Siekevitch does not break the rules. He doesn't draw with much
glamor, but his panel flow is impeccable, for instance.
>rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
>the objective rules of music.
Only people who don't know the rules of jazz.
>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
his story.
>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>left-to-right thing >doesn't confuse me. The squiggly faces and sketchy
>lines somehow get >assembled in my mind into attractive detailed figures.
Well, maybe one thign: I might suggest that borders on delusion. Half the
faces don't have any details at all.
>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
k...@tsoft.net
> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>
>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>possible reason for different reactions:
> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
close to now).
> Before you were talking
> about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
> can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
> ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
So if half the population is unable to see those 3D "Magic Eye" pictures,
what's the objective reality?
OK, that's not a good analogy on a technical level (after all, those
pictures are inarguably present in a jumbled form). But the point I'm
making here, the last position I'll hold to beyond my subjectivity
fallback, is this: Somehow, when I look at those little squiggly lines in
the small faces, my brain assembles them into expressive, nuanced faces.
Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
willing to accept everything uncritically.
I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
improvement.
>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
> his story.
Some but not all readers.
>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
Yes. Really, I can.
>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
Michael Alan Chary
>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>>possible reason for different reactions:
>
>> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
>> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
>> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
>
>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>close to now).
Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
distinguish him from any artists?
>> Before you were talking
>> about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
>> can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
>> ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
>
>So if half the population is unable to see those 3D "Magic Eye" pictures,
>what's the objective reality?
>
>OK, that's not a good analogy on a technical level (after all, those
>pictures are inarguably present in a jumbled form). But the point I'm
Bingo!
>making here, the last position I'll hold to beyond my subjectivity
>fallback, is this: Somehow, when I look at those little squiggly lines in
>the small faces, my brain assembles them into expressive, nuanced faces.
Page 4, Phantom Girl (I refuse to cal her Apparition). What little
squiggly lines? There aren't any? There are a couple marks there, but
really, which lines are you talking about?
Radar: Stop making fun of my height.
Hawkeye: What height? You have no height. Get some height, and I'll make
fun of it.
In like fashion, what lines?
>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
are doing something similar witht he art?
>(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
>realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
>People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
>an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
>Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
>and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
Okay, so maybe you are just blind :)
>This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
>that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
>not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
>plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
>could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
>willing to accept everything uncritically.
Fair enough.
>I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
>would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
>some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
>place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
>improvement.
That's certainly true. What he doesn't have is any *reason* for
improvement. He's getting work. A lot of artists show room for improvement
but don't do it once they get work. Rob Liefeld had a tremendous level of
ability and a young age, but he sucked. I mean, he was better than I am,
but I'm just some guy, not an artist. Derec Aucoin, otoh, improved
dramatically with each issue of R.E.B.E.L.S.
>>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
>
>> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
>> his story.
>
>Some but not all readers.
It takes you no longer than usual to figure it out?
>>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
>> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>
>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>
>Yes. Really, I can.
Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
weapons? What's going on?
>>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
>
>> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
>> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
>
>All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
Tellyour co-workers to try typing with King Kong's hands.
>So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
>almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
>tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
>objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
>into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
>does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
>it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
>is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
Maybe you're wrong.
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <si9de1...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>>>possible reason for different reactions:
>>
>>> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
>>> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
>>> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
>>
>>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>>close to now).
> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
> distinguish him from any artists?
No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
think).
In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
> are doing something similar witht he art?
Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
about Copiel?
Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
form in some people's perceptions.
I can even point out an art style that I dislike that I think functions on
a similar level: manga/anime. Not all of it -- some is beautifully drawn.
But look at the lower end -- you've got weirdly-proportioned faces with
gigantic eyes, tiny lines for noses, big oval mouths that sometimes fill
up the bottom half of the faces without any cheeks or lips... All
grotesque on any objective scale. But for a lot of fans (a lot of lot of
fans), this all resolves into acceptable art. I don't get it, but I can
see how it works for other people (there's so much of it that it all seems
interchangeable to me; maybe I'd find it more interesting if it were a new
style by one artist, I dunno).
>>(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
>>realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
>>People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
>>an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
>>Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
>>and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
> Okay, so maybe you are just blind :)
Legally blind without my glasses, that's me. Hm, let's see what the art
in Legion Lost looks like with them on... O DEAR GOD NO!
>>This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
>>that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
>>not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
>>plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
>>could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
>>willing to accept everything uncritically.
> Fair enough.
>>I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
>>would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
>>some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
>>place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
>>improvement.
> That's certainly true. What he doesn't have is any *reason* for
> improvement. He's getting work. A lot of artists show room for improvement
> but don't do it once they get work. Rob Liefeld had a tremendous level of
> ability and a young age, but he sucked. I mean, he was better than I am,
> but I'm just some guy, not an artist. Derec Aucoin, otoh, improved
> dramatically with each issue of R.E.B.E.L.S.
Time will tell, I guess.
>>>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
>>
>>> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
>>> his story.
>>
>>Some but not all readers.
> It takes you no longer than usual to figure it out?
Not really. There have been some problem spots.
>>>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
>>> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
>>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>>
>>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>>
>>Yes. Really, I can.
> Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
> weapons? What's going on?
I had to consciously try to see the ship going away from the reader, or
firing guns. I knew (from the text or from my memory of the plot) that
the Legion ship was leaving the other one, and the splash page looked like
just that.
>>>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
>>
>>> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
>>> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
>>
>>All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
> Tellyour co-workers to try typing with King Kong's hands.
"The fingers you are using are too large. To request a phone with larger
buttons, please mash the keypad with your palm."
>>So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
>>almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
>>tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
>>objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
>>into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
>>does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
>>it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
>>is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
> Maybe you're wrong.
Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
Sk8Maven
> Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
> sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
> to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
> Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
> there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
> form in some people's perceptions.
Maybe so, but it has nothing to do with Myers-Briggs (I'm a clear
Intuitive, and I think Coipel's art is dreadful).
Maven
Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>>>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>>>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>>>close to now).
>
>> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
>> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
>> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
>> distinguish him from any artists?
>
>No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
>my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
>there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
>that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
>the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
>think).
And Portacio is pretty awful. He's also an order of magnitude better than
Coipel.
>In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
>sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
>Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
>haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
>>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
>
>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>
>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>about Copiel?
Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
science.
>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>form in some people's perceptions.
And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
like a grilled trout.
>I can even point out an art style that I dislike that I think functions on
>a similar level: manga/anime. Not all of it -- some is beautifully drawn.
>But look at the lower end -- you've got weirdly-proportioned faces with
>gigantic eyes, tiny lines for noses, big oval mouths that sometimes fill
>up the bottom half of the faces without any cheeks or lips... All
Okay, pull out a copy of Coipel and look for those qualities in his art. I
think you'll be surprised.
>grotesque on any objective scale. But for a lot of fans (a lot of lot of
>fans), this all resolves into acceptable art. I don't get it, but I can
>see how it works for other people (there's so much of it that it all seems
>interchangeable to me; maybe I'd find it more interesting if it were a new
>style by one artist, I dunno).
Manga has a slightly different system.
>>>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>>>
>>>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>>>
>>>Yes. Really, I can.
>
>> Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
>> weapons? What's going on?
>
>I had to consciously try to see the ship going away from the reader, or
>firing guns. I knew (from the text or from my memory of the plot) that
>the Legion ship was leaving the other one, and the splash page looked like
>just that.
Well, that was my first impulse too, from context. But there's nothing in
the picture itself to indicate that. Additionaly, as I said, that means
the panel flow on a *SPLASH PAGE FERCHRISSAKES* is awful. The art is
guiding the reader to stop reading the bok. Maybe Coipel is just trying to
be honest and save readers.
As to little faces, there aren't any. And there's no dynamism either.
>Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
>you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
>my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
Thanks, but I like my artistic intergrity intact.
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
>>> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
>>> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
>>> distinguish him from any artists?
>>
>>No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
>>my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
>>there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
>>that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
>>the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
>>think).
> And Portacio is pretty awful. He's also an order of magnitude better than
> Coipel.
>>In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
>>sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
>>Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
>>haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
> You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
> Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
> people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
> them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
Nah, the unpopularity isn't the original cause. The original cause is
that I like the art. The unpopularity just puts me in the position of
defending it, and defending it heightens my appreciation. That's a pretty
common psychological reaction, and no, it's not rational, but I recognize
it for what it is. I still hold to my original liking -- do you still
admire me?
>>>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
>>
>>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>>
>>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>>about Copiel?
> Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
Now you're just being disingenuous. I've said several times that there's
unpopular art (Liefeld, whoever's doing Rising Stars) that I don't like.
>>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
> Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
> are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
> Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
> science.
Do not anger the Sky Gods.
I find the four axes to be useful in describing personality traits, in the
same *general* way that it's useful to have concepts like Happy/Sad,
Optomistic/Pessimistic, Impulsive/Thoughtful, etc. It's easier to say
someone's an optomist than to say that they try to look on the positive
side of things, and it's easier to say someone's an intuitive than to say
that they favor impressions over concrete sensory impressions. Neither
one implies that the person is always that way, and it should be possible
to use the M/B ones without implying the entire 16-type system. But maybe
there's too much baggage to use them that way.
>>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>>form in some people's perceptions.
> And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
> with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
> like a grilled trout.
I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
mind. You can acknowledge that maybe there is "something else" that I'm
seeing, obscured perhaps behind terrible art, or you can go on maintaining
that I'm crazy/blind/etc. Either way, that's the point where we disagree,
and I don't think the argument can be reduced any further.
>>Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
>>you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
>>my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
> Thanks, but I like my artistic intergrity intact.
You mean I need to finish my Electroarticular Integrimodulator too?
That'll take weeks! F'nhay!
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
"Meeting with Buster Brown Shoes, I realized they could connect
with my vision." - Carlos Santana
Carl Fink
>I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>mind . . .
Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
"copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
Thank you.
--
Carl "nitpi...@nitpicking.com" Fink
Engaging in my one yearly spelling flame on Usenet
Nathan Sanders
In article <slrn8iu323...@home.nitpicking.com>,
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
I thought it was "kwah-PEHL", since he's French...
But that's just moi...
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 22:26:56 GMT kjhNO...@tsoft.net <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
>>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>>mind . . .
> Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
> length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
> you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
> It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
> would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
> using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
> "copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
D'oh!
How embarassing. Normally I'm an excellent speller (you'll note that I've
been very consistent in my misspelling). There must be some intangible
quality to Coipel's name in particular that makes it difficult for me to
spell it -- somehow I'm forming an impression that the correct spelling is
"Copiel." :)
Shutting up... Right about... NOW.
Michael Alan Chary
>> You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
>> Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
>> people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
>> them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
>
>Nah, the unpopularity isn't the original cause. The original cause is
>that I like the art. The unpopularity just puts me in the position of
>defending it, and defending it heightens my appreciation. That's a pretty
>common psychological reaction, and no, it's not rational, but I recognize
>it for what it is. I still hold to my original liking -- do you still
>admire me?
Admire someone for his lack of taste? Why would I want to do that? :)
Common psychological reactions are nice, but not particularly useful from
a discussion standpoint.
>>>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>>>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>>>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>>>
>>>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>>>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>>>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>>>about Copiel?
>
>> Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
>
>Now you're just being disingenuous. I've said several times that there's
>unpopular art (Liefeld, whoever's doing Rising Stars) that I don't like.
I was spitballing because of what you siad earlier. Liefeld's art, btw, is
not unpopular. It's wildly popular or at least had been. It's just bad.
Coipel's art is both unpopular and lousy. If Coipel's name were selling
the books in the top twenty titles, I would at least understand why he was
given the job. I'd still think he was lousy because I have eyes, but
hiring him would at least make sense.
>>>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
>
>> Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
>> are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
>> Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
>> science.
>
>Do not anger the Sky Gods.
>
>I find the four axes to be useful in describing personality traits, in the
>same *general* way that it's useful to have concepts like Happy/Sad,
>Optomistic/Pessimistic, Impulsive/Thoughtful, etc. It's easier to say
>someone's an optomist than to say that they try to look on the positive
>side of things, and it's easier to say someone's an intuitive than to say
>that they favor impressions over concrete sensory impressions. Neither
>one implies that the person is always that way, and it should be possible
>to use the M/B ones without implying the entire 16-type system. But maybe
>there's too much baggage to use them that way.
I find Myers/Briggs tests more useless than IQ tests. (Before
anyone gets on my case, I do rather well on IQ tests. I just do happen to
like them.) I tolerate IQ tests because they result in people giving me
money.
>>>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>>>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>>>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>>>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>>>form in some people's perceptions.
>
>> And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
>> with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
>> like a grilled trout.
>
>I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
>maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
>our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
Because your favorable impression is not objectively quantifiable and thus
useless and a favorable impression of art should not be used to judge mass
media. If you want to buy a Coipel page, fine. But if you want to print
one, that course of action is silly because the man can't draw.
Bill James once said about Rich Dotson, "Any scout who filed a report
saying anything other than 'This sucker can't pitch' should be fired
immediately."
That's about where I stand on Coipel's artistic "ability." Except I'd add
the phrase "out of a cannon."
Michael Alan Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 22:26:56 GMT kjhNO...@tsoft.net
><kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>
>>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>
>Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
>length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
>you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
>
>It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
>would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
>using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
>"copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
>
I thought maybe Koy-pee-el'
Mark Lafrenais
>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>about Copiel?
Its not Coipel, but the Legion. The Rising Stars artists are laying
dowmn the ground for the series, whereas Coipel is working on an
established property. One would not expect or wish him to copy what
has gone before, but the essence of the criticism is that his art is
somehow contrary to the spirit of the Legion.
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
>>>>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>>>>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>>>>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>>>>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>>>>form in some people's perceptions.
>>
>>> And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
>>> with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
>>> like a grilled trout.
>>
>>I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
>>maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
>>our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
> Because your favorable impression is not objectively quantifiable and thus
> useless and a favorable impression of art should not be used to judge mass
> media. If you want to buy a Coipel page, fine. But if you want to print
> one, that course of action is silly because the man can't draw.
A good friend of mine and I have a history of getting into discussions
like this one, back-and-forthing ad nauseum until our friends yelled at us
to stop, and then continuing on until we'd hammered out some tiny point of
discoverable fact (which could then settle the argument) or a subjective
point of opinion (which we would agree was, after all, subjective). I
don't think we ever changed each other's minds on any of the subjective
points, but it was entertaining and there was a certain amount of
satisfaction in having our respective subjectivities acknowledged and
understood.
I've seen enough of your posts to realize from the start that I wasn't
going to change your mind on this. I was kind of hoping to agree to
disagree, or that the central (to me) question of "why do I like this art
that is so roundly disliked?" would be answered, by myself or by one of
the few other Coipel fans. Alas, neither has happened.
I'm raising the white flag now, or whatever flag means "stop the fight;
we're going around and around in circles." Feel free to declare victory.
I don't believe that I have poor taste or no judgment -- I think that RAC
as a whole has much better taste in comics than the general public, and
I'm usually in accord with RAC opinion on most things. But I'm not
prepared to argue about objective rules of art, because I'm more concerned
with the impression a piece of art creates than with how closely an artist
sticks to the rules. Which, as you say, renders discussion useless.
All I can say is, if you ever have a positive reaction to a piece of art
that breaks your rules, then maybe my point of view will make sense to
you. And if you don't, well... Good for you. You stuck to your guns.
It's not how I see the world, but whatever works for you works for you.
This was fun. Hope the viewers at home aren't too exasperated.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP, subjectivist
Sk8Maven
> >I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
> >maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
> >our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
>
> Because your favorable impression is not objectively quantifiable and thus
> useless and a favorable impression of art should not be used to judge mass
> media. If you want to buy a Coipel page, fine. But if you want to print
> one, that course of action is silly because the man can't draw.
Strictly speaking, that's not quite accurate: Coipel *can* draw, in the
sense of producing a more or less recognizable representation of a human
figure. (You'd be surprised how many people can't even do *that*.) He
just doesn't do it very well, and his style is extremely ugly. (I've
seen more inept and I've seen uglier -- but not both together,
previously. At least, not from someone who is being paid for commercial
illustration.)
The ineptitude is objectively quantifiable by the criteria Mike has been
talking about -- displaced features, lack of proportion, lack of
clarity, lack of any sense of motion, lack of panel flow, lack of
detail, etc. To most people the degree of ineptitude, coupled with
messy, scratchy, murky lines, *is* what makes his work "ugly".
John Forte, the first regular Legion artist, could be faulted on some of
the same criteria, particularly lack of proportion, lack of motion (his
figures were often very stiff and stilted), lack of detail, and lack of
panel flow -- but he knew where human facial features belonged, he knew
the line-symbolism for "motion" well enough to indicate it when
absolutely necessary, he had impeccably clean lines, and there was never
any doubt what was going on in each panel.
These talents are severely underrated nowadays, when it appears that the
main criterion for getting hired as a comics artist is to be radically
"different" -- even to the extreme of being all show and very little
substance. "Different" and "competent" are not synonyms. "New" and
"good" are not synonyms. But a lot of people react as though they *are*
-- including, apparently, some comics editors.
Maven