Marvel Comics - Worse Than Ever?
33
since 1995,
when I first started collecting comics. Does anyone else out there agree?
I'm sure I'm in the minority....just like the new Cap. America, Nick Fury,
etc.etc.!
Windbag1000
coondawg
"33" <leomcc...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:A0ka9.89358$8aG1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
in 76. the past few years have shown constant improvment and brought me back
to reading mostly marvel again.
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
And I agree. Right now I'm reading more Marvel comics than I have
since about 1992, when I left comic collecting altogether for several
years cause I was sick of it all (and that was before the worst even
hit).
33
it as more of an 'in-joke'.
Jeremy Henderson wrote in message
<3h0lmu8l6as5e1c41...@4ax.com>...
Gerson Agena
> since 1995,
> when I first started collecting comics.
I think 1996 was Marvel's worst year ever. You had to try really hard
to find something readable. Matt Murdock and Reed Richards were dead,
Ben Reilly was Spider-Man, Tony Stark was a teenager and the Avengers
looked like some second rate Image comics team book. What the hell
were they thinking ?
- Gerson
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>i think they are the best they have been since 1987. i started reading them
>in 76. the past few years have shown constant improvment and brought me back
>to reading mostly marvel again.
I started reading Marvel around 1977, back when X-Men was in the 50s
or so. Read X-Men until the early 300s. I've picked up an issue of
X-Men occasionally here and there to see if it's ever gotten better
and it really hasn't. Last one I got was about 2 weeks ago, I think.
coondawg
news:y%wa9.48704$bu81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Do these new books have a mass appeal to the potential customers? I think
of
> it as more of an 'in-joke'.
>
>
that isn't you're job to worry about. god!
you would think sales numbers would convince you, but they obviously didn't.
you want a wildly inacurate sampling from a newsgroup to prove your point,
and still the numbers don't go your way, so you begin to critique the comics
on a subjective level.
so.
maybe it's you.
just a thought.
Landru99
or so.>>
Wrong decade. The original X-MEN title was "in the 50s" during 1968-69.
Landru
33
>> Do these new books have a mass appeal to the potential customers? I think
>of
>> it as more of an 'in-joke'.
>>
>
>that isn't you're job to worry about. god!
>you would think sales numbers would convince you, but they obviously
didn't.
>you want a wildly inacurate sampling from a newsgroup to prove your point,
>and still the numbers don't go your way, so you begin to critique the
comics
>on a subjective level.
>so.
>maybe it's you.
>just a thought.
Well, think of how much comics sold in '95, and how much are they selling
now?
maybe
it's not me
I was wondering if the fans who still buy Marvel comics, foresee a problem
in the future because of the way they're handling books now.
James Moar
<r4Ka9.112771$8aG1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "33"
<leomcc...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Well, think of how much comics sold in '95, and how much are they selling
> now?
>
> maybe
>
> it's not me
>
> I was wondering if the fans who still buy Marvel comics, foresee a problem
> in the future because of the way they're handling books now.
Well, if you think that Marvel's current strategy might provoke a
heavier decline in the longer term, you perhaps should also have to
consider that the seeds of the fall from 1995 to now might have been
sown in or before 1995.
Personally, I think that might well be the case - variant covers and
spin-off series seem to have stretched readers' patience whilst
thinning their wallets, there was a speculative bubble, and poor
writing on a lot of books, causing a short-term spike and a
longer-lasting audience disinterest. I also have this theory that the
early Image art style has an unusually large gap between its immediate
and its long-term attractiveness to readers, but I'm getting
speculative enough already.
--
James Moar
coondawg
if you recall the bubble burst around 95 or so. the peculitive boom was
over, and the sales on all books were on constant decline, until about a
year and a half ago, when marvel sales and share of market began to rise.
there was a realy well researched post and many follow ups not too long ago.
i'm sure you saw them. try a google search.
as for a future problem, you began collecting when the medium was at it's
nadir creativity wise, and yet you want to return to those good ol' days.
trust me, it's your first brush with nostalgia, you will get over it.
Scott Zeller
> "33" <leomcc...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<A0ka9.89358$8aG1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > I personally think Marvel comics are generally worse than they've ever been
> > since 1995,
> > when I first started collecting comics.
>
> I think 1996 was Marvel's worst year ever. You had to try really hard
> to find something readable.
The Untold Tales of Spider-Man Annual '96 was pretty entertaining.
That said, I am also buying fewer Marvel comics these days and am more
and more interested in DC.
Of course, I may have peculiar tastes having started back in 1974. ;)
Thanks,
Scott
Christopher Griffen
I don't agree at all. There are a lot of current Marvel comics I don't
like, but the ones I do like are some of the best comics I've ever
read.
Avengers, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Daredevil, Amazing
Spider-Man, Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate X-Men and The Ultimates are
all very enjoyable reads for me. For me, the best era for Marvel comic
was the Silver Age and late Bronze Age (about 1977-1981). Other than
that, this is the best stuff.
Marvel from 1992 to about 1998 was the absolute WORST era the company
ever had. You came in at a really bad time.
33
>nadir creativity wise, and yet you want to return to those good ol' days.
>trust me, it's your first brush with nostalgia, you will get over it.
>
>
>
Never said that. Even if the numbers are rising a bit now, (as I would
expect), it doesn't mean good things for the future, necessarily.
Mathew Krull
True. There is no guarantee that sales will continue to climb. There
is evidence, however, that sales will drop if there is a return to the
same sort of stories we saw 7 years ago.
For most people, comics will never be as good as they were when they
first started. Usually for the dame reason that music, movies, and TV
were better back then too. Coondawg called it right, it's nostalgia.
--
My name is not misspelled.
33
>True. There is no guarantee that sales will continue to climb. There
>is evidence, however, that sales will drop if there is a return to the
>same sort of stories we saw 7 years ago.
>
Yes, well, these stories and methods aren't so different today, the prices
are higher and the books remain unmemorable. It's hard to imagine that
prices could drop further than where they are now, I mean X-MEN #1 in the
early nineties sold more than anything....
>For most people, comics will never be as good as they were when they
>first started. Usually for the dame reason that music, movies, and TV
>were better back then too. Coondawg called it right, it's nostalgia.
No, for old people it is, but new stories can still have great appeal, it is
the writers, not us.
GI Trekker
Thunderbolts and Avengers hanging on -- for now...
Mathew Krull
>>True. There is no guarantee that sales will continue to climb. There
>>is evidence, however, that sales will drop if there is a return to the
>>same sort of stories we saw 7 years ago.
>>
>
>Yes, well, these stories and methods aren't so different today, the prices
>are higher and the books remain unmemorable. It's hard to imagine that
>prices could drop further than where they are now, I mean X-MEN #1 in the
>early nineties sold more than anything....
>
You bet it did. And how. Heck, we still have about a hundred copies of
it at the store I work at. About 50 or so Spawn #1's, too. X-Men # 1
sold a lot based on speculators, not on the quality of the story (which
was poor, to put it kindly). People, myself included, bought multiple
copies of the book hoping to cash in at a later date. And as for
memorability, I honestly could not tell you what happened in the book
without looking. I've been reading Marvel since the early 80's, except
for a 2 year stretch in the 90's when boycotted the company, and the
stories now are light years better in art and quality than they have
ever been, in my opinion.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
It does appear that either you like the current Marvel output or you don't.
I'm turned off by the grim and gritty trend that has invaded Incredible Hulk,
Daredevil, Captain America, Iron Man, etc. I'm much more fond of the
Avengers and Thor, but these "old fashioned" types of books seem to be
produced less and less at Marvel with the more stylized, less "Superhero"
titles taking precedent. (On the other hand, despite my grumblings about
New X-Men, I'm actually enjoying that title, as its neither "old fashioned"
nor is it grim and gritty. I'd love to see more titles like it at Marvel.)
On the other hand, Crossgen, Dark Horse, DC, and Image are getting more and
more of my dollars. There is material out there for everyone, Marvel isn't
the only publisher in town.
Remember, buy what you like and you cannot go wrong.
RJRJR
coondawg
>
> >True. There is no guarantee that sales will continue to climb. There
> >is evidence, however, that sales will drop if there is a return to the
> >same sort of stories we saw 7 years ago.
> >
>
> Yes, well, these stories and methods aren't so different today, the prices
> are higher and the books remain unmemorable. It's hard to imagine that
> prices could drop further than where they are now, I mean X-MEN #1 in the
> early nineties sold more than anything....
yes because of speculation, not because it was good. that was the begining
of the downfall.
> >For most people, comics will never be as good as they were when they
> >first started. Usually for the dame reason that music, movies, and TV
> >were better back then too. Coondawg called it right, it's nostalgia.
thank you
>
> No, for old people it is, but new stories can still have great appeal, it
is
> the writers, not us.
>
first of all, you better not be calling a 33 yr old "old people" and second,
your statment is contradictory. and to be honest dosn't make any sense at
all. . . if you say "old people" not liking the new MU because it isn't like
the books of thier youth, that would be nostalgia on thier part, however we
are old timers saying we like the change. you are the one longing for a,
IMHO, dismal period in history because you don't agree with the changes your
hobby is going through. the second part . . .i'm not touchin' got no idea
what you're trying to say there.
Brian Henderson
Oops, it was a typo. I meant 1967, not 1977.
Peter Likidis
<r4Ka9.112771$8aG1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 33
<leomcc...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Well, think of how much comics sold in '95, and how much are they selling
> now?
Since when did quality = quantity. If anything back in the early
ninties the comics were so bad that's the reason comics are no longer
such big sellers.
> I was wondering if the fans who still buy Marvel comics, foresee a problem
> in the future because of the way they're handling books now.
They keep handling them like they are and I'll be sticking around.
Put it this way pre-Quesada I was reading the following Marvels:
Avengers
Spidergirl
Thunderbolts
Black Panther
I'm now reading additionally:
Ultimate Spidey
Ultimate X-Men
Ultimates
X-Force
Which may not seem like a lot but that's a 100% increase in my buying.
33
>> No, for old people it is, but new stories can still have great appeal, it
>is
>> the writers, not us.
>>
>
>first of all, you better not be calling a 33 yr old "old people" and
second,
>your statment is contradictory. and to be honest dosn't make any sense at
>all. . . if you say "old people" not liking the new MU because it isn't
like
>the books of thier youth, that would be nostalgia on thier part, however we
>are old timers saying we like the change. you are the one longing for a,
>IMHO, dismal period in history because you don't agree with the changes
your
>hobby is going through. the second part . . .i'm not touchin' got no idea
>what you're trying to say there.
I'm not talking specifically to you when I said 'old people'. New stories
can have the same appeal to 'older' people, like you mentioned liking the
new books. You got off on a tangent I never thought was relevant. I never
asked for a return to 95 or 96, you created that for your arguement. I'm
saying I don't like the writing, which is why I'm not reading the books,
it's not nostalgia for 95/96 that keeps me from reading them, and it's not
nostalgia for you because you enjoy the new books. Look, I don't like 'Nu
MU', accept that opinion and move on.
33
>> now?
>
>Since when did quality = quantity. If anything back in the early
>ninties the comics were so bad that's the reason comics are no longer
>such big sellers.
So the product today is not responsible, and people would love the new books
if they only saw them? I mentioned the sales because someone referenced 'Nu
MU's sales and because that style of books were so popular then, I don't
think it took people a decade to figure out the books weren't good. Wizard
still sells well, when Marvel filed for bankruptcy, wasn't Wizard one of the
50 best selling magazines? People reading Wizard do know about the 'Nu MU',
and it's getting the readership it deserves, not because of the quality of
books from '92.
>> I was wondering if the fans who still buy Marvel comics, foresee a
problem
>> in the future because of the way they're handling books now.
>
>They keep handling them like they are and I'll be sticking around.
>
>Put it this way pre-Quesada I was reading the following Marvels:
>Avengers
>Spidergirl
>Thunderbolts
>Black Panther
>
>I'm now reading additionally:
>Ultimate Spidey
>Ultimate X-Men
>Ultimates
>X-Force
There have been some good answers in this thread, thanks, as much as some
folks just wanna throw down.
Peter Likidis
33 <leomcc...@rogers.com> wrote:
> So the product today is not responsible, and people would love the new books
> if they only saw them?
I'm sure many of them would. Unfortunetly a lot left back in 95 and
haven't been back. With increased sales over the last year or so one
can assume they are slowly coming back but to say the product today is
responsible for the current market conditions is completely incorrect.
> I mentioned the sales because someone referenced 'Nu
> MU's sales and because that style of books were so popular then, I don't
> think it took people a decade to figure out the books weren't good.
Nope took them about 5 years from 1990 to 1995 that's about when the
bottom fell out. Around Heroes Reborn I think you'll find. If you want
a fairer comparison (which is probably not fair anyhow in a declining
market place) you should be comparing this year to Bob Harris' last
year as EIC.
> Wizard
> still sells well, when Marvel filed for bankruptcy, wasn't Wizard one of the
> 50 best selling magazines? People reading Wizard do know about the 'Nu MU',
> and it's getting the readership it deserves, not because of the quality of
> books from '92.
It's getting more readers than any other company in the market. Why
there are more readers of Wizard than actually people reading comics??
Dunno if you can prove it really. Considering the decline of comics
happened when Harris was EIC and continued when Harris was EIC and that
decline has slowed since Quesada came in I don't see how you can see
this as a bad thing. Personally I don't think I'd be reading Marvel
comics at all if Harris stuck around.
Back in 95 I was reading 20 odd books a month. By 97 I was down to 4
which stayed there until around 2 years ago. The reason for the mass
culling was pure quality and I guess me maturing. I am now more likely
to read TPBs than I am a monthly book. I suspect this is true for a lot
of people considering the anecdotal increase in bookstores carrying
trades and rumours of a bookstore in the US opening a trades only
store.
33
books
>> if they only saw them?
>
>I'm sure many of them would. Unfortunetly a lot left back in 95 and
>haven't been back. With increased sales over the last year or so one
>can assume they are slowly coming back but to say the product today is
>responsible for the current market conditions is completely incorrect.
I respectfully disagree.
>> I mentioned the sales because someone referenced 'Nu
>> MU's sales and because that style of books were so popular then, I don't
>> think it took people a decade to figure out the books weren't good.
>
>Nope took them about 5 years from 1990 to 1995 that's about when the
>bottom fell out. Around Heroes Reborn I think you'll find. If you want
>a fairer comparison (which is probably not fair anyhow in a declining
>market place) you should be comparing this year to Bob Harris' last
>year as EIC.
>
That's more correct.
>> Wizard
>> still sells well, when Marvel filed for bankruptcy, wasn't Wizard one of
the
>> 50 best selling magazines? People reading Wizard do know about the 'Nu
MU',
>> and it's getting the readership it deserves, not because of the quality
of
>> books from '92.
>
>It's getting more readers than any other company in the market. Why
>there are more readers of Wizard than actually people reading comics??
>Dunno if you can prove it really.
Well, it's true. I'm not sure how to prove it.
Considering the decline of comics
>happened when Harris was EIC and continued when Harris was EIC and that
>decline has slowed since Quesada came in I don't see how you can see
>this as a bad thing. Personally I don't think I'd be reading Marvel
>comics at all if Harris stuck around.
Well, throwing out continuity, something a lot of people care for, it's a
great time to leave and never come back. Turning many properties into a
Jerry Springer show will have an appeal for awhile, then it will change,
what will happen when Ultimates starts getting old? Will it try to be
cooler, or will it be restarted too...?
Mathew Krull
>>>So the product today is not responsible, and people would love the new
>>>
>books
>
>>>if they only saw them?
>>>
>>I'm sure many of them would. Unfortunetly a lot left back in 95 and
>>haven't been back. With increased sales over the last year or so one
>>can assume they are slowly coming back but to say the product today is
>>responsible for the current market conditions is completely incorrect.
>>
>
>
>I respectfully disagree.
>
>
I have to agree with Peter here. The decline started before the regime
change. There has been a noticeable upswing in Marvel sales since
Quesada came on board. Sure, sales aren't up to mid 90's levels, but
they are going up. And bear in mind, if the stories now are responsible
for sales being lower than the mid-90's level, wouldn't you have to also
believe that the stories from the mid 90's are responsible for the
decline in sales, and in a small way, Marvel's Chapter 11 filing?
>>>Wizard
>>>still sells well, when Marvel filed for bankruptcy, wasn't Wizard one of
>>>
>the
>
>>>50 best selling magazines? People reading Wizard do know about the 'Nu
>>>
>MU',
>
>>>and it's getting the readership it deserves, not because of the quality
>>>
>of
>
>>>books from '92.
>>>
>>It's getting more readers than any other company in the market. Why
>>there are more readers of Wizard than actually people reading comics??
>>Dunno if you can prove it really.
>>
>
>Well, it's true. I'm not sure how to prove it.
>
Taken from the WizardWorld website:
"WizardWorld.com is the brainchild of Gareb Shamus, the founder of
Wizard Entertainment which publishes Wizard, ToyFare and InQuest Gamer,
the #1 selling magazines covering comic books, action figures and
collectible card games with a monthly readership of over 2 million."
Between all 3 magazines, there is a total readership of over 2 million.
There are significantly more people reading comics. At the shop I work
at, most people that buy comics do not buy Wizard, and InQuest outsells
Wizard.
Onimar Synn
1974. That's not just nostalgia talking, it's a fact. The reason is that
when you picked up an issue of FF in those days you knew it was going to be
Stan Lee and Jack Kirby or Stan Lee and John Buscema. With Spider-man you
knew it was going to be Stan Lee and Steve Ditko or Stan Lee and John
Romita, or possibly Gil Kane. Those days are long gone, and the readers
can't keep up with who is creating what book, and the book takes a new
direction every time a new creative team comes on board. (Which seems to be
every few months these days.) The best FF book in years was that by Pacheco
and if it had lasted three years I would have been one happy camper. But it
seems that the last creators who really stuck with mainstream titles were
Morrison on JLA, Byrne on FF, and Byrne on X-men before that. And all of
those titles were great successes. Am I the only one who sees the
connection?
"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rj...@localhost.devel.redhat.com> wrote in message
news:O%Xa9.15198$Ic7.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
Deron M Overpeck
"Onimar Synn" <nos...@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:NFDb9.288672$UU1.51771@sccrnsc03...
> Marvel Comics, with a few exceptions, are worse than they've been since
> 1974. That's not just nostalgia talking, it's a fact. The reason is that
> when you picked up an issue of FF in those days you knew it was going to
be
> Stan Lee and Jack Kirby or Stan Lee and John Buscema. With Spider-man you
> knew it was going to be Stan Lee and Steve Ditko or Stan Lee and John
> Romita, or possibly Gil Kane. Those days are long gone, and the readers
> can't keep up with who is creating what book, and the book takes a new
> direction every time a new creative team comes on board. (Which seems to
be
> every few months these days.) The best FF book in years was that by
Pacheco
> and if it had lasted three years I would have been one happy camper. But
it
> seems that the last creators who really stuck with mainstream titles were
> Morrison on JLA, Byrne on FF, and Byrne on X-men before that. And all of
> those titles were great successes. Am I the only one who sees the
> connection?
I think you are the only one, yes. If I read you correctly, you argue that
the consistency in the early 1970s comics were their strength -- that Stan
Lee writing every title and a narrow artistic pool drawing every title
created a unity which made the books "good." While I see your point, I don't
see how it translates into the current books being "worse" for a lack of
this stable body of creators. Although some artists do move on quickly,
others don't -- Perez drew about 32 issues of AVENGERS, John Romita Jr. has
been with SPIDERMAN for many a moon, Sal Velluto ends his run on BLACK
PANTHER after 50 issues, etc. But on the other hand, not all of those issues
have been consecutive, in part because artistic standards are different.
Compare the layouts and detail of a 1974 book and the layouts and detail of
a 2002 book. The art now takes more time, which makes one artist doing a
large number of consecutive issues more difficult.
Writers also stay longer than you give them credit for. Peter David did more
than 100 issues of THE INCREDIBLE HULK, Busiek more than 50 of AVENGERS,
Morrison will have done about 25 if he leaves NEW X-MEN at issue 150 as
planned, Claremont wrote a lot of FF (don't know how many because I couldn't
stand his run), Mackie was on the SPIDERMAN books forever, Nicieza's been
with THUNDERBOLTS for awhile, and I imagine Mike Grell and Bruce Jones will
stick with IRON MAN and HULK, respectively, for awhile. On the other hand,
as Claremont and Mackie evidence, a creative team can stick with a book for
too long: Mackie's run on SPIDERMAN became embarassingly bad towards the
end, and Claremont spun so many plot threads in the X-MEN titles that the
books became incomprehensible.
So, while consistency has its benefits and does add to a book, its not
essential to quality. While you're right that the inconsistency in tone --
the tendency of new writers and artists to "take the book in a bold new
direction" -- might make it difficult to build a large, stable readership,
enough readers follow a writer or artist from title to title, keeping
overall numbers somewhat consistent. And each writer and artist might
produce excellent comic books in this "bold new direction." Getting Grant
Morrison on X-MEN is, IMHO, one of the best things to have happened to
Marvel in a long time, because he has remained true to the characters as
they were when he found them, while also opening new space for understanding
their motivations and adding to the fabric of the mutant universe.
I am nostalgiac for the days of a unified Marvel Universe, where Kang
killing the inhabitants of Washington DC would have ramifications in other
books (and the city would not be rebuilt and repopulated in an issue). But I
don't think that the books themselves are worse for this lack of
interconnection.
Best,
Deron
>
Onimar Synn
"Deron M Overpeck" <D...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:O4Qb9.1681$OT1.95...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
The examples you've stated are valid. However they are the exception rather
than the rule. Far too many books switch creators far too often, and this
confuses current readers and alienates potential ones.
The rule used to be that a writer and an artist were the driving force
behind any particular comic. Now it seems that, with some exceptions, that
rule has been thrown out the window in favor of making a quick buck.
That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong.
O
Deron M Overpeck
> >
>
> The examples you've stated are valid. However they are the exception
rather
> than the rule. Far too many books switch creators far too often, and this
> confuses current readers and alienates potential ones.
>
> The rule used to be that a writer and an artist were the driving force
> behind any particular comic. Now it seems that, with some exceptions, that
> rule has been thrown out the window in favor of making a quick buck.
>
> That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong.
>
> O
>
That said, can you provide examples of books that have suffered because of
the "quick buck" mentality you identify? I don't ask to be a smartass, but
to get a better picture of what you don't like.
Bestm
Deron
Onimar Synn
Well, I dropped FF because of inconsistant creative teams. Clearmonts
writing was way too wordy for me and I've never cared for his writing
anyway. I dropped Spider-man for a long time because the writing was so
inconsistent. I gave up on the X titles until Morrison took over the one
book. The editorial edicts for those titles were just way too constrictive
to allow for true creativity, plus the constant creative team changes were
just plain annoying. Superman..Ahhh..Superman. When in the world will DC
wake up and realize that the book sold more copies under Byrne than during
any other time in recent history? I don't care for Byrne personally, but I
feel that's a testament to the fact that one or two creators on a book for
an extended period can definitely affect sales.
Those are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head.
As for what I like, well I prefer just about anything by Morrison, Garth
Ennis and Steve Dillons' Punisher run, Preacher, Sandman, the original Alan
Moore Miracleman series....etc. See the pattern?
Deron M Overpeck
>
> "Deron M Overpeck" <D...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:FaUb9.1740$3I2.99...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > the "quick buck" mentality you identify? I don't ask to be a smartass,
but
> > to get a better picture of what you don't like.
> >
> > Bestm
> >
> > Deron
>
> Well, I dropped FF because of inconsistant creative teams. Clearmonts
> writing was way too wordy for me and I've never cared for his writing
> anyway. I dropped Spider-man for a long time because the writing was so
> inconsistent. I gave up on the X titles until Morrison took over the one
> book. The editorial edicts for those titles were just way too constrictive
> to allow for true creativity, plus the constant creative team changes were
> just plain annoying. Superman..Ahhh..Superman. When in the world will DC
> wake up and realize that the book sold more copies under Byrne than during
> any other time in recent history? I don't care for Byrne personally, but I
> feel that's a testament to the fact that one or two creators on a book for
> an extended period can definitely affect sales.
>
> Those are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head.
>
> As for what I like, well I prefer just about anything by Morrison, Garth
> Ennis and Steve Dillons' Punisher run, Preacher, Sandman, the original
Alan
> Moore Miracleman series....etc. See the pattern?
I do -- you like works that in some way can be considered "auteurist" --
identified by a distinctive vision from a discreet and unique author. I,
too, left the X-MEN titles when Mark Powers was editor (as did many writers)
because the storylines seemed so arbitrary, designed more for notoriety
(even if nothing much happened) than storytelling. On the other hand, you
didn't like Claremont's FF because of his unique "voice" (i.e., verbosity).
Perhaps more than just a distinct voice attracts you? -- that is, something
about how the author's approach the work, as much as any consistency, per
se.
I liked PAD's run on INCREDIBLE HULK in a way because it was so
inconsistent -- it was all over the place in terms of the titular character,
yet at the sime time coherent. I've stayed away from the MK books because I
don't like the revolving creators or the glacial storytelling. And Byrne's
SUPERMAN stands out to me as a shining example of someone sticking around
too long. Hell, I think Byrne has stuck around the industry too long.
Best,
Deron
>
>
>
Onimar Synn
We certainly agree on Byrne, but my point was that as the driving force
behind the character, whether it was good or bad was irrelevant. He brought
a sense of comprehensiveness to the character and the book that had
previously been lacking. And the sales proved it.
BTW- I agree that Peter David is a great example of a creator who knows how
to bring a sense of totality to a book while succeeding in making it
entertaining at the same time.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I do -- you like works that in some way can be considered "auteurist" --
>identified by a distinctive vision from a discreet and unique author. I,
>too, left the X-MEN titles when Mark Powers was editor (as did many writers)
>because the storylines seemed so arbitrary, designed more for notoriety
>(even if nothing much happened) than storytelling. On the other hand, you
>didn't like Claremont's FF because of his unique "voice" (i.e., verbosity).
>Perhaps more than just a distinct voice attracts you? -- that is, something
>about how the author's approach the work, as much as any consistency, per
>se.
It wasn't just Claremont in particular, but that style of writing that
bothered me. I was going through some old comics from the mid 80s a
couple weeks ago and ran into that problem. Massive battle going on
and everyone feels they need to be having a monologue. It just seems
so ludicrous and out of place.
Onimar Synn
"Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message
news:rmi0nuk8pt0fta76f...@4ax.com...
For some reason that's always been the case in the Spider-man comics. Spidey
must be the fastest talker this side of the Flash. He quips non-stop while
in the middle of jumping, kicking, punching, dodging punches, etc. It really
is ridiculous.
33
>the consistency in the early 1970s comics were their strength -- that Stan
>Lee writing every title and a narrow artistic pool drawing every title
>created a unity which made the books "good."
I think he meant that writers who stick on a book have a better chance to
really flesh out their ideas, which allows for a better run.
Deron M Overpeck
Heaven forfend, Brian, but have we actually found something we agree on?!?
;)
I don't know if Claremont didn't trust the storytelling ability of his
artists, or if he simply believed that logorrhea and mannered dialogue
enriched a character, but his style did seem to spread (part of me wants to
say "infect") other writers around that time period, moving into the mid
1990s. Although several books seem to have gone in the other direction and
decided to use too *few* words, I think by and large this is an improvement
over the Claremont-esque style.
And I don't know if you saw this on the other thread, but I wanted to
apologize for some of my more intemperate moments in our debate. Frustration
got the better of me, and I am sorry for it.
Best,
Deron
Deron M Overpeck
>
>
> We certainly agree on Byrne, but my point was that as the driving force
> behind the character, whether it was good or bad was irrelevant. He
brought
> a sense of comprehensiveness to the character and the book that had
> previously been lacking. And the sales proved it.
>
the increase in sales. While quality can influence sales, we can't argue in
reverse that sales indicate quality. (People bought an awful lot of SUPERMAN
#75.) Byrne was a hot commodity when he took over SUPERMAN, having just come
off a lengthy and still seminal run on FF and an aborted run on INCREDIBLE
HULK (though in retrospect his separation of the Hulk and Banner seem
misguided). As much as anything, people came because of Byrne.
>
> BTW- I agree that Peter David is a great example of a creator who knows
how
> to bring a sense of totality to a book while succeeding in making it
> entertaining at the same time.
I'd like to see him do IRON MAN... He might be the one person to add nuance
to Stark's character without radically altering it, while also opening
entirely new areas to take the character into. Grell's getting better, but
overall he still seems unsure of how to handle the character.
>
>
>
Deron M Overpeck
in their ideas and instead of fleshing them out, beat them to death.
Actually, a recent example of this on a fairly short run is Busiek's IRON
MAN. I respect Busiek as a writer for his ability to weave his knowledge of
continuity into stories accessible to new readers (he's probably the best
AVENGERS scribe -- yes, better than Lee, Thomas and Stern), but his run on
IRON MAN seemed stillborn. He tried to re-establish Stark as an iron-clad
espionage agent, but never made the concept work as anything other than a
concept. I hope he takes another shot at it sometime soon, though. And I
also thinkhe might be the writer for THE INCREDIBLE HULK, someone who can
move in a new direction (a la Bruce Jones) while still utilizing the
character's past.
Best,
Deron
Brian Henderson
<nos...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>"Brian Henderson" <cep...@directvinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:rmi0nuk8pt0fta76f...@4ax.com...
>> It wasn't just Claremont in particular, but that style of writing that
>> bothered me. I was going through some old comics from the mid 80s a
>> couple weeks ago and ran into that problem. Massive battle going on
>> and everyone feels they need to be having a monologue. It just seems
>> so ludicrous and out of place.
>
>For some reason that's always been the case in the Spider-man comics. Spidey
>must be the fastest talker this side of the Flash. He quips non-stop while
>in the middle of jumping, kicking, punching, dodging punches, etc. It really
>is ridiculous.
This wasn't Spiderman, it was Fantastic Four, back in the mid-80s. I
know Spiderman has gotten ridiculous at times, but he's known for his
fast quips, just like the Thing is, so that part doesn't bother me
until they try to have an extensive discussion while in the middle of
a firefight.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Heaven forfend, Brian, but have we actually found something we agree on?!?
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of things we agree on Deron.
>I don't know if Claremont didn't trust the storytelling ability of his
>artists, or if he simply believed that logorrhea and mannered dialogue
>enriched a character, but his style did seem to spread (part of me wants to
>say "infect") other writers around that time period, moving into the mid
>1990s. Although several books seem to have gone in the other direction and
>decided to use too *few* words, I think by and large this is an improvement
>over the Claremont-esque style.
I prefer something in the middle though. I want just enough dialogue
to make the story continue, but not so much that it feels like a stage
fight.
>And I don't know if you saw this on the other thread, but I wanted to
>apologize for some of my more intemperate moments in our debate. Frustration
>got the better of me, and I am sorry for it.
I certainly understand and I apologize if I got out of line.
Frustration can certainly do that and I hold no ill will toward you at
all. Quite the opposite, in fact. You're one of the better informed
and intelligent people I've had the pleasure to debate.
Yusaku Jon
> I personally think Marvel comics are generally worse than they've ever
> been since 1995, when I first started collecting comics. Does anyone
> else out there agree?
To some extent, I do.
> I'm sure I'm in the minority....just like the new Cap. America, Nick
> Fury,
> etc.etc.!
There are still a few gems sparkling out there, and every now and
then one of the more average titles shows promise. A lot of it has
turned out to be junk, especially as far as the X-books are
concerned. I haven't touched one since the ending of the
"X-Revolution" a year or so back, and even that has me feeling a
little dirty...
A lot of why I've gone cold turkey on Marvel has to do with this
constant re-invention of characters which has become the rage. There
was a time that changes came gradually, much as they do in real life
(save in those instances where it is unexpected). Retcons and
character revisions have replaced that sense of continuity -- I'd
have described it as "organic chemistry". Everything has just become
a contrivance used to cover up for the lack of continuity in
characters and their situations.
But that's a lecture that I've used to hold years ago. I've pretty
much decided to let it be.
--
Yusaku Jon
yusaku...@dca.net
http://members.dca.net/yusaku-jon-3/
Deron M Overpeck
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:36:13 GMT, "Deron M Overpeck" <D...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Heaven forfend, Brian, but have we actually found something we agree
on?!?
>
> Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of things we agree on Deron.
>
> >I don't know if Claremont didn't trust the storytelling ability of his
> >artists, or if he simply believed that logorrhea and mannered dialogue
> >enriched a character, but his style did seem to spread (part of me wants
to
> >say "infect") other writers around that time period, moving into the mid
> >1990s. Although several books seem to have gone in the other direction
and
> >decided to use too *few* words, I think by and large this is an
improvement
> >over the Claremont-esque style.
>
> I prefer something in the middle though. I want just enough dialogue
> to make the story continue, but not so much that it feels like a stage
> fight.
This is why I like Morrison's work on NXM, though I seem to be in the
minority about that here. He uses a minimum of words, but they always push
the action along, and clearly relate to one another. He's just as "deep" as
Claremont tried to be, but without the posturing. On the other hand, Casey
used a moderate amount of words, but his dialogue seemed disjointed;
characters would say things evidently in response to another character, but
I frequently had no clue what they actually were referring to. It was like
reading a mutant version of WAITING FOR GODOT.
>
> >And I don't know if you saw this on the other thread, but I wanted to
> >apologize for some of my more intemperate moments in our debate.
Frustration
> >got the better of me, and I am sorry for it.
>
> I certainly understand and I apologize if I got out of line.
> Frustration can certainly do that and I hold no ill will toward you at
> all. Quite the opposite, in fact. You're one of the better informed
> and intelligent people I've had the pleasure to debate.
Thank you for the compliment, and I would like to add I don't think I would
have become so frustrated if I didn't feel like I was not making myself
clear enough to someone who I could tell was intelligent enough to grasp
what my argument. In other words, I felt like I was at fault, not you, and
my epithets were more defense mechanisms than anything else.
Here's to less vitriolic encounters,
Deron
~consul
> 33 wrote:
>>> It's getting more readers than any other company in the market. Why
>>> there are more readers of Wizard than actually people reading comics??
> There are significantly more people reading comics. At the shop I work
> at, most people that buy comics do not buy Wizard, and InQuest outsells
> Wizard.
Say divide it between the 3, that's 666,666 and change of readers. I think 33
may mean that there are more of them than any subscriber to any particular comic?
--
till next time,
Jameson Stalanthas Yu http://www.dolphins-cove.com
Proctor and Gamble has developed a toothpaste designed especially for women.
Hooray! The fight is over! We can all back down now!