RUMOR: Changes at Marvel Editorial
Joe Helfrich
store has a mid level source at Marvel. He has proven accurate before. The
first two items below are all but comfirmed, the third is apparently a rumor
in the Marvel offices...
1 Tom de Falco is no longer Editor in Chief at Marvel Comics
2 Fabian Niceza (sp?) was reportedly offered the job, and turned it down.
3 Here's the really strange one...and this definetly only a _rumor_ at this
point...but some people are saying that Marvel is trying to get back...
Jim Shooter!
Well, it's really strange that Mark Gruenwald didn't get the job, assuming
that even points 1&2 are true. He's been the heir apparent for a very long
time. COurse, he may end up with it eventually...
As for the Shooter rumor, the blood between him and Marvel is bad, but I could
see Perlman doing it if he's unhappy with the story quality these days. (Which,
Gods know, he has reason to be.) If that is the case, they have to be
offering an obscene amount of cash to even get him to open the door when they
knocked on it. It may also be an attempt to cripple Defiant.
Then again, it could just be a rumor.
Joe
Who wonders if he should really risk his net.credibility on this...
Andy G Ihnatko
>OK folks, this is what I heard at my comics store today. The manager of the
>store has a mid level source at Marvel. He has proven accurate before. The
>first two items below are all but comfirmed, the third is apparently a rumor
>in the Marvel offices...
>1 Tom de Falco is no longer Editor in Chief at Marvel Comics
>2 Fabian Niceza (sp?) was reportedly offered the job, and turned it down.
>3 Here's the really strange one...and this definetly only a _rumor_ at this
> point...but some people are saying that Marvel is trying to get back...
> Jim Shooter!
Last month I was talking to someone privy to Marvel office scuttlebutt
(you'd recognize the name) who reported that (a) DeFalco was not
technically out, but his contract is nearly up and he's been more or
less told that he probably shouldn't bring into his office things like
sofas, TVs, stuff which would be a lot of trouble for him to carry
back out again on a hot summer day; (b) Fabian had been offered the
job and turned it down, but (c) Fabian said he'd take the job if they
agreed to a list of demands, most of which centered on assurances that
as Editor-In-Chief he'd have enough autonomy to act as an actual
Editor-In-Chief.
Interesting. Perhaps our long, national nightmare is indeed nearly
over...
-- Andy
--
............................................................................
/| | | | _ | \ Andy Ihnatko \ Discount
/-| |\ /| |/ | |\ |\ (| | |< () \ an...@world.std.com \ Neurosurgery
.........../................................................................
MJavins
j...@eden.rutgers.edu (Joe Helfrich) writes:
<The
first two items below are all but comfirmed, the third is apparently a
rumor
in the Marvel offices...
1 Tom de Falco is no longer Editor in Chief at Marvel Comics
2 Fabian Niceza (sp?) was reportedly offered the job, and turned it down.
3 Here's the really strange one...and this definetly only a _rumor_ at
this
point...but some people are saying that Marvel is trying to get back...
Jim Shooter!>
Lies. They're all complete and utter lies. Don't be ridiculous.
Think about it. First of all, don't you think there would have been some
sort of official annoucement if Tom left? And if he's gone, why is he in
his office right now?
Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
second-in-command (Mark G)?
Shooter? Yeah, right.
C'mon, folks. Remember last year? The rumors had both Rob Liefeld and
Roy Thomas in charge.
I mean, we encourage the suspension of disbelief, but this is a bit
over-the-top.:)
Yuen
>Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>second-in-command (Mark G)?
If they do decide to get a new ed-in-chief, my vote would be for
Mark Gruenwald!
-just my 2 cents
-YUEN
Al Petterson
>j...@eden.rutgers.edu (Joe Helfrich) writes:
>>OK folks, this is what I heard at my comics store today. The manager of the
>>store has a mid level source at Marvel. He has proven accurate before.
>
>
>>2 Fabian Niceza (sp?) was reportedly offered the job, and turned it down.
>
>(you'd recognize the name) who reported that (a) DeFalco was not technically
>(b) Fabian had been offered the job and turned it down, but (c) Fabian
>said he'd take the job if they agreed to a list of demands, most of which
Ah. Could this, then, be the *REAL* reason Nicieza's cut his writing
workload in half? I mean, I can understand your basic parental urge, and
it's all very well and good that his wife has spewn forth a proto-Fabian,
but I'd think that after a few weeks, when he's gotten basically no rest at
home and God has put odor in the poo-poo, he might want to start putting in
*more* time at the office... :-)
Not to mention that there's NEVER enough money once you have kids. Cutting
back the amount of work you do (and money you make) once you're a parent
might be very nurturing and all, but it's not how the world works.
As for those who say the job should "obviously" go to someone more
qualified, um... this is the same company that... hell, you all know
Claremont's story. Remember what "obviously unqualified" persons got the
reins of the X-books? I think Fabian owns some compromising pictures of a
certain shareholder and a goat.
Of course, we also have to deal with rumors coming from the vicinity of
Saturn, like this:
>>3 Here's the really strange one...some people are saying that Marvel
>> is trying to get back...
>> Jim Shooter!
Uh. Strange is putting it mildly. Is Defiant dead? Or has yet a third
company given Shooter the boot?
And just to demonstrate that surreality loves the company of beets,
dale...@clam.rutgers.edu (Gene) writes:
>The rumors are floating around boys & girls. Jim Shooter may return to
>Marvel!
I think someone let out the circus midgets and they've gone and conquered
the world again. Would someone please fetch the alfalfa and Vaseline?
Yours,
---
Al Petterson calsci!a...@mailhost.gvg.tek.com or aa...@alumni.caltech.edu
One small step. Surely it is not so inconceivable to suggest a second.
anta...@news.delphi.com
>Last month I was talking to someone privy to Marvel office scuttlebutt
>(you'd recognize the name) who reported that (a) DeFalco was not
>technically out, but his contract is nearly up and he's been more or
>less told that he probably shouldn't bring into his office things like
>sofas, TVs, stuff which would be a lot of trouble for him to carry
>back out again on a hot summer day; (b) Fabian had been offered the
>job and turned it down, but (c) Fabian said he'd take the job if they
>agreed to a list of demands, most of which centered on assurances that
>as Editor-In-Chief he'd have enough autonomy to act as an actual
>Editor-In-Chief.
All of the above pretty much matches what I had heard as well. Of course,
it's all rumor and hearsay at this stage, but it does make for juicy
speculation.
Cheers,
- AP's late-night Matt
Dwight Williams
In a previous article, umyu...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Yuen) says:
>In <30lsk6$5...@search01.news.aol.com> mja...@aol.com (MJavins) writes:
>
>>Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
>>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>>second-in-command (Mark G)?
>
> If they do decide to get a new ed-in-chief, my vote would be for
>Mark Gruenwald!
There's a point. Gruenwald does have a 1.5 decade-long track record for
consistent performance in editorial work. Lord/Lady/Whatever knows, he's
earned the post. I'm not sure that I'd want Harras in the # 2 post _yet_
though. It could lead to aggravating the PR situation in ways I'm not sure
of yet. _Maybe_ number 3?
What _is_ the current hierarchy in the editorial offices these days?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca)
1706 Caminiti Cres., Orleans, ON, Canada K4A 1M1
Omega Man #1 @15036
R: net33: @15036 [23:09 07/22/94]
RE: RUMOR: Changes at Marvel Editorial
BY: jbh#eden.rutgers.edu (Joe Helfrich) #2989 @520
>Who wonders if he should really risk his net.credibility on this...
...I wouldn't worry about it. You've already disclaimed yourself appropriately
enough. Only someone with a serious MIT ego and chip on his shoulder would be
stupid enough to berate you in this circumstance.
OM
512-459-1088 KLINGON EMPIRE BBS WWIVNet @5282
Up Since 11/1/86The Home of WWIVNews24hrs 2400-9600Bd
No, really, this will work. Trust me...
Paul O'Brien
> If they do decide to get a new ed-in-chief, my vote would be for
>Mark Gruenwald!
Seconded. While he's not the greatest writer the world's ever seen,
he's got ideas, he's got a degree of integrity, and he cares about
Marvel continuity. Or at the very least, he gives that impression.
Personally, I think making him editor-in-chief would be the best
thing to happen to Marvel since... well, probably Giant-Size X-Men #1.
Paul O'Brien
pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk, elf...@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk
Uh-oh. We're in trouble...
Paul O'Brien
>Lies. They're all complete and utter lies. Don't be ridiculous.
>Think about it. First of all, don't you think there would have been some
>sort of official annoucement if Tom left? And if he's gone, why is he in
>his office right now?
Well, yes, but what we're probably witnessing here is wishful thinking.
Tom DeFalco is held in such low esteem by so many people here (I'm
not going to criticise him personally, but I do feel his work is of
extremely low quality) that even the merest hope that we might have
seen the back of him gets interest going.
You should have been on racx when a printing error credited the
colourist as editor and the readers practically started a street
party at the departure of Bob Harras.
Tom Galloway
>>Think about it. First of all, don't you think there would have been some
>>sort of official annoucement if Tom left? And if he's gone, why is he in
>>his office right now?
Hmm, I wonder if DeFalco will be wearing the same t-shirt this year he wore
at last year's San Diego Con? It was one that started out with "I've not
been fired" (or the equivalent) and continued on covering the four main rumors
about him being spread. My opinion went up a few notches based on his wearing
it at least.
"It's rumored that when the divorce becomes final, Mrs. Trump will leave the
city and move back to Czechoslovakia for a simpler country life. When
asked to comment on that rumor, Mrs. Trump said: New York is where I'd rather
stay; I get allergic smelling hay.'" -- Dennis Miller, SNL Weekend Update
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com
David R. Henry
was the first time, in a long time, that I felt I was reading the Stan Lee/
John Romita issues I grew up with. Given his later work on the Fantastic
Four and Thor, I can see why the nostalgia hit me, but somehow his retro-
trick worked on Spidey, even if the other ones didn't click.
"STOP BENDIN' THE SHAFTS!!!!" --pax memorium!
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club // Cthulhu! Cthulhu! Cthulhu! And CTHOOKY!
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
Dwayne MacKinnon
>And I'll add to DeFalco's defense that reading his run on Amazing Spider-Man
>was the first time, in a long time, that I felt I was reading the Stan Lee/
>John Romita issues I grew up with. Given his later work on the Fantastic
>Four and Thor, I can see why the nostalgia hit me, but somehow his retro-
>trick worked on Spidey, even if the other ones didn't click.
I have to agree with DRH here.... I liked DeFalco's Spider-Man. I also
recently picked up the Firestar LS, which DeFalco wrote as well. Another fine
job. Which makes his current drek *ESPECIALLY* hard to take.........
DMK - Keeper of the Alpha Flight flame.
--
"Surrender? To Alpha Flight? You *ARE* new to this group..... I'd rather
surrender to Power Pack!!!" - Diablo, Alpha Flight #103
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own,
910...@dragon.acadiau.ca never those of my employer.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>>>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>>>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>>>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>>>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>>>second-in-command (Mark G)?
Well, I'm still wondering how they could hand over a book that was once
the industry standard to a hack writer who's only prior experience was
being a stand-up comic.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am the Devil's child, Robert Fernandez
I will live then from the Devil." rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson University of South Florida
John Holbrook (PAD)
>>>>Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
>>>>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>>>>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>>>>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>>>>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>>>>second-in-command (Mark G)?
>
>Well, I'm still wondering how they could hand over a book that was once
>the industry standard to a hack writer who's only prior experience was
>being a stand-up comic.
>
I believe your refering to Scott Lobdell, and not Fabian. True,
Lobdell was comedy writer and stand up comedian before he got into
writing the X-Books. So? Peter David got his start in the marketing end
of things, and look how good he has turned out to be.
--
*John B. Holbrook, II holb...@luna.cas.usf.edu*
Graduate Student, Public Administration - 1 Class Left!!
"My! Marlo wasn't exagerating I see..green skin..AMAZING!"
"No. Spider-Man is amazing. I'm incredible." - Bruce Banner.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>In article <317c63$6...@mother.usf.edu> rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu. (Robert Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>>>>>Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
>>>>>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>>>>>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>>>>>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>>>>>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>>>>>second-in-command (Mark G)?
>>
>>Well, I'm still wondering how they could hand over a book that was once
>>the industry standard to a hack writer who's only prior experience was
>>being a stand-up comic.
>
> I believe your refering to Scott Lobdell, and not Fabian. True,
I know. I *was* refering to Lobdell. I was commenting on the bizarre
decision-making skills associated with those in charge at Marvel.
>Lobdell was comedy writer and stand up comedian before he got into
>writing the X-Books. So? Peter David got his start in the marketing end
>of things, and look how good he has turned out to be.
Well, Peter David didn't start out doing the best-selling book in the
American direct market(Whoops, almost said "world" :) He started doing
fill-in issues of Spectacular Spider-Man, then worked his way up.
Besides, the difference between Lobdell and David is that David is
actually a writer. As a comic book "writer", Lobdell makes a good
stand-up comedian.
John Holbrook (PAD)
>In article <3182ge$7...@mother.usf.edu> holb...@luna.ec.usf.edu. (John Holbrook (PAD)) writes:
>>In article <317c63$6...@mother.usf.edu> rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu. (Robert Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>>>>>>Fabian as ed-in-chief? And how can someone who is not an editor and was
>>>>>>not even an editor for very long be editor in chief? And can someone
>>>>>>please explain to me why the big hoity-toity suits who would be doing the
>>>>>>hiring wouldn't look at track records first, and choose, say, the editor
>>>>>>of the X franchise over the Tek World editor? Or even the
>>>>>>second-in-command (Mark G)?
>>>
>>>Well, I'm still wondering how they could hand over a book that was once
>>>the industry standard to a hack writer who's only prior experience was
>>>being a stand-up comic.
>>
>> I believe your refering to Scott Lobdell, and not Fabian. True,
>
>I know. I *was* refering to Lobdell. I was commenting on the bizarre
>decision-making skills associated with those in charge at Marvel.
Oh..well, the original post was about Fabian, and you never
clarified who exactly you were refering to, so I thought I'd offer
clarification.
>
>>Lobdell was comedy writer and stand up comedian before he got into
>>writing the X-Books. So? Peter David got his start in the marketing end
>>of things, and look how good he has turned out to be.
>
>Well, Peter David didn't start out doing the best-selling book in the
>American direct market(Whoops, almost said "world" :) He started doing
>fill-in issues of Spectacular Spider-Man, then worked his way up.
Uhhmm..since when have Spider-Man books _not_ been considered
plumb, high exposure, high sales titles? I'd say the (especially given
the time when it happened) PAD's situation wasn't all that different from
Lobdell's..
>
>Besides, the difference between Lobdell and David is that David is
>actually a writer.
In what sense? As near as I can gather from everything I've read
about PAD, he hadn't done any professional writing before Marvel..nor do
I think he has any professional education or training in writing..I could
be wrong on both counts, but I've never read anything to indicate otherwise.
>As a comic book "writer", Lobdell makes a good
>stand-up comedian.
Unfair..Lobdell has done some darn good issues of
Uncanny...issues I'd hold up against almost any other stuff from anyone who
has come before him.
John Holbrook (PAD)
>In article <31canv$i...@mother.usf.edu>,
>John Holbrook (PAD) <holb...@luna.ec.usf.edu.> wrote:
>> In what sense? As near as I can gather from everything I've read
>>about PAD, he hadn't done any professional writing before Marvel..nor do
>>I think he has any professional education or training in writing..I could
>>be wrong on both counts, but I've never read anything to indicate otherwise.
>
>of Comic Book Superstars, and yep, a B.A. in journalism from NYU.
I stand corrected..thanks for the info, as I obviously wasn't
aware. Gosh, and here I thought you weren't speaking to me...:)
John Holbrook (PAD)
>In article <31canv$i...@mother.usf.edu> holb...@luna.ec.usf.edu. (John Holbrook (PAD)) writes:
>>>Well, Peter David didn't start out doing the best-selling book in the
>>>American direct market(Whoops, almost said "world" :) He started doing
>>>fill-in issues of Spectacular Spider-Man, then worked his way up.
>>
>> Uhhmm..since when have Spider-Man books _not_ been considered
>>plumb, high exposure, high sales titles?
>
>established character or title at Marvel or DC could be considered
>high-profile, but if you look at the titles that David worked on at the
>time, they were hardly hot sellers: Star Trek, Incredible Hulk,
>Spectacular Spider-Man, etc.
Spider-Man is a bread and butter, staple character for Marvel..a
Spider-Man book has always generated much better than average sales.
Lest us not forget that PAD also was given X-Factor on which he had an
excellent but all too short run.
>
>>>Besides, the difference between Lobdell and David is that David is
>>>actually a writer.
>> In what sense?
>
>In the sense that David is a writer and Lobdell is a hack.
That's your opinion. Both get writers credits on the books they
work on..that makes them both writers. No arguement from me that PAD is
the beter writer, but I think Lobdell definitely has talent.
>
>>>As a comic book "writer", Lobdell makes a good stand-up comedian.
>
>> Unfair..Lobdell has done some darn good issues of
>>Uncanny...issues I'd hold up against almost any other stuff from anyone who
>>has come before him.
>
>Like Claremont or hate him, Lodbell doesn't hold a candle to him.
>Lodbell's work in consistently bad.
No..more like inconsistently good.
He's always willing to throw out
>characterization and plot for the sake of a bad joke.
Then you haven't been reading in the past year..The death of
Illyana issue of Uncanny immediately comes to mind as having wonderful
characterization..so does an issue which followed shortly thereafter
which focused on Xavier..Some of Lobdell's best work to date, which may
not be equal to Claremont's _best_ work, but compares very favorable to
his or anyone else's work on the title.
He has practically
>ruined the titles he's worked on; he's screwed with origins,
>characterizations, and continuity.
Well, that's a common complaint whenever a book sees a change of
writers. Let's not forget that _some_ big changes in continuity and so
forth come from on high..things which Lobdell has little control over..a
primary reason why PAD left X-Factor.
>Comparing him to any of the people
>he's replaced(Claremont, David, Davis) is enough to make me cry.
Well, here is a tissue then, because the comparison is quite
valid. Incidently, I can't stand Lobdell as an online personality..he
_used_ to be quite active on AOL..and was quite an arrogant
jerk..however, I generally can separate the person from the work that
they do.
Craig Welsh
>>>plumb, high exposure, high sales titles?
>>
>>Since they weren't burning up the sales charts like the X-Men was. Any
>>established character or title at Marvel or DC could be considered
>>high-profile, but if you look at the titles that David worked on at the
>>time, they were hardly hot sellers: Star Trek, Incredible Hulk,
>>Spectacular Spider-Man, etc.
>
> Spider-Man is a bread and butter, staple character for Marvel..a
>Spider-Man book has always generated much better than average sales.
>Lest us not forget that PAD also was given X-Factor on which he had an
>excellent but all too short run.
>
Spider-Man the sales on the title were quite average, maybe even below
average. And sales didn't improve much after he took over the title.
SInce he was in the sales department at Marvel, he didn't hype the title
since he thought it might have given him an unfair advantage.
Also, when PAD was writing the book it certainly wasn't at the
popularity levels it is today. This was before McFarlane, etc. THe
Spidey titles may be high profile, but not always high in sales.
_craig
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>>Well, Peter David didn't start out doing the best-selling book in the
>>American direct market(Whoops, almost said "world" :) He started doing
>>fill-in issues of Spectacular Spider-Man, then worked his way up.
>
> Uhhmm..since when have Spider-Man books _not_ been considered
>plumb, high exposure, high sales titles?
Since they weren't burning up the sales charts like the X-Men was. Any
established character or title at Marvel or DC could be considered
high-profile, but if you look at the titles that David worked on at the
time, they were hardly hot sellers: Star Trek, Incredible Hulk,
Spectacular Spider-Man, etc.
>>Besides, the difference between Lobdell and David is that David is
>>actually a writer.
> In what sense?
In the sense that David is a writer and Lobdell is a hack.
>>As a comic book "writer", Lobdell makes a good stand-up comedian.
> Unfair..Lobdell has done some darn good issues of
>Uncanny...issues I'd hold up against almost any other stuff from anyone who
>has come before him.
Like Claremont or hate him, Lodbell doesn't hold a candle to him.
Lodbell's work in consistently bad. He's always willing to throw out
characterization and plot for the sake of a bad joke. He has practically
ruined the titles he's worked on; he's screwed with origins,
characterizations, and continuity. Comparing him to any of the people
he's replaced(Claremont, David, Davis) is enough to make me cry.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
> Spider-Man is a bread and butter, staple character for Marvel..a
>Spider-Man book has always generated much better than average sales.
Remember that it was over six or seven years ago that PAD started on
Spectacular Spider-Man. At the time, it probably wasn't the greatest of
sellers. Even if it sold well above average, it was hardly comparable to
the spectacular sales of the Uncanny X-Men.
>Lest us not forget that PAD also was given X-Factor on which he had an
>excellent but all too short run.
Yes, but PAD got X-Factor a good number of years *after* he had been well
established as a comic writer.
>>>>Besides, the difference between Lobdell and David is that David is
>>>>actually a writer.
>>> In what sense?
>>
>>In the sense that David is a writer and Lobdell is a hack.
>
> That's your opinion. Both get writers credits on the books they
>work on..that makes them both writers.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I don't think that anyone who scribbles a
half-assed comic script should be called a "writer" anymore than someone
who applies a band-aid to a wound should be called a "doctor".
> Then you haven't been reading in the past year..
I fully admit that I have not. I kept up with all the X-titles a good two
years after Claremont left, but I dropped them all at once when i
finally got fed up with them. I've read a few recent ones thanks to Paul
Curtis(he sends my apa stuff whenever his office gets to full, I guess),
and they still suck
Some of Lobdell's best work to date, which may
>not be equal to Claremont's _best_ work, but compares very favorable to
>his or anyone else's work on the title.
Perhaps I'm not reading enough of Lodbell(I don't believe I just said
that), but I saw little or nothing worthwile in his work on any X-title
over a two year period. Comparing it to Claremont, or even Stan Lee and
Roy Thomas, is laughable.
> He has practically
>>ruined the titles he's worked on; he's screwed with origins,
>>characterizations, and continuity.
>
> Well, that's a common complaint whenever a book sees a change of
>writers. Let's not forget that _some_ big changes in continuity and so
>forth come from on high..things which Lobdell has little control over..a
>primary reason why PAD left X-Factor.
I'm sure that Bob Harrassment was just screaming for a new screwed-up
origin of Lockheed, eh?
> Well, here is a tissue then, because the comparison is quite
>valid.
Yeah. Right.
Incidently, I can't stand Lobdell as an online personality..he
>_used_ to be quite active on AOL..and was quite an arrogant
>jerk..however, I generally can separate the person from the work that
>they do.
Well, I can too, but it's hard when that person's work fucks up a title
that was once a major part of my life. Of course, I said nothing about
Lobdell personally.
Tom Galloway
>about PAD, he hadn't done any professional writing before Marvel..nor do
>I think he has any professional education or training in writing..I could
>be wrong on both counts, but I've never read anything to indicate otherwise.
If I recall correctly, Peter was a journalism major in college...quick check
of Comic Book Superstars, and yep, a B.A. in journalism from NYU.
Peter had also done quite a bit of fan writing before his being a writer at
Marvel, including some hysterical sf media parody plays for August Party. Not
"pro writing", but certainly practice at the craft of same. Not to mention
that there is still a fair contingent on rac.xbooks that'd be willing to give
Connie Hirsch a stab at writing New Mutants/X-Force based on her fanfic Kid
Dyanamo. Connie has since made several professional sales.
"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller
that could have been prevented by a good teacher." -- Flannery O'Connor
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com
Carl Fink
t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) wrote:
[deletia]
> of Comic Book Superstars, and yep, a B.A. in journalism from NYU.
>
> Peter had also done quite a bit of fan writing before his being a writer at
> Marvel, including some hysterical sf media parody plays for August Party. Not
> "pro writing", but certainly practice at the craft of same. Not to mention
> that there is still a fair contingent on rac.xbooks that'd be willing to give
> Connie Hirsch a stab at writing New Mutants/X-Force based on her fanfic Kid
> Dyanamo. Connie has since made several professional sales.
>
He had also sold short fiction, at least one piece to _Isaac
Asimov's_.
--
Pray, v.: to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in
behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
--"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)
David R. Henry
> Unfair..Lobdell has done some darn good issues of
>Uncanny...issues I'd hold up against almost any other stuff from anyone who
>has come before him.
Strangely enough, just such a topic has come up on rac.xbooks again.
Come on over and join the fun. And bring your cricket bat.
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club //// "Check the credits, Frank." --MJ-ST3K
David R. Henry
[On Lobdell]
> Then you haven't been reading in the past year..The death of
>Illyana issue of Uncanny immediately comes to mind as having wonderful
>characterization..so does an issue which followed shortly thereafter
>which focused on Xavier..Some of Lobdell's best work to date, which may
>not be equal to Claremont's _best_ work, but compares very favorable to
>his or anyone else's work on the title.
This is going to read like a hit'n'run posting, but, remember, this
really should be taken care of in rac.xbooks. And the question to your
answer is "So why was the Shi'ar Helmet of Plot Suspension in the middle
of Illyana's death scene, anyway?"
"And then there was the time that I told Robert Plant, 'No, "Kashmir" is
a *stupid* name for a song.'" --Richard Darwin
from the Mansion
x-men clones over at image....and imho (eeek ive used it) the x-men books
are darn good....i know iknow..nobody cares about my opinion...but what
the hell
from the Mansion
Robert Fernandez writes:
>f you look at the titles that David worked on at the
>time, they were hardly hot sellers: Star Trek, Incredible Hulk,
>Spectacular Spider-Man, etc.
these poor sellers.....
C'MON
rob
Max Hawk
Well, first off, Lobdell hasn't been writing for very long.
Sencond, Alan Davis even thanked him for keeping Excalibur together after
the shambles Chris Claremont left it in, and look what Lobdell had to
work with, it was terrible. As to his current work, he's getting a lot
better. One reason I think is because he's not writing 7 books at the
same time, even Nicieca got bogged down doding several books at once.
One definte area of improvement for Lobdell is dialoge, he's been doing
some really believable dialoge that I would read and say to myself " a
person would say that" Give the guy a chance, not everyone is going to be
great starting out. Hell, look at Tom Defalco, he's been writing for
years and he's one of the worst writers out there....
Paul O'Brien
isn't it? After all, by the time he started working on the X-Men,
Claremont had been a writer for, what, going on a decade? And let's
be honest, a lot of Claremont's early work is dreadful. The origin
of Captain Britain is far, far worse than anything Lobdell has
foisted upon us.
Lobdell is by no means the best writer in the business, or even the
best writer at Marvel. Some of his early stories, especially the
Excalibur v Office Furniture issue, are awful. However, what he is
is the most improved writer at Marvel in the last few years. Lobdell
has gone from a strike rate of 5-10% good stories to (IMHO) 70-80%.
Unfortunately, the other 20-30% always seems to contain one turkey
(most recently X-Men Unlimited #5), but given his inexperience and the
massive improvement his writing has shown lately, I'd say that Lobdell
has the potential to _become_ one of the best writers Marvel has.
Paul O'Brien
pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk, elf...@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk
Commander doesn't have a choice - and neither do his rookies!
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>
> Well, first off, Lobdell hasn't been writing for very long.
So what? If he needs practice, then he should practice with Marvel Comics
Presents, not with what was (before he started writing it) the best of
Marvel's line. If he wants to write the X-Men, then he should be good
enough, or he'll get the criticism he deserves.
>Sencond, Alan Davis even thanked him for keeping Excalibur together after
>the shambles Chris Claremont left it in, and look what Lobdell had to
>work with, it was terrible.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! I'd like to know where you read this, because if I was
Alan Davis, I'd be pissed at Lodbell for the hack work he wrote on
Excalibur. As for Claremont's work, it may have been convoluted, but it
was good, which is much more than you can say for Lobdell's crap. And
Davis did quite well with "what he had to work with" from Claremont' run.
Fantastic, in fact. BTW, much of Excalibur is built on what Davis himself
wrote when he wrote Captain Britian.
> Give the guy a chance, not everyone is going to be
>great starting out.
Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
on a title that was once the *industry standard*. And Lodbell is hardly
the new guy anymore; he's been writing for years, with barely any
improvement.
>Hell, look at Tom Defalco, he's been writing for
>years and he's one of the worst writers out there....
Exactly.
David C. Bredenberg
moved to racx? (Where the X-Dinos would make short work of it ...
"Oh Rex, got another Lobdellite for you..." Heh, Heh) ;)
=============================================================
David C. Bredenberg dcb...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu
Madelyne Pryor Fan Club
President
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." -Philip K. Dick
Mean Mister Mustard
Robert Fernandez (ENG) <rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu.> wrote:
>In article <31fmte$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com> max...@ccnet.com (Max Hawk) writes:
>
>>Sencond, Alan Davis even thanked him for keeping Excalibur together after
>>the shambles Chris Claremont left it in, and look what Lobdell had to
>>work with, it was terrible.
>
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha! I'd like to know where you read this, because if I was
>Alan Davis, I'd be pissed at Lodbell for the hack work he wrote on
>Excalibur.
You may be right -- I seem to recall Alan Davis completely writing off
one of Lobdell's stupidest stories as a dream (Lobdell didn't write it that
way), and he even *called attention* to the continuity errors as he did so!
And, of course, there's the fact that Excalibur #42 seemed to pick up
right where Davis/Claremont left off, ignoring all the junk in between...
hopefully, if Davis returns, he'll do exactly the same thing.
(I say this because THIS time around, I had enough sense to drop Excalibur
as soon as Davis left!)
Marc
John Holbrook (PAD)
>In article <31fmte$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com> max...@ccnet.com (Max Hawk) writes:
>
>> Give the guy a chance, not everyone is going to be
>>great starting out.
>
>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>on a title that was once the *industry standard*. And Lodbell is hardly
>the new guy anymore; he's been writing for years, with barely any
>improvement.
How on Earth would you know if Lobdell has improved or not???
You admitted to me that its been a couple of years since you've read any
of his work. Your welcome to your opinion about Lobdell, but lets not go
overboard on the bias!
Bart Beaty.
>
>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>on a title that was once the *industry standard*.
"That is how I wound up drawing comic books for Marvel Comics at the age
of 17. Of course, being 17, I was incompetent, so Marvel put me to work
on their most successful books, rationalizing (correctly) that I couldnt
hurt _Spider-Man_'s sales no matter how badly I drew."
-Kyle Baker, from "The Trickle Down Success Story of Kyle Baker"
bart
"Your deductions must be logically impeccable! Your theories must match
the facts...If you want to be my man!" -Paul Pope
Paul O'Brien
>You may be right -- I seem to recall Alan Davis completely writing off
>one of Lobdell's stupidest stories as a dream (Lobdell didn't write it that
>way), and he even *called attention* to the continuity errors as he did so!
You're thinking of "The Possession." Scott Lobdell had nothing to do
with it. And yes, it was bad. And no, it didn't have any major
continuity errors - it just conflicted with what Alan Davis had
planned, so he knocked it out of continuity.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
Ummm....no. I admited that I had not been reading his recent work
*regularly*, as I did when I still bought all the X-titles. In the same
message, I pointed out that I and occasionally been given free issues of
the Uncanny X-Men, and I thought they were just as bad as the ones I had
bought previously.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>You may be right -- I seem to recall Alan Davis completely writing off
>one of Lobdell's stupidest stories as a dream (Lobdell didn't write it that
>way), and he even *called attention* to the continuity errors as he did so!
Yes, I remember that issue of Excalibur quite fondly. It trashed one of
those Excalibur "graphic novels", called the "Possession", or something
original like that. Those continuity errors were hideous. Where was the
editor?????
Having passed on that particular "graphic novel", I can't say if it was
Lobdell who actually wrote it, though. It may have been one of those
writer-wannabe editor hacks(which may paridoxically explain the lack of
editing :).
>And, of course, there's the fact that Excalibur #42 seemed to pick up
>right where Davis/Claremont left off, ignoring all the junk in between...
>hopefully, if Davis returns, he'll do exactly the same thing.
>(I say this because THIS time around, I had enough sense to drop Excalibur
>as soon as Davis left!)
Well, with the most recent Davis absence, I had the sense to drop
Excalibur. At the time, both PAD(X-Factor) and David were replaced by
Lodbell, so I was in a Marvel title dropping fury.
I hope he does eventually return. In the meantime, I see that the Hellstorm
writer will be joining the book. I've never read Hellstorm, but I've
heard lots of good stuff about it, so I may pick up Excalibur again.
M HEISLER
O'Brien) writes:
>You're thinking of "The Possession." Scott Lobdell had nothing to do
with it. And yes, it was bad. And no, it didn't have any major
continuity errors...
Perhaps not continuity errors, but it did contain information
contradictory to that previously established. Emma Collins, who was dead,
appeared without any explanation. The Mastermind computer was depicted
incorrectly. And members of Excalibur (and its supporting cast) behaved
out of character.
>it just conflicted with what Alan Davis had planned, so he knocked it out
of continuity.
Actually, Davis came up with a way of explaining it so that it remained
totally within continuity. When Captain Britain, after recounting the
events to Roma, says, "It was all wrong...I must have dreamt it," Roma
replies, "No, you did experience the events in reality. Some agency of
considerable power toyed with you." (EXCALIBUR #47)
As far as the main heading of this thread goes, I have to express my
opinion that Scott Lobdell has improved a great deal since his fill-in/MCP
days. And for that matter, I also recall a time not so long ago when fans
were complaining that the then-current X-Men writer had been on the book
for far too long and was growing tired...
Mike
Dwayne MacKinnon
In defense of Mr. Lobdell, I have to say that I enjoyed his short run
on Alpha Flight from #102-108. He brought some *MUCH* needed humour to the
book. Sure, #106 wasn't as strong as it might have been, but it wasn't a
bomb either. And #105 will always rank as one of my facorite Alpha issues...
Besides, you might notice I use a Lobdell quote in my .sig these days.
DMK - Keeper of the Alpha Flight flame.
--
"Surrender? To Alpha Flight? You *ARE* new to this group..... I'd rather
surrender to Power Pack!!!" - Diablo, Alpha Flight #103
Dwayne MacKinnon My opinions are my own,
910...@dragon.acadiau.ca never those of my employer.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>In article <31kc4r$9...@mother.usf.edu> rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu. (Robert Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>>
>>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>>on a title that was once the *industry standard*.
>
>"That is how I wound up drawing comic books for Marvel Comics at the age
>of 17. Of course, being 17, I was incompetent, so Marvel put me to work
>on their most successful books, rationalizing (correctly) that I couldnt
>hurt _Spider-Man_'s sales no matter how badly I drew."
>
>-Kyle Baker, from "The Trickle Down Success Story of Kyle Baker"
>
BTW, I've never heard of that Baker work before. Is it out of print like
the Cowboy Wally Show?
Adam M. Lipkin
: >-Kyle Baker, from "The Trickle Down Success Story of Kyle Baker"
: >
: Well, that certainly explains some of the bizarre thinking at MEG, Inc.
: BTW, I've never heard of that Baker work before. Is it out of print like
: the Cowboy Wally Show?
I believe that Trickle Down. . . Was from Spy magazine (or maybe
Esquire?), in a one-page cartoon explaining how, after Maus, every artist
got a book contract of some sort.
Adam Lipkin ali...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
_____________________________________________________________
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."
--Ash, Army of Darkness
JERKY
An IMAGE guy defending a MARVEL guy?!?!?! Will wonders ever cease?
Now, I've seen everything.........;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Jerky, worshipper of the infamous Jerky Boys. Now on CD, tape, shirts and !
! bumper stickers near you! !
! !
! The ULTIMATE in phone pranks! !
! !
! "Open your f*cken ears, Jackass!" -An infamous quote. !
! Check it out, you'll be glad you did. To find out more, e-mail me! !
John Holbrook (PAD)
>rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu. (Robert Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>
>
>>was good, which is much more than you can say for Lobdell's crap.
>
>I'd happily see burned at the stake (step forward X_Men Unlimited #4),
>but as a whole his recent work has been surprisingly good. Bear in
>mind that in the last two years he's had to work around three major
>crossovers and an anniversary issue. That sort of thing really screws
>up your storylines.
That's a good point. In fact, some of Lobdell's _best_ issues,
have been issues between crossovers and supposed main events; some of his
recent Professor Xavier stories in Uncanny immediately come to mind.
>
>>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>>on a title that was once the *industry standard*. And Lodbell is hardly
>>the new guy anymore; he's been writing for years, with barely any
>>improvement.
>
>When Scott Lobdell came onto the X-Men, I had visions of dropping the
>book within months. He's not only kept me reading, but he's actually
>writing the single best X-book of the moment (Wolverine aside). I'm
>not easily impressed. Lobdell's current work is better than I would
>ever have imagined two years ago.
I agree Paul...and the great thing is, he seems to be improving,
and showing interest in staying with the X-Books (Uncanny in particular)
long term, which helps in developing story lines.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>stories for MCP before being allowed near anything decent. Given
>the limitations of getting a story into 8 pages, and the fact that
>he got lumbered with characters like Captain Ultra and the Collective
>Man (who I've never heard of before or since), he did pretty well.
>Plenty of flaws, but readable stuff.
I recall some of those stories. They weren't bad, for what they were.
Besides, I have a soft spot for Captain "I like color" Ultra. But that
hardly qualifies him for writing the Uncanny X-Men, now does it?
>Interviews given by Alan Davis seem to suggest that between Claremont
>leaving the title and Alan Davis returning, there was _no_ regular
>writer on Excalibur. A series of writers ended up desperately
>treading water while Marvel tried to find someone willing to work on
>it.
There wasn't, and the title going *bi-weekly* didn't help. But the
original poster was complaining about Claremont's work, not the
scheduling mess.
>Lobdell's job, it would seem, was to write one issue fill-ins.
>Now, I'd like to see you come up with eight consecutive fill-ins
>for the same title and keep up the quality.
I could do it, and I'd do it a damn sight better than Lobdell did. But
the issue is not if I could do it, it is if Lodbell could do it. And he
couldn't.
> Bear in
>mind that in the last two years he's had to work around three major
>crossovers and an anniversary issue. That sort of thing really screws
>up your storylines.
I love it how everyone is rationalizing low quality. If it sucks, it
sucks. A good writer may not do his or her best work under these
restrictions, but it still turns out somewhat good. Witness recent
crossovers by PAD, DeMatties, etc.
>Wrong. Alan Davis wrote the last issue of Captain Britain before it
>got cancelled. The rest of the series was written by Jamie Delano.
I should have "checked the credits" before I posted, eh? I just got out
my Captain Britian TP. Davis gets at least a co-plotting credit for every
story, and some stories Delano didn't work on at all. So Davis may have not
created the groundwork by himself, but he played a significant role in
its creation.
>he's actually
>writing the single best X-book of the moment
That's hardly a glowing compliment.
David R. Henry
>As far as the main heading of this thread goes, I have to express my
>opinion that Scott Lobdell has improved a great deal since his fill-in/MCP
>days. And for that matter, I also recall a time not so long ago when fans
>were complaining that the then-current X-Men writer had been on the book
>for far too long and was growing tired...
To xbooks with this all. Or I break out the trained polyps. And you all
know what that means.
"Ever notice how they have to distinguish between Truth, Justice, and *then*
the American Way?"
--Richard Darwin, "The Sea-Shore Man"
Paul O'Brien
>So what? If he needs practice, then he should practice with Marvel Comics
>Presents, not with what was (before he started writing it) the best of
>Marvel's line. If he wants to write the X-Men, then he should be good
>enough, or he'll get the criticism he deserves.
I think you'll find he did. He wrote a hell of a lot of one-shot
stories for MCP before being allowed near anything decent. Given
the limitations of getting a story into 8 pages, and the fact that
he got lumbered with characters like Captain Ultra and the Collective
Man (who I've never heard of before or since), he did pretty well.
Plenty of flaws, but readable stuff.
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha! I'd like to know where you read this, because if I was
>Alan Davis, I'd be pissed at Lodbell for the hack work he wrote on
>Excalibur.
Interviews given by Alan Davis seem to suggest that between Claremont
leaving the title and Alan Davis returning, there was _no_ regular
writer on Excalibur. A series of writers ended up desperately
treading water while Marvel tried to find someone willing to work on
it. Lobdell's job, it would seem, was to write one issue fill-ins.
Now, I'd like to see you come up with eight consecutive fill-ins
for the same title and keep up the quality. Without involving
existing plots or starting new ones. (The exceptions being his
Soulsword and Warwolf stories, by which time the editor had realised
that things were getting ridiculous and started authorising anybody
who was passing through the office that day to tie up plots.)
>As for Claremont's work, it may have been convoluted, but it
>was good, which is much more than you can say for Lobdell's crap.
Lobdell's improving rapidly. There are several Lobdell stories
I'd happily see burned at the stake (step forward X_Men Unlimited #4),
but as a whole his recent work has been surprisingly good. Bear in
mind that in the last two years he's had to work around three major
crossovers and an anniversary issue. That sort of thing really screws
up your storylines.
>And
>Davis did quite well with "what he had to work with" from Claremont' run.
>Fantastic, in fact. BTW, much of Excalibur is built on what Davis himself
>wrote when he wrote Captain Britian.
Wrong. Alan Davis wrote the last issue of Captain Britain before it
got cancelled. The rest of the series was written by Jamie Delano.
>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>on a title that was once the *industry standard*. And Lodbell is hardly
>the new guy anymore; he's been writing for years, with barely any
>improvement.
When Scott Lobdell came onto the X-Men, I had visions of dropping the
book within months. He's not only kept me reading, but he's actually
writing the single best X-book of the moment (Wolverine aside). I'm
not easily impressed. Lobdell's current work is better than I would
ever have imagined two years ago.
Paul O'Brien
Bart Beaty.
>>of 17. Of course, being 17, I was incompetent, so Marvel put me to work
>>on their most successful books, rationalizing (correctly) that I couldnt
>>hurt _Spider-Man_'s sales no matter how badly I drew."
>>
>>-Kyle Baker, from "The Trickle Down Success Story of Kyle Baker"
>>
>Well, that certainly explains some of the bizarre thinking at MEG, Inc.
>BTW, I've never heard of that Baker work before. Is it out of print like
>the Cowboy Wally Show?
"Trickle Down" was, as Adam correctly noted, published in Spy (October
1993 for those of you anal enough to care). It's a 7 panel, poorly
coloured thing, but extremely funny. Speaking of the near-mythical CW,
here are Kyle's thoughts on that subject:
"In 1987, Doubleday published my first graphic novel, which bombed so
badly that it has been suggested there were more copies of the book
returned than printed. I was immediately given a $60,000.00 contract
with DC Comics and a regular monthly series. After all, I had been
published by Doubleday, and had worked on _Spider-Man_!"
So now you know the truth about DC too. Gee, if we can keep this thread
running long enough I'll get to type in the whole thing. Is this fair
use? Who knows. Maybe it's a review...
Womble with Attitude
Paul> Wrong. Alan Davis wrote the last issue of Captain Britain
Paul> before it got cancelled. The rest of the series was written
Paul> by Jamie Delano.
[Gerry Saddowitz voice on]
Er, wrong, actually, pal..
[Gerry Sadowitz voice off]
Alan Davis wrote N where N > 1 of the Marvel UK Captain Britain comic,
including Tea and Sympathy, as well as the Betsy-gets-blinded issue,
as well as the last issue. So there.
[The balance of probabilities are that I spelled Gerry Saddowitz's
name wrong. I apologize]
--
* mjcu...@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (internet) *
* or mjcu...@uk.ac.dund.maths-and-cs (JANet) *
* *
* People! Can't live with 'em, can't trade them in for spares... *
Mean Mister Mustard
Paul O'Brien <pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Mean Mister Mustard) writes:
>
>>You may be right -- I seem to recall Alan Davis completely writing off
>>one of Lobdell's stupidest stories as a dream (Lobdell didn't write it that
>>way), and he even *called attention* to the continuity errors as he did so!
>
>You're thinking of "The Possession." Scott Lobdell had nothing to do
>with it. And yes, it was bad. And no, it didn't have any major
>continuity errors - it just conflicted with what Alan Davis had
>planned, so he knocked it out of continuity.
No errors? Then why *did* Meggan look so strange? And who was that big
fat guy that Alastair was supposedly working for?
Marc
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
According to Excalibur 47, the continuity errors are:
1) Meggan's appearance
2) the "fat orge in pajamas", who is presumably Alistaire's "boss"
3) The appearance of Emma Collins, who is dead.
4) Mastermind, the computer made up of organic circuitry, appears as a
traditional mainframe-type machine.
These errors are obviously not just conflicts with Davis' plans. I
suppose you could quibble with 1 and 2, but 3 and 4 are outright errors.
Jesse Matonak
With the understanding that this probably should go to xbooks, I have to
ask- can ANYONE produce a specific example of why Scott Lobdell is so
horrid? I fled the xbooks in terror some time before Claremont left, but
have checked up on them periodically ever since. Scott Lobdell is no
better or worse than the vast majority of comics writers, as far as I can
tell. Why single him out specifically?
For my money, Chris Claremont had a couple of bad years too. A lot of the
central x-characters have had the guts ripped out of them ever since X-FACTOR
started anyway- to blame the current writers for problems that predate their
tenures doesn't seem fair.
On the other hand, I will enthusiastically join in if anyone wants to
complain about Wolverine. :)
- Jesse Matonak
(respond by e-mail to je...@ghidora.santa-cruz.ca.us)
--
Everybody likes irony, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Tackey Chan
>In article <Ctyyt...@festival.ed.ac.uk> pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk (Paul O'Brien) writes:
>>rfer...@chuma.ec.usf.edu. (Robert Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>>
>>
>>>As for Claremont's work, it may have been convoluted, but it
>>>was good, which is much more than you can say for Lobdell's crap.
>>
>>Lobdell's improving rapidly. There are several Lobdell stories
>>I'd happily see burned at the stake (step forward X_Men Unlimited #4),
>>but as a whole his recent work has been surprisingly good. Bear in
>>mind that in the last two years he's had to work around three major
>>crossovers and an anniversary issue. That sort of thing really screws
>>up your storylines.
> That's a good point. In fact, some of Lobdell's _best_ issues,
>have been issues between crossovers and supposed main events; some of his
>recent Professor Xavier stories in Uncanny immediately come to mind.
As much as I hate to admit this...(I am a BIG LOBDELL hater as
many of you might know) .... this is true. Lobdell has made great
strides since he started the book. BUT the problem is that he is fine
as long as he does not write a fight sence into the story. He writes
fine human hart to hart type stories. Up and personal types are
actually very good.
The problem I continue to have with Lobdell is that he has
completely disreguarded the decade of work made by Clairmont and
others on these characters. Colossus is a great example. One of the
only characters not to suffer too badly emotionally over the Clairmont
years get rattled bad, eliminates years of Peter's history and turns
him really sappy.
The retroactive history telling has been bothering me. It just
seems like that it give Lobdell reason just to change a characters
personality and motivation instantly. This is not worth discussing
since I read everyone's opinion on it monthes ago.
Lastly...Lobdell is convinces that misery sells. This is like
the trend in many comics. "If the hero does not go through some type of
personal trama then it is not reallity" is a load of crap. The key to
a good story with a tradegy is to have it not the standard but the
unexpected. There is not dramatic effect to death anymore. The best
death stories I have read where out of the JLI by Griffen & DeMattis.
All of the X-books ones are just plain numbing..
Ok.. I said last point but one more.. The entire Legacy
Disease I predicted was a comic book version of AIDS since it initally
attacks a minority population but there was no sign of Lobdell wanting
to spread it to normal people as well. BUt I was skeptical about my theory
and it was still far fetched until I read the Moria MacTaggert got the
virus and I was thinking..this was closer to AIDS that I thought it
was... Like it was not bad enough this idea was medicore at best but
like this is really suppose to mimic reality..
Sorry enough ranting there. I'm calm now. ;)
>>>Well, as I said before, Lobdell, or anyone, should not be *starting out*
>>>on a title that was once the *industry standard*. And Lodbell is hardly
>>>the new guy anymore; he's been writing for years, with barely any
>>>improvement.
>>
>>When Scott Lobdell came onto the X-Men, I had visions of dropping the
>>book within months. He's not only kept me reading, but he's actually
>>writing the single best X-book of the moment (Wolverine aside). I'm
>>not easily impressed. Lobdell's current work is better than I would
>>ever have imagined two years ago.
> I agree Paul...and the great thing is, he seems to be improving,
>and showing interest in staying with the X-Books (Uncanny in particular)
>long term, which helps in developing story lines.
hmm.. I agree. My problems with the X-books bother me as
listed above. There is improvement.. Not quantum leap but it exists.
He definately as intrest in teh books which I think is a big plu.
Maybe he is better off if he reduces the amount of books he writes,
concentrate on one thing at a time.. I just know he is going to do
three of four X-books and chances are two are going to be poor.
Also the other thing is that it took TWO years to improve.. He
was working on stuff before.. in MC and What The and the like but
most was one shot stories... I think he needed to work on another book
consistantly like one of the Spider Man titles (which seems the
writers get away with murder for lack of continuity) or Deathlock or
Quasar one of the other mediocure sellers or comics that if you mess
up it is not that bad.
I use to think you really had to earn your way to write books
like the X-men, Fantastic Four, Superman and the like. Looks like
those days are gone.
------TAC
Mean Mister Mustard
>
>>Alan Davis wrote N where N > 1 of the Marvel UK Captain Britain comic,
>>including Tea and Sympathy, as well as the Betsy-gets-blinded issue,
>>as well as the last issue. So there.
>
>Jamie Delano wrote most of Captain Britain Vol. 2.
Alan Davis wrote or co-wrote every story. He was just the plotter on
the MWOM stuff (with others doing scripting), and he and Jamie Delano
are listed as "co-creators" on the Captain Britain stuff. Davis wrote
the last two issues all by himself.
Marc
Paul O'Brien
>Alan Davis wrote N where N > 1 of the Marvel UK Captain Britain comic,
>including Tea and Sympathy, as well as the Betsy-gets-blinded issue,
>as well as the last issue. So there.
I'll check, but I'm 99% sure you're wrong. I'm pretty certain
Jamie Delano wrote most of Captain Britain Vol. 2.
Michael K Leung
>
>With the understanding that this probably should go to xbooks, I have to
As long as we aren't talking about who is the most beatuiful
woman in the x-books, I don't see why r.a.c.miscellaneous can't has this
discussion. You know the misc means miscellaneous, don't you? &-) We are
agruing the Lobdell's writing ability, or how did he get the writer job
of xmen, and it certainly seems like within the boundary of r.a.c.misc.
>ask- can ANYONE produce a specific example of why Scott Lobdell is so
>horrid? I fled the xbooks in terror some time before Claremont left, but
>have checked up on them periodically ever since. Scott Lobdell is no
>better or worse than the vast majority of comics writers, as far as I can
>tell. Why single him out specifically?
No, Lobdell was (or maybe still is) worse than the vast majority
of comics writers. Not primarily his writing skill, but you could tell
from his early Xmen or Excalibur, he hadn't read too much comics before he
started. All of the characters were so out of characters that nothing
was making sense in his story. This made his story very boring as well.
His jokes were lame since they didn't fit the characters or the
relationships between them.
There may be writer who is worse than Lobdell, but none of them
is writing the top seller of the market today.
>For my money, Chris Claremont had a couple of bad years too. A lot of the
>central x-characters have had the guts ripped out of them ever since X-FACTOR
>started anyway- to blame the current writers for problems that predate their
>tenures doesn't seem fair.
I am not sure where you got this idea, but I don't think anyone
blames Lobdell for any problems before his tenure. IMO, even
Claremont's xmen after #200 were still quite a lot better than Lobdell's.
At least Claremont knew his characters.
>On the other hand, I will enthusiastically join in if anyone wants to
>complain about Wolverine. :)
The only recent Wolverine I read was either #81 or #82. This
was a story about Wolverine went back to Japan taking care of his
adopted daughter. I thought that the story and art were both fairly
good.
Paul O'Brien
>According to Excalibur 47, the continuity errors are:
>1) Meggan's appearance
>2) the "fat orge in pajamas", who is presumably Alistaire's "boss"
>3) The appearance of Emma Collins, who is dead.
>4) Mastermind, the computer made up of organic circuitry, appears as a
>traditional mainframe-type machine.
>These errors are obviously not just conflicts with Davis' plans. I
>suppose you could quibble with 1 and 2, but 3 and 4 are outright errors.
Yes, you're quite right about the last two. (I think Alan was a
bit out of order in going out of his way to attack somebody's
art style, though.) Nevertheless, the general point remains - yes,
Possession was crap, but no, Scott Lobdell didn't write it.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>mjcu...@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (Womble with Attitude) writes:
>
>>Alan Davis wrote N where N > 1 of the Marvel UK Captain Britain comic,
>>including Tea and Sympathy, as well as the Betsy-gets-blinded issue,
>>as well as the last issue. So there.
>
>I'll check, but I'm 99% sure you're wrong. I'm pretty certain
>Jamie Delano wrote most of Captain Britain Vol. 2.
Nope. He's right. On *every* story in the Captain Britian TP, Davis is at
least listed as a "co-creator" or co-plotter. On six of those stories,
which Delano did not work on at all, Davis credited as writer or co-writer.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>No, it doesn't. I agree with you that Lobdell was thrown onto the
>X-Books before he was ready. He should have been given at least
>another year working on "lesser" titles like Alpha Flight. But it's
>not Scott Lobdell's fault that he was hired before he was ready.
>Hell, I'd have taken the job if I was him.
Of course, I would too. It is Bob Harassment's fault that Lobdell is
writing the book. But, other factors discussed below notwitstanding, it is
Lobdell's fault that the writing is so bad.
>Actually, compared to recent issues of Excalibur, some of Lobdell's
>stories there weren't too bad. But I'll grant you that in an ideal
>world they would never have seen print.
I guess that would be Earth-C, where happy comic book fans can read
copies of Big Numbers 3, Miracleman 25, and Swamp Thing 88. :)
>>I love it how everyone is rationalizing low quality. If it sucks, it
>>sucks. A good writer may not do his or her best work under these
>>restrictions, but it still turns out somewhat good. Witness recent
>>crossovers by PAD, DeMatties, etc.
>
>Precisely the point. No, Lobdell hasn't written any unbelievably
>good, classic comics in the last two years. However, he has written
>easily the most entertaining X-Men issues since Claremont left the
>book.
Again, hardly a glowing compliment, considering both the bottom of the
barrel quality of the recent X-books and the fact that Lobdell took over
immediately after Claremont left.
> That's not easy given the problems of getting a storyline
>going when he had to fit in:
[List of too damn many stupid crossovers snipped]
>
>So, in twenty-four issues, at least eight were taken up by stories
>beyond his control. On which he did indeed do a pretty good job,
>albeit overshadowed by PAD on the X-Cutioner's Song crossover.
>
>Writing a good monthly comic depends heavily on whether you can
>get a decent storyline going. When you're having one in three
>issues clogged up with garbage imposed by your editor, that's
>virtually impossible.
I'm not disputing any of this. But good writers like Claremont and PAD,
while hampered by editorial restrictions and dead-weight crossovers, can
still turn out very good work. Best example: PAD's X-Factor, hampered by
numerous restrictions, crossovers and editorial edicts he tried his best
to fight off. Despite this, his work on this title is, IMHO, some of the
best of his career.
On the other hand, you have "writers" like Lodbell. He sucks with or
without the crossovers and other restrictions.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the current X-teams
*enjoy* creating these cash cow crossovers. Or is that Marvel Hype(TM)?
>Try reading Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix, which is one of the
>best X-Men series of the last decade, despite being a continuity
>patch.
Maybe if I find it in the quarter box. But $1.75-$1.95 an issue for
Lobdell work? No thanks.
>>I should have "checked the credits" before I posted, eh? I just got out
>>my Captain Britian TP. Davis gets at least a co-plotting credit for every
>>story, and some stories Delano didn't work on at all. So Davis may have not
>>created the groundwork by himself, but he played a significant role in
>>its creation.
>
>I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that Delano did most of the
>storylines himself...
>
Without other evidence(interiews, etc.), we can't say for sure. But I
doubt it, considering the strength of Davis' Excalibur work and it's
similarity to the Captain Britian stories. And in the Davis checklist in
the Clandestine Preview(fresh from the comic shop this morning), it shows
that Davis began work on Captain Britian in 1981. Delano only joined the
team in 1985. I'd say that Davis made a significant contribution.
>>>he's actually
>>>writing the single best X-book of the moment
>
>>That's hardly a glowing compliment.
>
>No, it isn't. That's why everyone should join the racx Committee
>to Get Rid of BOB.
How do I join?
Paul O'Brien
>Maybe he is better off if he reduces the amount of books he writes,
>concentrate on one thing at a time.. I just know he is going to do
>three of four X-books and chances are two are going to be poor.
Fear not. At present, Lobdell is writing Uncanny as a regular
assignment, and filling in on X-Factor and Excalibur until the
new writers come along (John Francis Moore and Warren Ellis
respectively). As far as I know, his only ongoing assignments
are Uncanny and Generation X, which is a reasonable workload.
Paul O'Brien
>I recall some of those stories. They weren't bad, for what they were.
>Besides, I have a soft spot for Captain "I like color" Ultra. But that
>hardly qualifies him for writing the Uncanny X-Men, now does it?
No, it doesn't. I agree with you that Lobdell was thrown onto the
X-Books before he was ready. He should have been given at least
another year working on "lesser" titles like Alpha Flight. But it's
not Scott Lobdell's fault that he was hired before he was ready.
Hell, I'd have taken the job if I was him.
>>Lobdell's job, it would seem, was to write one issue fill-ins.
>>Now, I'd like to see you come up with eight consecutive fill-ins
>>for the same title and keep up the quality.
>I could do it, and I'd do it a damn sight better than Lobdell did. But
>the issue is not if I could do it, it is if Lodbell could do it. And he
>couldn't.
Actually, compared to recent issues of Excalibur, some of Lobdell's
stories there weren't too bad. But I'll grant you that in an ideal
world they would never have seen print.
>> Bear in
>>mind that in the last two years he's had to work around three major
>>crossovers and an anniversary issue. That sort of thing really screws
>>up your storylines.
>I love it how everyone is rationalizing low quality. If it sucks, it
>sucks. A good writer may not do his or her best work under these
>restrictions, but it still turns out somewhat good. Witness recent
>crossovers by PAD, DeMatties, etc.
Precisely the point. No, Lobdell hasn't written any unbelievably
good, classic comics in the last two years. However, he has written
easily the most entertaining X-Men issues since Claremont left the
book. That's not easy given the problems of getting a storyline
going when he had to fit in:
* The X-Cutioner's Song crossover (plotted by Fabian Nicieza)
* Issue #300 (a mere three issues later)
* The death of Illyana Rasputin (editorially imposed)
* The Fatal Attractions Crossover issue
* The Bloodties crossover with the Avengers
* The Phalanx Covenant
So, in twenty-four issues, at least eight were taken up by stories
beyond his control. On which he did indeed do a pretty good job,
albeit overshadowed by PAD on the X-Cutioner's Song crossover.
Writing a good monthly comic depends heavily on whether you can
get a decent storyline going. When you're having one in three
issues clogged up with garbage imposed by your editor, that's
virtually impossible.
Try reading Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix, which is one of the
best X-Men series of the last decade, despite being a continuity
patch.
>I should have "checked the credits" before I posted, eh? I just got out
>my Captain Britian TP. Davis gets at least a co-plotting credit for every
>story, and some stories Delano didn't work on at all. So Davis may have not
>created the groundwork by himself, but he played a significant role in
>its creation.
I'd be willing to bet a fair amount that Delano did most of the
storylines himself...
>>he's actually
>>writing the single best X-book of the moment
>That's hardly a glowing compliment.
No, it isn't. That's why everyone should join the racx Committee
to Get Rid of BOB.
David R. Henry
>With the understanding that this probably should go to xbooks, I have to
>ask- can ANYONE produce a specific example of why Scott Lobdell is so
>horrid?
Must I stick to one?
--The main threat in any Lobdell comic is that the captions will weigh
too much and pin your fingers between the pages, causing untold pain and
possible ink poisoning
--Fight scenes that reach above and beyond the absurd, to reach an almost
surrealistic effectivelessness.
--X-Men Unlimited #4, for which there is no excuse. Random fingers rotting
off a corpse and hitting the computer keyboard can create a better comic
that Unlimited #4.
That being said, I really did like Lobdell's stuff in Marvel Comics Presents.
"And cowboys on acid are like Egyptian cartoons."
--
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club //// "Check the credits, Frank." --MJ-ST3K
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
JERKY
POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Patman
>In article <Cu54n...@ns1.nodak.edu>, dhe...@plains.NoDak.edu (David R. Henry) writes:
>>Jesse Matonak wrote:
>>>With the understanding that this probably should go to xbooks, I have to
>>>ask- can ANYONE produce a specific example of why Scott Lobdell is so
>>>horrid?
>>Must I stick to one?
>>--The main threat in any Lobdell comic is that the captions will weigh
>>too much and pin your fingers between the pages, causing untold pain and
>>possible ink poisoning
>>--Fight scenes that reach above and beyond the absurd, to reach an almost
>>surrealistic effectivelessness.
>>--X-Men Unlimited #4, for which there is no excuse. Random fingers rotting
>>off a corpse and hitting the computer keyboard can create a better comic
>>that Unlimited #4.
>>That being said, I really did like Lobdell's stuff in Marvel Comics Presents.
>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
>I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Uh-oh...drh, you may have to re-post your review of X-Men Unlimited #4... :)
--
Patman - All opinions are mine, not Ma Tech's.
"I checked over the ComicFest Debate rules, and I can't find anywhere
that it says, 'Loser gets to debate John Byrne." -- John Byrne's
response when asked by Dragon Con to consider debating McFarlane this year.
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>As far as the main heading of this thread goes, I have to express my
>opinion that Scott Lobdell has improved a great deal since his fill-in/MCP
>days. And for that matter, I also recall a time not so long ago when fans
>were complaining that the then-current X-Men writer had been on the book
>for far too long and was growing tired.
I'm the person who inadvertently started this thread, and I *never*
thought that Claremont should have been replaced. Besides, that is
completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Lodbell is a
competent writer. He may have improved, but so what? I mean, low quality
is low quality and we shouldn't seek to justify or rationalize its
existence.
Russ Allbery
>
>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
Hey Dave, why don't you send him your review of Unlimited #4? 8-)
>I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Oh boy. I think we ought to put that review up on the ftp site...
--
Eagle |
Russ Allbery | An elephant: A mouse built to goverment
r...@cs.stanford.edu | specifications.
My opinions, not theirs | -- Robert Heinlein
Jerry Wei-Hsuan Lee
Russ Allbery <r...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>JERKY <vv4...@albnyvms.bitnet> writes:
>>
>>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
>
I'm sure DRH must have loved the letter column in Unlimited #6
applauding how great #4 was ;)
Jerry
Kay Green
>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
>I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Well, for starters...ah forget it. I could live to 100 and still not
finish trashing Unforgivable #4... drh, just pick up a copy of your
review and throw it at him :)
I've seen cows regurgitate more coherent...stuff:)
My copy is for sale, but the local comic shop says they have enough of
their own. It seems it was the worst-selling issue for them in quite a
while. Go figure.
Kay.
--
L. K. ("Kay") Green // Internet address: umgr...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca /
FUBAR, big time. // "I thought I had a great idea, but it never really took
off. In fact, it didn't even get on the runway. I guess you could say it
exploded in the hangar." -- Calvin // That's it! I'm outta here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David R. Henry
>I'm sure DRH must have loved the letter column in Unlimited #6
>applauding how great #4 was ;)
It just goes to show; critical thinking is no longer taught in our schools.
Maybe those letter writers can tell me where the waterfall is on the
lower Mississippi...
David Carson
>>Try reading Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix, which is one of the
>>best X-Men series of the last decade, despite being a continuity
>>patch.
>
>Maybe if I find it in the quarter box. But $1.75-$1.95 an issue for
>Lobdell work? No thanks.
Actually, it's $2.95 an issue. :-)
And the "best X-Men series of the last decade"?? It wasn't even Scott
Lobdell's best work of the last decade! :-)
--
Live dull, think "why n | g David "Storm" Carson, student of
bother?", and leave a e -+- o philosophy ..and also computing :-(
note saying goodbye.. t | t EMail: s302...@titanic.mpce.mq.edu.au
D:tHCoL . | h NOT s302...@titanic.mqcs.oz.au !!!
Alex Mystic Soto
In article <323p9i$5...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> umgr...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca (Kay Green) writes:
Kay> JERKY (the mad fool:) paints a target on his chest and asks:
>> POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt
>> 'love' it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue
>> especially awful. I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Kay> Well, for starters...ah forget it. I could live to 100 and
Kay> still not finish trashing Unforgivable #4... drh, just pick up
Kay> a copy of your review and throw it at him :)
Kay> I've seen cows regurgitate more coherent...stuff:) My copy is
Kay> for sale, but the local comic shop says they have enough of
Kay> their own. It seems it was the worst-selling issue for them in
Kay> quite a while. Go figure.
Geez, what's all the fuss about? I thought all Unlimited X-men's have
been great, and although perhaps #1 and #2 are the best, the others
haven't been bad at all either. Have you looked at other Unlimited's
like FF for instance? If you want to see something that sucks, whoot
- there it is!
I was a little disappointed with the art in the last one (XU 6th), but
the stories are still great.
Mystic
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mystic (617) 527-5571 (Home)
(alex...@analog.com) (617) 461-3822 (Work)
Analog Devices, Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Brien
>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
>I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
Apart from being a terrible story, possibly the worst X-book of the
last decade, X-Men Unlimited #4 contains a massive continuity error,
contradicting entirely the "Rogue's childhood" story that Ann Nocenti
did in Classic X-Men five or six years ago. Lobdell had clearly read
that story, but ploughed straight through it anyway.
Paul O'Brien
>And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the current X-teams
>*enjoy* creating these cash cow crossovers. Or is that Marvel Hype(TM)?
They may well enjoy it, but I don't believe anything Marvel tell me.
I have at home a hilarious interview in which Chris Claremont explains
that while he would prefer to have only one X-book a month, he's, like,
really looking forward to the launch of unadjectived X-Men. In fact,
he's delirious with joy at the prospect.
Of course, his comments may have been influenced by the presence in
the same room of Bob Harras and a publicist from Marvel.
>>No, it isn't. That's why everyone should join the racx Committee
>>to Get Rid of BOB.
>How do I join?
Robert, you live on Planet Earth. That makes you an automatic member
of the Committee to Get Rid of BOB.
Paul O'Brien
>And the "best X-Men series of the last decade"?? It wasn't even Scott
>Lobdell's best work of the last decade! :-)
Best X-Men mini-series of the last decade by far. (Hey, Wolverine
was more than ten years ago, wasn't it?)
JERRY BLANCHARD RAY JR
>
>It just goes to show; critical thinking is no longer taught in our schools.
>Maybe those letter writers can tell me where the waterfall is on the
>lower Mississippi...
You've got to be kidding me... I'm still rather repressing that issue
as well, though not as vocally as some among us :-). But a waterfall
on the lower Mississippi river-you've got to be kidding. My geology
classes compel me to honestly state that this has got to be one of the
stupidest things I've heard in a while, quite possibly since the
old "catacombs beneath New Orleans" deal back in the Unadjectived X-Men/
Ghost Rider crossover.
And people in Canada say their country gets mauled in Marvel comics :-)
JRjr
--
'Summer's going fast, nights growing colder
Children growing up, old friends growing older
The innocence slips away...'--Rush, Time Stand Still
##### vap...@prism.gatech.EDU ######## Jerry B. Ray, Jr. ################
M HEISLER
Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>In article <31mc2o$l...@search01.news.aol.com> mhei...@aol.com (M
HEISLER) writes:
>>As far as the main heading of this thread goes, I have to express my
>>opinion that Scott Lobdell has improved a great deal since his
fill-in/MCP
>>days. And for that matter, I also recall a time not so long ago when
fans
>>were complaining that the then-current X-Men writer had been on the book
>>for far too long and was growing tired.
>I'm the person who inadvertently started this thread, and I *never*
>thought that Claremont should have been replaced. Besides, that is
>completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Lodbell is a
>competent writer.
True. But the direction that I was heading with my statement is that fan
criticism is ofttimes also completely irrelevant. I heard years ago from
many people both inside and outside the comics industry who believed that
Claremont had grown stale and should be replaced...only to hear a lot of
those same people, a few years later, moan and complain that Claremont got
a raw deal from Marvel and that he should NEVER have been taken off of the
X-Men. However, I didn't mean to imply that you (or any particular person
involved in this thread) were one of those people, Robert.
I find the unreliability of fan criticism to be relevant in this case
because I'm seeing very little in-depth analysis of Lobdell's work;
instead, there's a lot of complaining about what Lobdell has done to
someone's favorite character, or the way he dialogues fight scenes; in
other words, complaints about Lobdell's STYLE of writing--which is quite a
different thing from his TECHNIQUE, and I feel it's his technique that has
to be discussed if one is to determine whether or not he is a "bad"
writer.
The fact that you (and this is a general "you") may not like his style
doesn't make him a bad writer, it just means that you don't like his
style. For example, I don't like the style of Peter David. I've been
following HULK for several years now because editor Bobbie Chase has a
talent for bringing great pencillers to the book...but when Jeff Purves
was drawing it, I stopped reading and didn't really feel as though I'd
missed anything, and if another boring (to my taste) artist joins the book
in the future, I'll drop it again. Does that mean that I think David is a
bad writer? Will I start a thread here titled "PAD sucks"? No, I think
that, technically, he's very good, and I understand why he is popular.
But a lot of what he has to say is, personally, not interesting to me.
I guess what I'm saying is that while it's all fun and good to get on
these boards and bash and insult someone who isn't around to defend
himself (infer from that whatever meaning you like), it might be a good
idea to consider backing up those insults with criticism that's a little
more substantive.
Mike
Mean Mister Mustard
M HEISLER <mhei...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I find the unreliability of fan criticism to be relevant in this case
>because I'm seeing very little in-depth analysis of Lobdell's work;
>instead, there's a lot of complaining about what Lobdell has done to
>someone's favorite character, or the way he dialogues fight scenes; in
>other words, complaints about Lobdell's STYLE of writing--which is quite a
>different thing from his TECHNIQUE, and I feel it's his technique that has
>to be discussed if one is to determine whether or not he is a "bad"
>writer.
I had to read this three times before I figured out what bothered me...
STYLE and TECHNIQUE. One is a manner or method of acting, the other a
manner in which details are treated (both loosely paraphrased from a cheap
Webster's)... not a whole lot of difference.
Are you saying that most people object to Lobdell's content rather than
structure? Or his "surface" rather than his skill? Either way, I can still
see criticism along these areas as valid. Perhaps not as valid as criticism
that reaches down into Lobdell's technical skill/construction/whatever
it is you mean, but still valid. These are the folks who ultimately
shell out the money for the comics, after all.
>The fact that you (and this is a general "you") may not like his style
>doesn't make him a bad writer, it just means that you don't like his
>style. For example, I don't like the style of Peter David. I've been
>following HULK for several years now because editor Bobbie Chase has a
>talent for bringing great pencillers to the book...but when Jeff Purves
>was drawing it, I stopped reading and didn't really feel as though I'd
>missed anything, and if another boring (to my taste) artist joins the book
>in the future, I'll drop it again. Does that mean that I think David is a
>bad writer? Will I start a thread here titled "PAD sucks"? No, I think
>that, technically, he's very good, and I understand why he is popular.
>But a lot of what he has to say is, personally, not interesting to me.
Again, there's a difference between objecting to what a writer has to say
("Phoenix has really been Candy Southern all along") and their writing
style ("Face Front, True Believers...") and their actual construction of
a story ("It's all told in flashaback from Angel's point of view..." **).
As I see it, style and construction are equally valid reasons to like/
dislike a writer, although of course *reasons* for the like and dislike
always make for better criticism.
>I guess what I'm saying is that while it's all fun and good to get on
>these boards and bash and insult someone who isn't around to defend
>himself (infer from that whatever meaning you like), it might be a good
>idea to consider backing up those insults with criticism that's a little
>more substantive.
That's true. But saying "I hate XXXX because he really screwed up
Gamecock" *is* substantive, it just isn't very articulate. In a medium
(comics) and a genre (superheroics) where events build from month to
month, time never flows quite right, characters and plots drive most
stories, and Continuity is king, things like favorite characters and plot
elements may actually matter a lot in the writing. And in the evaluation
of writers.
On the other hand, that touches on a reason why fan criticism can be
unreliable -- it, like the comics it's reacting to, can whirl around and
change completely from issue to issue, month to month. But I suppose as
long as the critical standards of each reader stay constant (allowing for
some growth or change, of course), well that's okay too.
Marc
** Just realized this phrase really dates me... I never got used to calling
him "Archangel." That's what I get for never reading X-Factor (he said,
dating himself even further).
Kay Green
That I wrote, that I wrote, that I wrote...wait somethings screwed up here :/
> Kay> Well, for starters...ah forget it. I could live to 100 and
> Kay> still not finish trashing Unforgivable #4... drh, just pick up
> Kay> a copy of your review and throw it at him :)
Make that two.
>Geez, what's all the fuss about? I thought all Unlimited X-men's have
>been great, and although perhaps #1 and #2 are the best, the others
>haven't been bad at all either. Have you looked at other Unlimited's
>like FF for instance? If you want to see something that sucks, whoot
>- there it is!
Sorry, but I don't buy the analogy. That's kinda like saying, "Well, pig
poop stinks worse than skunks, so skunks are therefore more appealing."
But skunks still smell bad! the comparison is kind of a red herring
(which incidently also don't smell too great, but are better than skunks.
But they still stink.)
When Unlimited X-men books start using deoderant, that's when I'll start
picking them up again.
There was some comments made about a few months ago (I believe by drh) when
Unlimited #5 came out that I think best sums it up. If number 1 and 2
were good, number three was passable, and 4 & 5 were ghastly, then Marvel
is batting only 40% on the series, and therefore it should be cancelled.
It's not a direct quote, but I don't think I massacred it too badly (did I?)
>Mystic
Kay.
--
L. K. ("Kay") Green // Internet address: umgr...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca /
FUBAR, big time. // "I thought I had a great idea, but it never really took
off. In fact, it didn't even get on the runway. I guess you could say it
exploded in the hangar." -- Calvin // That's it! I'm outta here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and it's Whomp - there it is!
David R. Henry
>POne question: what was so bad about Unlimited#4? Granted, I didnt 'love'
>it or anything, but I dont see waht made that issue especially awful.
>I didnt see any breaches in continuity.
A point of information for the new readers here, especially the crowd on
rac.misc where I don't usually do reviews. This following piece is the most
requested review I've ever seen; I mean, I never thought people would want
to reread a _review_, especially of an eight-month old book. I had to borrow
a copy of it from someone else, actually. It's the only review I've ever
wrote that people send me comments on to improve on the next time it's
posted. Truly odd stuff, Maynard. That being said, here it is, the third
time around, in all its awful glory. The X-Men Unlimited #4 review. Peace.
#####
X-Men Unlimited #4
"Theories of Relativity"
Writer: Scott Lobdell, blowing his good will to pieces
Pencils: Richard Bennett
Inks: Steve Moncuse
Colors: Glynis Oliver, a ray of hope in the darkness
Letters: Dave Sharpe
Editor: Kelly Coverse, under BOB/Tom
I am really getting tired of stupid villains.
That may seem like a strange thing to say in a X-Man newsgroup. Because,
yeah, I know -- this isn't Cerebus. This isn't Grendel. This isn't some
high-falutin' alternative rant on the power structure of the dispossessed.
It's a superhero comic, dealing with bad guys with silly names parading
around in capes and being beat senseless by strong-jawed good guys. Okay,
fine, I accept that. When I read a X-Man comic, even though I know it could
be more, I know the current target ideal for Marvel isn't the high standards
of Sandman, or From Hell, or what have you. It's to provide a little bit
of social commentary disguised as a rousing conflict between Evil and Good.
Fine. Accepted.
With all of that, nothing of the above automatically disqualifies any of
these minor, inconvenient plot points:
--Believeable characterization
--Lucid plots
--Intelligent villains played intelligently (dumb ones should be dumb,
of course, but just perhaps we should be able to tell the
difference, right?)
--Good storytelling.
There. All I ask for from any story, be it a campfire ghostly-ghoulie,
a comic book, a movie, or what have you. Those four things. Actually, just
the last thing. The others are the candy that shapes the cake, if you
will. The force behind the hammer. The columns under the roof. And so on.
Now we come to X-Men Unlimited #4.
[pause while there is a deep, weeping intake of breath]
I could go through the issue on all four those points, but I just don't have
the strength any more. So, I'm going to focus on one particular:
intelligence. Whether of the characters or the plot or the creative staff,
join me now in a detailed journey into Mystique, Rogue, Nightcrawler, and
the hair stylist they all share, in this:
~~~Theories of Relativity!~~~
Plot: Mystique is threatening the life of General Armond Guadier, whom she
has caught providing -- "I'm sorry, allegedly providing" -- the Friends of
Humanity with weapons to nuke mutants. She sneaks into his office, and
proceeds to hold him at gunpoint by leaning over him and planting her foot
on his chest while he's in his chair. Now, you or I would probably find that
an uncomfortable position to hold for a three-page soliloquy, let alone in
high-heels, but as the cover to Unlimited #4 shows, Mystique's legs are now
three-quarters the entire height of her body, easily allowing her such fancy
stunts.
The general, obviously too overcome with the sight of those legs, doesn't
throw Mystique off his chest by getting up and fighting for the gun. No,
that would presume intelligence, something we'll see is obviously in high
demand in this comic. Instead, he sits there and allows himself to be beat
upon by Mystique until she kills him -- tough breaks, dude -- so Graydon
Creed will "get a message" that she doesn't like being hunted by Sabretooth
(in the Sabretooth limited series).
Ah, yes, Graydon Creed. Who spends his time in a mansion in France, despite
being the puported head of the Friends of Humanity, a "grass root"
organization in the United States. Who dreams of joining the United States
Congress and doing Nasty Things to mutants in the country afterwards
(apparently Robert Kelly no longer fits the bill for generic X-Congress
foes). Who beats his informants into a pulp just because he doesn't like
their news -- and still has people working for him. The economy must be
shot in France.
Creed is upset as Unlimited #4 begins. Apparently being a borderline
psychotic is tiring work. He is drawn to Washington, D.C. to attend the
funeral of the general, where Forge (yes, Forge) has already placed Rogue and
Nightcrawler in the crowd. Why? Apparently X-Men don't need to be told why,
or even what they should look for. Forge just tells them to be in the crowd.
Not what to do. Just be there. And, dum-de-dum, off go Nightcrawler and
Rogue. Duh, sure boss.
Mystique is there, disguised as a priest who interrupts the eulogy with a
sudden recitation of the general's sins, to say nothing of a bomb strapped
to the cadaver's chest. While Rogue goes into action to save the
innocent bystanders, Mystique beats up Nightcrawler to tell him to meet
her at "home -- Rogue should remember."
What is this about messages in this comic? Forge doesn't tell his field team
what they're supposed to do, even though he admits to knowing why they're
being sent there, and Mystique not only doesn't tell Kurt why he has to meet
her at home, she feels the need to beat him up instead of just telling him
to his face! (Why do mutants never use a phone call for these sort of
conversations?). Heck, if someone just suckerpunched me, my first reaction to
them inviting me to some place that they don't even specify to continue the
conversation would be "Yeah, right. Screw you, Magoo." But, Mystique is
apparently convinced that Kurt will not only be motivated to follow her, but
that the message won't get garbled and Rogue won't make a mistake and that
they'll all decide that they don't have anything better to do.
Okay, so she taunts him with the evidence of his heritage. Why he can't just
talk to her in some neutral place, where reasonable people would do it, is
beyond the point of this book -- the plot requires that the characters end
up in Caldecott County, so, damn it, they're going to end up there. This is
the sort of place where most hack writers spit on their hands, crank up the
wind machine, lower the flying goggles over their eyes and pose majestically
over their word processor, crying "Plot be damned!" Unlimited #4 doesn't
even have a plot to damn, though, so we just have to be content with
Mystique then vanishing into the crowd of fleeing people, while Rogue flies
Kurt out of there.
And Creed? Creed continues to show that his main concern should be keeping
his brain from flowing out of his ears, not running for Congress. Captured
by Federal guards and brought before Forge, Creed denies everything, and
then -- and this is priceless -- _threatens_ Forge, a government agent, in
his own office, promises to "purge the genetic aberrations that are
destroying the quality of human life on this planet" aloud, and then says he
wants to see Forge publicly executed by hanging... and then walks out,
unhampered!
Man, has this guy learned _nothing_ from Watergate? Heck, was Lobdell even
alive when it happened? What serious contender for public office would
EVER say that aloud, especially in an office of an acknowledged enemy of
his? Creed is supposedly a major political player in the Marvel United
States, although with his observed intelligence maybe taking over Romper
Room would be a more believable goal. Do you have any idea how much money
60 Minutes would pay for a tape of that conversation? How much HARD COPY
would pay? The guy would be so deep in doo-doo that a horde of Purple Men
working on his campaign spin wouldn't be able to save him. How could anyone
sensible say such a thing when the threat of taping is so obvious?
If the point is that Creed is such a psychotic that he just wouldn't think
of that, then how has this anger escaped the notice of the press corps, who
are even capable of digging up hidden half-brothers and ex-highway patrolmen
who have grudges? And anyway, isn't threatening a federal officer, which
Forge is, with death, which Creed does twice, a crime? Why is it that it's
the fans who are thinking of such obvious questions? Why aren't the writer
or the editors doing this?
Ah, but such considerations are not for us. Not this book. Forge is spying
on the conversation, of course, but heavens forbid that he should have some
sort of tape to ruin Creed's career with. Nope, Forge has just arranged to
have Nightcrawler and Rogue overhear the conversation. And then Rogue says,
right there on the page they're revealed:
"What was the point of having us eavesdrop on this little encounter?"
He didn't even tell them why again! He just said, "Here, stand in this
closet." And they did it! No questions. No wonderings. Man, I want to play a
game of Simon Says against these people for millions of dollars. "Rogue, go
jump in that volcano. Nightcrawler, hold your breath until you die." "Sure!"
"Right away!"
No, "gee, can't we just listen in by microphone... maybe there'll be a
_slightly_ less chance that we'll be discovered?" Just Forge, saying
something, and those two, just going, "Huh. Sure, dude."
And there -- same page as the above quote (what is it, page 24?), just in
case the point has not been completely made utterly clear, Nightcrawler
follows up Rogue's deep observation with:
"What I question is exactly what do Rogue and I have to do with any
of this?"
[sound of exploding brainpan]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When the characters themselves
are complaining about the plot, you know something's wrong.
Gack. I'm sorry. It's just that I've always been under the illusion that
Nightcrawler and Rogue are sentient, thinking beings, who often perform
better when actually told what they're supposed to do. Instead, we get Forge
acting like some reject from spy-master school, playing manipulative games
with their minds and refusing to tell them what's going on. For what reason?
Is there any, at all, humanly possibly character-motivated reason that a man
wouldn't tell his field team information that would help them in their quest
(assuming it wasn't a suicide mission)?
None I can think of. Hold on a minute... I've been typing these last few
paragraphs with Creed's ugly mug from page 23 glaring at me from near the
keyboard, so I'm going to flip the page...
Ah! Much better. Okay, the real reason, of course, is that the revelations
that Forge should be telling Rogue and Nightcrawler can't be revealed to
them because Scott Lobdell, writer, needs them to be the shocking truths
revealed at the end of the comic. So it's a ham-handed way to get the plot
going to where he thinks it should go, instead of having Forge tell the pair
the truth about Mystique and Creed (which he knows), and having them deal
with it as thinking adults for the rest of the issue. It's dumb, it's
Manipulative Writer Copout 101, and it's just plain bad writing.
But, hey, we're not even to the staple yet! After a bit more meandering,
where Rogue and Nightcrawler _again_ stress they don't know why they should
be doing this (Forge should be selling Clinton's health care plan, not
wasting away in some mutant affairs office, based on this comic), and Forge
tells them "Just do it," everyone hies off for the Deep South. Ours is not
to wonder why, eh, Forge? Oh, not before Forge also reveals that the totally
psychotic Mystique of Uncanny #289-302 was just bad writing. Well, he
doesn't phrase it that way, but that's how it turns out with this bugger of
a retcon: now she wasn't really insane, she was just _acting_ insane so
Forge would take her into his care so she could copy stuff from his computer
files! Boy, if the plot's not working one way, just go back and make it look
better in hindsight, huh? And it's a good thing Xavier didn't notice her
just play-acting insane with those powerful telepathic brainwaves of his,
wasn't it?
But anyway... to Mississippi. Wait... wait a minute, I hear something...
something... voices! Voices talking... like I'm psychic... it's, wait,
they're saying... um, I see a spaceship, and some guy, leaning in a chair,
and, and...
Captain BOB: Scottie! Scottie! I need those retcon cannons up NOW!
Scottie L: B'cap'n! I dinnae think the plot c'n take much more
of this!
BOB: Damn it, Scott! There's a large piece of characterization
coming right at us! I need those retcons NOW!
Scottie: Cap'n! Jus' give me ten more pages! Y'cannot change the
laws of fiction!
BOB: Mr. Scott, we're almost approaching the Deadline. We CAN'T
wait any longer!
Scottie: >Sighs< Aye, C'pn. Retcon cannons on.
BOB: That's it, Scottie! More power. MORE power!
...fizzle... no, THIS one is art, THAT one is soup... zzzSSSZzzs...
In springtime, the only ringading time, birds sing, hey ding... >POP!<
Whoa! Gotta lay off those late night pizza orgies. Where was I? Oh.
Unlimited #4.
Sigh.
Okay, we're into the Deep South by now -- don't look back, but Graydon
Creed is following our heroes in his private aircraft -- as Rogue flies
Nightcrawler into Caldecott County, her homeland.
We now enter the only decent part of the book, even if it completely
contradicts everything we've learned about Rogue so far. It's indicative
that in its best scene, Unlimited #4 can't even get its facts right. Rogue
gives us the scene where she supposedly meets Mystique, and she looks
adorable in her overalls and shotgun. The trouble is here that Lobdell says
Rogue doesn't meet Mystique until after she's kissed Cody -- but then in the
flashback, she appears about nine or ten (she was in her teens with Cody),
plus it's already known that she was already living with Mystique before she
kissed Cody (it's even been shown in the backup stories in Classic X-Men).
It's a cute scene, to Lobdell's credit (and he doesn't get much for this
issue), but it's to his and BOB's discredit that they not only don't catch
these contradictions, they apparently don't even care about them. Plus,
Rogue's original quote (don't ask me where, I don't do issue numbers) as to
what happened after The Kiss was "I ran and ran and ran." In fact, she ran
all the way back to the house where she, Mystique, and Destiny were living.
In the unusual hallucination which is Unlimited #4, though, she and Cody
spent _three days_ unconscious beneath the old swinging tree before the town
people found them. Are we to assume that Rogue is now a sleepwalker of
legendary status? And, by the way, how exactly did a bunch of young kids
survive three days without food and water anyway?
But, hey, that's okay, because as long as he's ignoring one character's
established history, Lobdell's decided to go all the way and ignore
everybodies! Man, equality knows no boundaries, you know that? Nightcrawler
is now no longer left with the Gypsies by some dying woman, who comes
staggering out of the night -- Mystique (oh, you do know she's his mother
now?) throws him off a cliff as a baby to save herself from a crowd of
mutant haters.
You might ask yourself -- is this the same woman who was incapable of hurting
a _robot_ of Nightcrawler because of the love she feels for him in Uncanny
#176? Who now gloats that she never felt anything bad about it? Hey, this is
LobdellLand; please check your characterizations at the counter. Mystique
has to be a baddie in this one, because that's what the plot says. So, now
we get Mystique as Lady Psycho. An interesting twist on Mystique's
character, since up 'till Claremont's departure, one of the most _together_
people in Marvel was Mystique. About her only doubts were how to best raise
Rogue properly. The rest of the time, she was one of the coolest, smoothest,
sanest operators out there, who put together a team that could defeat the
Avengers, and _did_. Now, suddenly, she's Raving Raven, chuckling about how
she loved throwing Nightcrawler over a cliff, and babbling about how she
doesn't know what her true identity is.
Okay, maybe the death of Destiny unhinged her. I could, maybe, possibly,
with a lot of prodding and large neon pointers, accept that. But there
hasn't been any motivation like that in the books. There hasn't been any
sign that, now, Mystique has _ever_ been sane. Which makes me wonder
when this newest Skrull will be unmasked.
Oh yeah -- plottage. Graydon has finally caught up to our heroes, and
attacks Kurt (I was waiting for him to attack Rogue, so we could watch
another underpowered bozo beat her up without breaking a sweat), but
miracles of miracles, Kurt actually defeats him. Not before we're treated to
far too many pages of a Creed soliloquy, though, which manages to pack all
the emotion of a phone book with the clarity of a tax form into just
under three pages.
Meanwhile, Rogue has taken this advantage of not being in the plot to try to
fly away before Lobdell can find her again. Too bad, she doesn't get nearly
far enough; by page 38 she's back in the limelight again (cheap Rogue puns
are my only way through this next section. Bear with me, folks). Rogue
briefly comments on how arbitrary X-character characterizations have become
since the X-Odus ("When the characters themselves are complaining..."), and
then we get her continuity-twisting flashback back to The Kiss.
Somewhere around here Mystique and her boys show up. Everyone is apparently
deeply confused after having all their pasts rewritten, since after a bit of
more flashback, Graydon makes the mistake of opening his mouth again, and
they all let him. Man, this guy makes Reagan seem like Einstein.
Okay, having filled some forty pages deftly without once having to resort to
a plot, it's time to end the book! So, in comes the helicopter, dakka-
dakka-dakka. Much flames and booms, and Kurt and Mystique find themselves
hanging from Rogue's old swinging tree, while Graydon and his mobile
grass-roots weapons platform have themselves an air-to-air discussion with
Rogue.
And here, at last, Lobdell tops himself. After fifty pages of cretinic
dialogue, dirge-like pacing, and motivations so goofy you could stand them
upside-down and they'd make just as much sense, who could guess that the
crowning stupidity of the book would take place at the very end? After
everything else that he managed to cram into this issue, there was still
room at the end for this, as supreme a bit of threatless climax as was ever
penned:
The Blue People are hanging from a burning rope over the Mississippi. I note
with interest that Bennett, on page 50, apparently believes the lower
Mississippi has large waterfalls which people can conveniently plummet into.
While we send him to history class, to cleverly explain just how those
paddlewheels made it from Ohio to New Orleans on his Mississippi, we now
face the harder task of explaining Lobdell's climax.
Once again, the Blues are hanging by a rope over a waterfall on the
Mississippi (why ask why?). Nightcrawler has been stunned by the attack of
the helicopter, and risks plummeting into the, um, rock-strewn depths of the
churning Mississippi. Mystique is too far away to help him, let alone the
plot. Meanwhile, Rogue has managed to get her hands into the enviable
position of being around Graydon Creed's neck. Damn! Itchy trigger finger!
Well, that's the way I would have ended the story. But here, she makes the
mistake of letting him open his mouth again. And Creed makes a statement so
utterly stupid that it's only Lobdell's apparent matching cluelessness that
prevents this issue from having a happy ending. Well, that, and Marvel not
including a "If you finished this issue, send in this coupon for a complete
refund" coupon at the end of the book, of course.
Creed: "You can't drag me back to D.C. by my throat... AND save my
mother and brother from death!"
Okay, let's review the situation one more time. I like being clear on things
when my brain hurts. It helps me be sure it's the world that's all wrong,
not myself. Mystique and Kurt hanging by their fingertips over some sort of
pit. Check. Rogue with Creed in hand. Check. Creed being an idiot. Oh, yeah.
Double check. Rogue with the ability to lift over fifty tons, fly faster
than the speed of sound, and having two hands, and room for tucking someone
under her arm, considered.
Check? Check, please? Please, waiter, I'd like to leave.
Rogue, the next page:
"T'ain't no way I can save them both from tumblin' to the river
below!"
Rogue. Darling. Dear. Woman-whom-I-have-founded-a-fan-club-for. You have two
hands, two arms, and one brain. Use them. Throttle Creed, so we won't have
to listen to him. Tuck him under an arm somewhere. He can't weigh that much,
he has a vacuum in his head. While you're leaving, place an off-hand kick on
the helicopter. They don't fly so well when they're upside down. Fly, at
your supersonic capability, down to Mystique. Oh, darn, Creed looses his
hearing from the sonic boom. Pick her up in your free hand. Have your
mother, or yourself, with your other free hand -- you're only carrying no
more than 500 pounds, which should be like getting bread out of the freezer
-- grab Nightcrawler. Fly away.
Here's another possibility. While you were still holding Creed, get a good
two-hand toss on him and launch him straight up in the air. You once threw
the Blob over a mile, so you should be able to get near-orbit on a
lightweight like Creed. Go down and save your family, which, now with two
hands free, should be even easier. Deposit them safely on shore somewhere,
briefly ponder where that waterfall came from, and then gently catch Creed
as he plummets back to earth. Or let him crack his skull open, that's always
a possibility. What's that? Worried about the helicopter's weapons? Well,
the machinegun can't hurt you, and anyone firing a air-to-air missile
at point blank range has more problems than even this plot.
Another one: throw Creed in the river. Save family as before. Fish Creed
out of river. Wonder about waterfall, et. al.
Another one: Oh, come on. Do I have to think of everything around here?
There's supposedly some thousands of people who read rec.arts.comics.xbooks,
and every one of them should be able to come up with a unique way Rogue
could have shut Creed up, saved the Blues, and still come out with any
more dignity than she did in this howler. Those of you interested in
home assignments may consider this a challenge.
After this, there's nothing left but the weeping and the wounded. Creed
limps away, to froth again another day. Mystique supposedly sacrifices
herself into the raging, mountainous cataract that Mark Twain called the
Mississippi so Rogue won't have to make the hard decision of "Who to save?"
(The answer, as shown above, is so numbingly simple they could, possibly,
use this issue at dentist offices). Rogue and Kurt fly away, over the vast
countryside. Do they look for Mystique? Bodies float, you know. She could
be, you know, alive, or something. Just in case? Show some, you know,
emotion about their real or adoptive mother? Heck, no. They happily fly
away, knowing that in any comic this bad dead ain't dead unless it's the
plot. And look at the line Kurt gets at the end:
"I'm afraid it may be a long time before anything will be 'fine' again."
TRY and tell me that isn't ironic.
Evaluation: I am a man with a large vocabulary, even if I have trouble
spelling half of it. I have a rather rich and active descriptive powers. I
own four thesauruses, I have a collection of old dictionaries, and I don't
shirk at creating new words if somehow the ones I have in my arsenal aren't
enough. Despite being this well-prepared, I am forced to admit to an amazed,
awe-struck defeat when presented with X-Men Unlimited #4. There aren't
enough synonyms for shit to properly define the book to its true
wretchedness.
This isn't just bad. Friday the Thirteenth Part Six was bad. This isn't just
stupid. Johnny Storm waking up next to a Skrull was stupid. This isn't just
a hack job. Harry Stephen Keeler's "The Case of the 16 Beans" is a hack job.
X-Men Unlimited #4 is, without a doubt, perhaps one of the worst pieces of
anything I own. And I collect "bad" pop art. I relish the weird, the
unusual, the offbeat. I enjoy "disreputable" art forms, like pulp
detectives, comic books, popular science magazines. I have a collection of
_infomercials_ by my VCR for my viewing pleasure, for pity's sake. And X-Men
Unlimited #4 has nothing to recommend it. Nothing.
Not a bit of wit. Not a bit of whimsy. Not in writing, art, or editing. Not
in colors, composition, or design. Not in characters, plot, or dialogue.
I used to think Scott Lobdell was the best thing to happen to the X-titles
in a long while. Now, he's going to have to damn well write the Watchmen of
X-titles to win me back to his camp. This isn't an occasional slump, or a
hurried one-off. This is bad. Real bad. So bad you could fit large, bloated
mammals through the plot cracks. So bad that there ain't no excuses for it.
There is no plot. Flying down to the waterfalls of Mississippi to get
confusing retellings of your past is not a plot. The motivations, especially
with Forge's "Get-A-Clue" spymaster routine, are so terrible that even the
characters are complaining about them. The reason why that little saying,
"When the characters themselves are complaining..." usually works, is that
when a bad writer has himself written into a place which looks so ludicrous
that even he realizes the audience is going to go, "Yeah, right," it's just
natural for a character to speak up going "But why...?" so that whoever's
Mr. Exposition in the scene can quickly make up some flimsy excuse to the
effect of "No, really! The plot is _supposed_ to go like this!"
There was no human reason for Forge not to tell his operatives what to
expect going in. If he wants them to be effective -- heck, if he likes them
as friends -- he'd tell them himself. Hey, you just found out the identity
of one of your good friend's mother, who's been missing all these years. Do
you tell him yourself, or wait until a raving lunatic can hunt him down in
his assault helicopter and trust the lunatic to spill the beans? Yeah,
that's what I thought.
The climax isn't one -- anyone who's even picked up Rogue's entry in the
Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe can think up plenty of ways she
could have saved everyone. That makes what passes for the emotional
revelations at the end of the book, that Mystique only does anything just to
suit herself, even more false and bogus than it already is based on her
previous apperances.
Of course, given Unlimited #4's blithe disregard for previous appearances, I
guess we shouldn't be too picky, huh? Okay, fine. Take out the clumsy
retcons, assume all the flashbacks in Unlimited #4 took place as written,
and you still have a shoddy, unworkable, incomprehensible slug of a script.
Luckily, if turnabout is fair play, future Marvel writers will blithely
ignore Unlimited #4 as much as it did established continuity.
And I haven't even mentioned the art yet. Richard Bennett draws people who
apparently scrub their faces daily with steel wire mops. The action scenes
are cleverly made confusing enough that the pathetic script has no chance of
clueing the reader in to what is going on. It's muddled without being
stylistic, and terrible without being bad. In short, if you had to pick an
artistic job that matched Lobdell's efforts for Unlimited #4, you'd be hard
pressed to pick a better match than the stuff Bennett turned out.
And, believe it or not, as long as I'm here... yeah, I'm gonna do a Page
Count. Believe it or not. BTW, Unlimited #4 does not have numbered pages,
perhaps in a misguided attempt to protect the innocent. That's to no avail
-- I'll start at the beginning and count to the end, skipping advertisements
and not including them in the tally. Bring out yer dead!
THE PAGE COUNT
Page 2-3: It's a good thing Army training doesn't cover such dangerous
tactics as Getting Out Of Your Seat. Otherwise, Mystique could
have been in big trouble.
Page 4: Note that reference to a "grass roots movement". It will become
damning... uh, that is, important, later.
Page 7: I just noticed -- Unlimited #4 is remarkably clear of Lobdell's
usual oppresive captions. If this is what we get if he doesn't use
them, keep them in, man, keep them in!
Page 10: He lied! Oh, oh, hold my sides. The wit.
Pages 15-16: By Hastur, Bennett draws a needlessly cluttered page. The
familiar feeling at the back of Rogue's neck is hair, btw.
Page 17: Arlington graves don't look like that. While I'm here, is it out of
place to wonder about any sort of honor guard who would open up,
all with automatic weapons, in a place of honor and respect like
Arlington National Cemetary? Just wondering.
Page 18: Note Mystique's thought baloons. Did she plan this or didn't she?
She knew there'd be someone there to defuse the bomb, but she's
surprised to find Rogue there. Can't we get the plot contradictions
to at least take place on different pages?
Page 26: Wow, a private aircraft! Keen! Wait a minute. [Sounds of confused
paging through the issue] Didn't General Guadier call Friends of
Humanity a "grass roots" organization? Why, yes he did. And wasn't
there some big brouhaha a year back or so over large charities and
grass roots organizations siphoning their money away from their
charity/activist work to buy perks for their bosses? Why, yes there
was. Given this, what the hell is Creed doing running around in a
private _gunship_? If all of the FoH is in on the joke, then why
hasn't the rest of the world caught on? It's not like Creed's the
toughest guy to outsmart. Oh, I almost missed this killer piece of
dialogue: "Of course. I should have figured it out on my own."
Graydon. Pal. You still wear underwear with the left and right
legholes marked out for you. Don't strain yourself.
Page 38: "Ah don't get it. Never have... and Ah'm beginning to doubt Ah ever
will." Rogue, when anyone figures out Unlimited #4, we'll Fed-Ex
you the results.
Page 47: Graydon's so-called "scorched Earth" order is about as effective as
the rest of his plans. If Mystique really was thinking, she'd point
out that a far better thing to do, in a take-no-prisoners,
don't-worry-about-me type affair, especially when there's a
powerhouse like Rogue in the area, would be to launch a couple of
large air-to-surface missiles from a couple of klicks out, instead
of bothering with this "hover in the area and fire a machinegun"
nonsense. I hear white phosphorus is especially popular with grass
roots organizations nowadays, and a few high-explosive missiles
with the original anti-personnel vision deterrant would take out
the more mortal mutants in the area, and mess up Rogue bad enough
that you could close in with anti-mutant snark pistols and end it
right there. Boy, it's a good thing that a paramilitary grass roots
organization like the Friends of Humanity doesn't have anyone with
Boy Scout training to offer tactical advice, isn't it?
Page 48: If Rogue _did_ drag Creed back to D.C., would there be a chance
he'd be removed from the timestream in Zero Hour? I'd buy that
issue.
Rating: This book is without one single thing to recommend it. That trees
died to create this is a sin. That thinking beings supposedly worked
on producing it is shocking. That it was accepted by any editorial
staff capable of reading English is scandalous. The only reason to
buy this book is if, in so doing so, you deny yourself money that
would otherwise be spent on self-destructive habits like cocaine,
crack, or Magic: the Gathering. And it still would come very close
to a zero-sum tradeoff. Utterly the worst X-issue published since
the X-Odus. If there is a worse comic published by Marvel before the
end of the century, they are in deeper trouble than anyone realizes.
In short, I didn't like it much. And as soon as I think of a number
significantly negative enough to give it, I'll rate it.
"I have no comment. But, please, go hurt yourself." --Richard Darwin
David R. Henry
>>Maybe those letter writers can tell me where the waterfall is on the
>>lower Mississippi...
>
>You've got to be kidding me... I'm still rather repressing that issue
>as well, though not as vocally as some among us :-). But a waterfall
>on the lower Mississippi river-you've got to be kidding.
It's right there on page 50, X-Men Unlimited #4. View and be amazed. Marvel
at the audacity. Wonder at the whole wonkiness of it all. Take pictures,
sacrifice a few natives. Make a family outing of it.
>And people in Canada say their country gets mauled in Marvel comics :-)
North Dakota, at least, rarely figures in comic books.
M HEISLER
Mister Mustard) writes:
>But saying "I hate XXXX because he really screwed up Gamecock" *is*
substantive, it just isn't very articulate.
Okay, fair enough, but (and I guess I wasn't very clear on this)
distinctions made because of a writer's =style= are generally going to be
a bit more subjective than those made because of his =technique=. We also
have to take into account the broad age range of comic fandom represented
on these boards--I'd guess 15-40 to be a fair estimate--and realize that
there are probably quite a few people out there who dislike what a new
writer is doing simply because they =grew up= with the old writer...and
that makes their criticism even more subjective. That doesn't make what
they say invalid, but it does kind of =limit= its validity.
On the other hand, another facet of comics criticism I hadn't even touched
upon is analyzing how the separate disciplines work together in the final
piece. I find Lobdell's technique to be pretty solid in most instances
(although sometimes his mechanics creak a little bit), but most
importantly, rarely do I find his writing to be at odds with the art.
Several on these boards have declared their dislike for X-MEN UNLTD. #4,
but from my point-of-view, the pencilling, inking, lettering and coloring
on that issue were very sloppy and looked very rushed. I can't help
thinking that the story might have read a lot better if, say, the current
UNCANNY art and support team had worked on it instead. Would the same
revelations about the characters that disturbed so many still have been
part of the story? Yes, but they might have been presented in a manner
that would have made them a little easier to swallow. I can see several
instances in that issue where Lobdell was forced to convey in captions or
dialogue information that =should= have been present in the art. Enough
instances of that are going to hurt =anyone's= story.
I'll probably have more to say on this topic, but right now it's five in
the morning and I'm really tired...
Mike
Elmo's Sebum Comics
> Mississippi has large waterfalls which people can conveniently plummet into.
> paddlewheels made it from Ohio to New Orleans on his Mississippi.
Despite an otherwise accurate and amusing review, I fear I have to correct
you here. Ignoring the question of what part of Ohio the Mississippi River
runs through, we'll presume you meant the paddlewheelers took the Ohio
River from Ohio down to Cairo IL and took the Mississippi the rest of the
way to New Orleans.
There are falls on the Ohio River at Louisville (which at one point had
a minibrewery making "Falls City Beer"). There are locks to get around
them.
[Nonetheless, I agree that there are no waterfalls on the Mississippi in
MI or LA, and probably none at least as far north as St. Louis.]
--
"May all your good dreams and fine wishes come true."--Mike Jittlov
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Christopher Andrew Campbell
Um...Dave, you realize that in our recent quality/X-dino/newbie debate a
simple posting of this review, along with the words "'Nuff said," would be
sufficient to blow every single argument I had out of the water? You do
realize this, don't you? I originally looked through this issue and said,
"Bleh." I never read it in detail, because it seemed mediocre, which is
basically par for the course in any ongoing series. However, on learning
of the horrendous plot holes contained within this abomination my reaction
has changed to "Ewww..." I stand by my assertion that there are different
levels of quality, and that the type loved by the dinos is not necessarily
needed to make a comic perfectly enjoyable; I also stand by the assertion
that despite the great strides he made with the X-Men Claremont is still
only a decent writer with occasional moments of greatness, much like any
of a dozen others in the field today; but man, the X-titles need work...
badly. I give up. You win. :)
RIVAL
David R. Henry
>Despite an otherwise accurate and amusing review, I fear I have to correct
>you here. Ignoring the question of what part of Ohio the Mississippi River
>runs through, we'll presume you meant the paddlewheelers took the Ohio
>River from Ohio down to Cairo IL and took the Mississippi the rest of the
>way to New Orleans.
That is exactly what I meant. Pausing to say it would, as the say, have
ruined the tempo. Rogue's tree, from Uncanny #185, is somewhere between
Natchez and the northern border of Louisiana. Make of that what you will.
[Normal jeans] These are your pants.
[Bell bottoms] These are your pants on drugs. Now don't do them.
--Denis Leary
David R. Henry
>I give up. You win. :)
I knew you'd come to reason. Join me, my Davids! We assult, um, rec.pets.
cats at dawn!
Well, maybe. Have to find a map, first...
Alex Mystic Soto
>> Geez, what's all the fuss about? I thought all Unlimited X-men's
>> have been great, and although perhaps #1 and #2 are the best, the
>> others haven't been bad at all either. Have you looked at other
>> Unlimited's like FF for instance? If you want to see something
>> that sucks, whoot - there it is!
Kay> Sorry, but I don't buy the analogy. That's kinda like saying,
Kay> "Well, pig poop stinks worse than skunks, so skunks are
Kay> therefore more appealing." But skunks still smell bad! the
Kay> comparison is kind of a red herring (which incidently also don't
Kay> smell too great, but are better than skunks. But they still
Kay> stink.) When Unlimited X-men books start using deoderant,
Kay> that's when I'll start picking them up again.
Kay> There was some comments made about a few months ago (I believe
Kay> by drh) when Unlimited #5 came out that I think best sums it up.
Kay> If number 1 and 2 were good, number three was passable, and 4 &
Kay> 5 were ghastly, then Marvel is batting only 40% on the series,
Kay> and therefore it should be cancelled. It's not a direct quote,
Kay> but I don't think I massacred it too badly (did I?)
What about #6? You probably haven't read it though have you. Can
someone out there who thinks XU lately sucks like Mr. Green here give
their opinion on #6? I didn't think it was too bad. I kind of liked
the ending. The whole story is about Sauron in the Savage Land for
those of you who don't know.
Just to clear something up, I didn't think any of the XU issues
sucked. I didn't mean it to sound like I was comparing it to
something else that sucks more. I think all the XU's have been rather
well written, but maybe I'm not as picky as some people.
Oh well. Maybe next time will agree on something. :)
Max Hawk
Lobdell has come a long way and I feel he is getting better. He
hasn't been writing for too long and is pretty young, over time he can
only get better. One of his strong points is dialog, he been getting into
some really believable with the characters where I find myself thinking
"A person would really say that", where as Claremont would have
characters breaking into Shakespearian monologs about the angst of being
a mutant. Claremont might have been good with the X-Men at one time, but
after doing the same book for 16 years, he was in a big rut. His other
stuff I've read recently has been much better.
Alan Davis has also said that Scott kept Excalibur together as
much as he could when Claremont left it in the shambles it was, and
thanked Scott for at least giving him something to salvage.
Anyway, if we're going to bitch about bad writers, what about Tom
DeFalco? He's been writing for years and he's got to be one of the worst
writers out there. He has single-handedly dismantled the past event of
the FF with his stuff, and Thor just isn't the same as when Simmonson was
doing it. Let's talk about this guy who's had more than enough time to
improve and is awful, and then talk about Lobdell...
M HEISLER
Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>That's certainly a good and valid point, and I'm sure that some people
>that criticise Lobdell, or anything for that matter, are jumping on the
>bashing bandwagon d'jour. But that fact is often used to distort and
dismiss
>criticism.
I know. That's why I asked for more substantive criticism, that can't be
so easily dismissed; criticism that requires a little more from the critic
than simply stating that he "sucks".
>Well, you want specific criticism of Lobdell? Fine. He can't handle the
>characterization of established characters. He's thrown continuity to the
>wind. His writing isn't funny (strange from a stand up comic), and he
often
>sacrifices the plot and characterization for a joke that only amuses
>himself.
Actually, since the above is devoid of any reference to a specific story
or group of stories, none of it is specific criticism. But it's a step in
the right direction.
Mike
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>
>>I'm the person who inadvertently started this thread, and I *never*
>>thought that Claremont should have been replaced. Besides, that is
>>completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Lodbell is a
>>competent writer.
>
>True. But the direction that I was heading with my statement is that fan
>criticism is ofttimes also completely irrelevant. I heard years ago from
>many people both inside and outside the comics industry who believed that
>Claremont had grown stale and should be replaced...only to hear a lot of
>those same people, a few years later, moan and complain that Claremont got
>a raw deal from Marvel and that he should NEVER have been taken off of the
>X-Men. However, I didn't mean to imply that you (or any particular person
>involved in this thread) were one of those people, Robert.
That's certainly a good and valid point, and I'm sure that some people
that criticise Lobdell, or anything for that matter, are jumping on the
bashing bandwagon d'jour. But that fact is often used to distort and dismiss
criticism. For example, Tom DeFalco dismisses criticism of his current FF
run by claiming that the critics are against change and want to return
the book to the Lee/Kirby days.
>I guess what I'm saying is that while it's all fun and good to get on
>these boards and bash and insult someone who isn't around to defend
>himself (infer from that whatever meaning you like), it might be a good
>idea to consider backing up those insults with criticism that's a little
>more substantive.
Ooooooh. The gaunlet is thrown down. Well, perhaps the title of the
thread is a but much, but I've made every effort to avoid bashing
Lobdell personally. I don't know what he's like as a person. But I am
very critical of his work. If you think this is bashing and insulting, so
be it. Should I stop being critical of his work because he's not on racm?
Should I only criticise the work of PAD, Dan Vado, etc?
Well, you want specific criticism of Lobdell? Fine. He can't handle the
characterization of established characters. He's thrown continuity to the
wind. His writing isn't funny(strange from a stand up comic), and he often
sacrifices the plot and characterization for a joke that only amuses himself.
I don't know if that's criticizing his "style" or "technique" from your
point of view, but I don't think he's a good writer either way.
The Fatman
: North Dakota, at least, rarely figures in comic books.
waitasecond....you mean....North Dakota is a STATE?!??!!? GEEEEZ!!!
NOW it all makes sense!
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>I know. That's why I asked for more substantive criticism, that can't be
>so easily dismissed; criticism that requires a little more from the critic
>than simply stating that he "sucks".
You can change the subject line any time you want if you don't like it. I
would think that what's in the posts is quite a bit more substantive,
but apparently you disagree.
>>Well, you want specific criticism of Lobdell? Fine. He can't handle the
>>characterization of established characters. He's thrown continuity to the
>>wind. His writing isn't funny (strange from a stand up comic), and he
>often
>>sacrifices the plot and characterization for a joke that only amuses
>>himself.
>
>Actually, since the above is devoid of any reference to a specific story
>or group of stories, none of it is specific criticism. But it's a step in
>the right direction.
It is specific criticism, but not of a specific story. Besides, you ask a
vague question, you get a vague answer. If someone asks me "why
don't you like writer X?", I will give them general broad complaints
covering the body of work of writer X. If you want criticism of a
specific story, name a specific story. I have pointed to specific stories
in the past(Excalibur 40, for example) that I didn't like, and so have
others. If I start ripping apart story X, someone will say "well, that's
just an exception, the rest of his work is really good" or whatever.
Read the repost of the X-Men Unlimited 4 review. It was so funny I almost
fell out of my chair while reading it.
Tackey Chan
> Lobdell has come a long way and I feel he is getting better. He
>hasn't been writing for too long and is pretty young, over time he can
>only get better. One of his strong points is dialog, he been getting into
>some really believable with the characters where I find myself thinking
>"A person would really say that", where as Claremont would have
I have to agree. Lobdell has done a good job with the
dialogue. The problem that I find is that while the dialogue is good..
You really have to question is that dialogue correct with the
character that is saying it. This if a matter of opinion since I do
not know how much notice people see in reading dialogue in realation
to the character and the characters past.
>characters breaking into Shakespearian monologs about the angst of being
>a mutant. Claremont might have been good with the X-Men at one time, but
>after doing the same book for 16 years, he was in a big rut. His other
>stuff I've read recently has been much better.
I do not belive this at all. I know many people that have
jumped off the X-man at many different points of the comics
history. Most notatable is when Byrne left the book, when Madeline
Pryer came on the book and when the X-man "died" in Houston verse the
Adversary. People left the book when there was a major shake up. Each
shake up was becuase "it was stupid", "won't be the same" "Clairmont
was reaching at straws to revive the book." etc. etc.
We have reached that point when Lobdell came on the book again
since many of us have gotten use to Clairmont's style of writting.
I do not think that Clarimont was getting tired or he was in a
rut. The thing is that you could read the continuity of the characters
meshing the past issues to the present ones. Lobdell started to imput
his own history and changing characters disreguarding their past. Also
in trying to make the characters seem real, it does not mean
constant pain and suffering. Pain does not sell (unless it involves
mutulating Wolverine's healing factor again 8) ) since it becomes all too
common. Lobdell has no clue about writting the dramatic loss of a
character whether mainstream or minor. HE has made it some commonplace
that it can numb the reader about death, pain and suffering. And in
the proccess destroy a decade of character development by Clairmont.
> Alan Davis has also said that Scott kept Excalibur together as
>much as he could when Claremont left it in the shambles it was, and
>thanked Scott for at least giving him something to salvage.
I am surprised.
I do not think that Clairmont left in shambles but let Davis
do what he wanted with the book totally isolated from the otehr
X-books and most of Marvel universe. This is an emmense freedom that
is not found this much today with pre-made characters. This is my
impression anyways.
Lobdell's latest version of Cap Britian..I'm
sorry, Britainic and the complete make over on Meggan followed by
increasing the attitude of the teenage mutant ninja Shadowcat seems to
be signs of total break off from Davis's work. Excaliber has
completely been remaked over to be a X-book. Remember that at one
point after Davis left and Lobdell was going only to do a few issues
and a new creative team was going to come in? The new team was around for a
couple of issues. Then Lobdell returned completing the X-book
conversion.
All the fill-in issues that Lobdell did when Davis left the
first time were poorly conceived, done and created. I still cannot get
over the way he used Dr. Doom into a thrid rate villian and they way
he cured Nightcrawler of his teleporation problem. Other than the fact
he kept all the characters there is not much else to say.
If Lobdell really wanted to keep the team together and
continue Davis's work then he should have reduced his work load to one
or two books and told Bob Harris to screw himself in trying to make
Excaliber into a typical X-book (with controled plots and imposed on
crossovers).
> Anyway, if we're going to bitch about bad writers, what about Tom
>DeFalco? He's been writing for years and he's got to be one of the worst
>writers out there. He has single-handedly dismantled the past event of
>the FF with his stuff, and Thor just isn't the same as when Simmonson was
>doing it. Let's talk about this guy who's had more than enough time to
>improve and is awful, and then talk about Lobdell...
Well.. Now on to fresh meat so to speak...
Yup...DeFalco is definate worse than Lobdell. He destroyed the
Fantanstic Four. This comic has been so predicatble, full of redudent
repeating ideas and a even bigger reguard of the past than Lobdell
that well.. is there anything more that I can say.
Editors should only be writers or editors not both, since it
appears that they cannot do their jobs. Mark Gruenwald's Quasar, Bob
Harris's Advengers and DeFalco's F.F. are evidence of this.
The only reason I think we have not bashed them more is that
they down right suck.. Lobdell has shown glimmers of capability..
------TAC
David R. Henry
>hasn't been writing for too long and is pretty young, over time he can
>only get better.
You know, I've been hearing that for some time and, really, it's lost
its quaint, squelching appeal for me. Okay, so he probably means well.
Okay, so he hasn't been writing for that long. We should excuse that?
We should take that into account? I dunno. Consider these analogies:
"We're sorry, but the captain just died. Not to worry; Suzy Prentiss,
who's always wanted to fly a plane but never got around to it, will
take over for the rest of your flight. Don't worry, she'll do the best
she can."
"Howdy, friend. Looks like I get to be your surgeon today. Well, no,
actually, I really haven't been in med school that long. But I'm trying
to learn, y'know? Now, what part of your brain is bothering you?"
"And stepping in for Butterfield is Joe Fooble. Joe's watched a lot of
football games, and he thinks that should help him here in defending
the endzone in these crucial final minutes."
There's good intentions, and then there's performing professionally.
Uncanny X-Men is Marvel's main title -- not the flagship title (that
would be Fantastic Four or Amazing Spider-Men), but their main one;
which other one is used as the industry standard for numbers of copies
sold? Marvel knows the status Uncanny has. Marvel knows the importance
of it to their sales plan. Putting someone in charge of it who is not
capable of doing the job of keeping the title afloat is just silly.
So he hasn't been writing long. Get him on some other title where he
can learn his chops. So he means well. Everybody means well. So he
can write cute dialogue. Bill Clinton can play the sax. Claiming his
inexperience as a shield on a title as big as Uncanny X-Men is no
defense.
What, never?
No, never!
What, _never_?
Hardly ever!
--HMS Pinafore
M HEISLER
Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>Besides, you ask a vague question...
I didn't.
>If you want criticism of a specific story, name a specific story.
You called your comments "specific criticism", not me. You said Lobdell
is not funny, without providing examples of what you meant. You said he
ignored prior characterization, without mentioning which characters you
meant. You said he built scenes around a joke that only he would think
was funny, without giving any examples. That's what =I= call specific
criticism. I don't mean to bust your balls, but if you're going to post
entries in a thread titled "Lobdell sucks", I'd think it's in your own
best interests to post stuff that you can back up.
>If I start ripping apart story X, someone will say "well, that's just an
>exception, the rest of his work is really good" or whatever.
And for quite a few writers in comics, that would be a very valid defense.
No one turns out perfect work all the time. If you're trying to say that
some particularly bad story is indicative of some writer's general lack of
talent, then you should make that very clear in your statements, and not
simply hope that everyone will infer exactly what you mean.
I suppose what's bothering me about all this is that I've seen far too
many threads titled "such-and-such sucks", and most of these lend
themselves to participants who have nothing more substantial to say than,
"Yeah, such-and-such wrote that Wonder Goon ate a ball bearing sandwich,
when everyone knows that Wonder Goon only eats pistons! He SUCKS!" Pros
don't like to see that kind of thing, and I can't imagine that it speaks a
whole lot to fans either.
Mike
Robert Fernandez (ENG)
>I suppose what's bothering me about all this is that I've seen far too
>many threads titled "such-and-such sucks"
You, or anyone else(depending on the quality of their text editor), could
have changed the header at any time if it is so offensive. Now I've saved
you the trouble.
> but if you're going to post
>entries in a thread titled "Lobdell sucks", I'd think it's in your own
>best interests to post stuff that you can back up.
That's certainly true. I'm going out of town tomorrow. Hopefully, I'll be
able to get net access, but I'm not about to bring a box of Lobdell
comics with me. When I return, I'll see what I can come up with.
Meanwhile, I pointed out the review of X-Men Unlimited 4 as an example of
"specific criticism". I can e-mail it to you if you like, if the author
doesn't mind. I have the post saved in my unix folder.
M HEISLER
Fernandez (ENG)) writes:
>Meanwhile, I pointed out the review of X-Men Unlimited 4 as an example of
>"specific criticism". I can e-mail it to you if you like, if the author
>doesn't mind. I have the post saved in my unix folder.
That's okay--I've read it, and I'll admit it was right on the money. This
seems as good a place as any to point out that I hope I haven't suggested
to anyone that Lobdell is above criticism. That's hardly the case. I
just hate to see, as I've said, so many threads named after "sucking". It
reduces discussion to the level of a Beavis and Butt-head cartoon...and
given that Lobdell has access to these folders through AOL, there's an
additional element of tact to be considered. I don't think you'd be too
happy to sign on here and find a folder titled "Fernandez sucks", you
know?
Mike
Russ Allbery
Tackey Chan <t...@world.std.com> writes:
[Lots deleted, most of which I agree with.]
> Editors should only be writers or editors not both, since it
>appears that they cannot do their jobs. Mark Gruenwald's Quasar, Bob
>Harris's Advengers and DeFalco's F.F. are evidence of this.
Hey! Up until about issue #50, Mark Gruenwald's Quasar was one of my
favorite comics. It was interesting, included some good extensions to the
Marvel cosmology, and most importantly had believable characterization.
Admittedly, he suffered from a total breakdown around #50 and the rest of
the book was pathetic, but I still enjoy re-reading the first 50 issues.
A lot can be said just for the fact that he stuck with the book for its
entire run.
Other people have said that Gruenwald's Captain America was also very
good; I can't comment because I've never liked the character.
--
Eagle | Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns
Russ Allbery | And the round ocean and the living air,
r...@cs.stanford.edu | And the blue sky, and in the mind of man.
My opinions, not theirs | -- William Wordsworth