What happened to comics?? [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 02:10 AM

What happened to comics??
Nothing... I got mine on Wednesday! :D

What happened to the comics that I grew up with?
They evolved.

You have a multitude of different continuities
There have always been a multitude of continuities.

There's currently the Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Universe.

In the past there was the Marvel U and the New U. The Marvel U and the Heroes Reborn U and so on. It's nothing new really.

you have some extremely strange and sometimes just plain dumb plots and stories like Magneto being a character called Xorn but only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment later on.
Verses the amazing Clone saga (from 13 years ago) where you had the "Peter's really THE CLONE" only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment.

It just seems like as I'm trying to catch up on the years that I've missed so much has not only been changed, but has changed from writer to writer and back again.
Just like the stuff people wrote after Stan Lee stepped down changed from writer to writer and back again.

It's like nobody had control over the Marvel Universe during that time.
Quite the opposite!

Marvel went through bankruptcy around, oh, 13 years ago and came out with quite a different set of publishing ideals.

Plus it seems like Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence.
So... go read comics 13 years and older.

Or stick with stuff like Annihilation.

I've heard good things about the Civil War books, so that's going to be what I check out next, but I was really hoping for more.
... just a heads up...but "Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence"... pretty much sums up Civil War.

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 02:13 AM

Yes, I hate all them pesky high sale numbers!
:confused:
Yes... on such quality books as Spawn or Youngblood or McFarlane's Spidey or Brigade or the Heroes Reborn... ;)

The 90's had some good stuff... Starman, Age of Apocalypse, Preacher, Sandman, Next Men, Sin City, Waid's Captain America and so on.

Brad Barton

06-08-2007, 02:13 AM

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the 90's were horrible for comics.It isn't just you, I completely agree.

the 90's for comics were sort of like Big-budget action movies are for film. They had a lot of flair and bluster, but not much substance. And instead of drawing an audience through poignant storytelling, they did it through big names. (which is a large part of why the original Image line didn't make it; all style no substance.)

Nowadays comics are a little more involving. I almost want to liken them to soap operas (except not nearly as campy), in that the story is constantly twisting and turning, and no one ever stays dead. Plus, everything is told in storyarcs these days, the stand-alone issue is almost a thing of the past.

But if you liked them in the 90's, you should love them now. Since the ultimate line was released in the early 2000's the entire industry has really had to step up its game and give us some stories with real weight. Now thats not to say they're all good, but at least now it seems like they're trying.

rZi

06-08-2007, 02:33 AM

Every era has it's bad points....you say the 90's was good, 2 words...CLONE SAGA. And yes i believe marvel is far more gritty now but im enjoying that...i think if you look around hard enough you will find some good stories that you've missed in your break, it's always fun to read back issues!

xarathos

06-08-2007, 02:42 AM

I have to agree partially with this. New Avenger isn't exactly doing anything for me anymore. Spidey's a big mess. I don't even know what he's supposed to be anymore. Other what? X-men's still a good book, but why take away powers and destroy the concept of the book if you're going to give people their powers back?

They are less enjoyable. I don't see why they all have to be gritty. FF's not. It's alright, but just having Reed Richards say 'Sorry about the Thor Clone thing going haywire. Hey, atleast I didn't create Ultron, huh? :) Did anyone know who that giant guy was anyway? I didn't. Bye, folks.' Didn't quite do it for me.

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 03:09 AM

I have to agree partially with this. New Avenger isn't exactly doing anything for me anymore. Spidey's a big mess.
So... don't read what "isn't doing it for you anymore" and try other stuff.

Give Runaways a shot if you haven't or She-Hulk or Ms Marvel... none are gritty.

And Spidey's a mess? Have you been reading Friendly by PAD??? Best Spidey in ages.

jackolover

06-08-2007, 05:45 AM

What happened to the comics that I grew up with? I've recently had a resurgence of interest in comics, I hadn't made a comic book purchase for probably 13 years.

I suppose 13 years ago there was a world without any Ultimates, without any Spidergirl-universe, without any Marvel Adventures. There was this one MU, where all the classic heros held court in their own books, and the continuity was even.

Fast forward to 2007, and we've had a revolution. Have you heard the name Bill Jemas at all? Or Joe Quesada? Because if you are having any trouble with multi-continuities, then it's because these people thought that re-imaging the classic characters, in unfamiliar settings, would make the heros new again. There was also this time-shift Marvel Knights thing, where the heros did a leap of 6 months in continuity, and you got a new take on the character.

I can understand that if someone comes in late in the piece, that these changes are going to look a bit confusing , if you didn't experience them first hand. Then we have the MAX emblem, and thats a whole new writing experience, where you get everyone out of character. Each one of these multi-verses are rich unto themselves, and as long as you segregate them, continuity wise, you won't get confused. But you'll have to try each of the universes gently, and not all at once. Otherwise it's too much of a shock. Discover the genres at your own pace.

Did you know they rebooted Supermans origin in a thing called Birthright, then did a new approach to Supes as All-Star Superman? The companies (Marvel and DC) are having a real battle to attract new readers, and using multi-verses showcases their products in many different ways. Just pick one, (and your choice of Civil War is a good one), then see how it feels. The writing in both companies is at a Golden Level right now, so you are getting a good re-introduction to the game.

Ikaris

06-08-2007, 06:16 AM

We all have our favorite periods.

My favorite periods:
1. 1975 to around 1988 (primarily X-Men & the New mutants, but also other titles)
2. 2002 to present
3. 1961 to 1974
4. around 1989 to around 2001 (to me most comics in this period is a mess, but maybe it is because I didn't read comics in that period and has been trying to catch up on the era for my favorite titles.

seeso

06-08-2007, 11:31 AM

Yes, I hate all them pesky high sale numbers!
:confused:

Those high sales numbers were not a direct result of quality. Just because something sells well, does not mean it's any good.

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 11:47 AM

Those high sales numbers were not a direct result of quality. Just because something sells well, does not mean it's any good.

As proven by the fact Britney Spears has a career.

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 11:59 AM

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 12:04 PM

as bad as some stuff was (and it was bad), it was still at least fun, which is something I BELIEVE Marvel seems to have turned its back on.

Just made sure that was clear... because you made it sound like some decision by Marvel ;)

Lord_Archive

06-08-2007, 12:07 PM

Plus it seems like Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence.

Marvel has always been more about real, social commentary. They're the ones that acknowledged what mutant heroes would be treated like when the civil rights movement was hitting its peak when DC characters were being loved unconditionally by their respective worlds. In the short-term, Marvel has shown great moments of social intuition and presence in the comics industry.

In the long run, Marvel has shown they don't know that the hell they're doing. Oh sure, they have spurts of greatness from time to time, but they just never seem to learn from past mistakes. I don't think they have the ability to acknowledge what those mistakes are.

The main problem is that Marvel listens to whiny fanboys. Letting the customers run the business is like a government that gives in to terrorist demands. Once these toads figure out what they have to do to force a higher-up's hand they'll just keep tapping that resource like a four-year old getting away with a bad parent's negligence.

Now, typically this wouldn't be such a bad thing, but what no one seems to understand is that a comic storyline is a dynamic product involving dynamic characters and not a static product like a frying pan, or a ironing board, or a hat where one size will fit all. A comic has to constantly change or it risks literary stagnation like Family Circus and Garfield after 30+ years, or even worse, Ziggy, where nothing ever happens. But change never comes easily and the other problem is that not every fanboy wants the same thing. So Marvel, after attempting to show progress in their storylines, and finding inevitable failure in trying to please every whiny fanboy simultaneously, eventually retcons everything in some horrible storyline and puts everything back to the way it was. Status quo sans wisdom.

Then the whole mess starts over again. Status quo for a while. Status quo gets boring. Change the storyline. Oops, a bunch of whiny fanboys gets pissed. Insert terrible storyline to get back to status quo. Status quo for a while.

Then, after a few of these loops, the real problems start showing up. Continuity no longer makes sense, too many bad storylines start alienating the non-whiny fanboys and everyone starts remembering (which leads to more whining) older and better character incarnations (Look at the Hulk for a prime example of this crap).

Marvel needs to grow up. Not in terms of their storyline or their characters, but in how they handle their product. They need to stop rewriting their past. Reinterpretation pushes the boundaries, but its hit and miss and they need to learn what works and what doesn't work. Also they need to realize that if they go after a new audience, then they can't be afraid to lose the old audience - the alternative is Ultimates, Earth X, 2099, 1406, etc.

And where Marvel fails, DC is even worse. DC shot themselves in the foot from the word go and never let the wound heal. They didn't create characters, they created static icons and tried to build character over rigid frames.

"What? We have to waste another summer market rebooting the characters again? How did this happen?"

I wonder.

I've heard good things about the Civil War books

No. No you haven't. The only good thing that came from that is Spidey finally got rid of his useless secret identity.

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 12:11 PM

The main problem is that Marvel listens to whiny fanboys.
You haven't been following Civil War then have you?

No. No you haven't.
Sure he has!

I thought Civil War was great!

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 12:12 PM

Just made sure that was clear... because you made it sound like some decision by Marvel ;)

That's why I started out with "I think."

StoneGold

06-08-2007, 12:15 PM

On the subject of sales, the 90s bankrupted Marvel. There may have been high sales in the early 90s, but garbage sales in the late. So if we are looking at 10 years of time as being exactly the same...

Ryan Day

06-08-2007, 12:21 PM

it was still at least fun, which is something Marvel seems to have turned its back on.

It's the fans that turned their back on fun, not Marvel. Runaways, Nextwave, She-Hulk, Thing.. probably some others I can't think of right now.. had reputations for being fun books, and none of them sell terribly well. (Runaways is doing pretty good now that Whedon is on) Lots of people love the Marvel Adventures books for being fun, but no one buys them, either.

Regardless of what you think of the main line of books, that's what sells in the direct market right now.

niall mc cann

06-08-2007, 12:24 PM

StoneGold

06-08-2007, 12:25 PM

I think Marvel was better consistently in the 90s, to be honest, but Marvel's best stuff today blows away the best stuff from then. I think one of the differences was that, as bad as some stuff was (and it was bad), it was still at least fun, which is something Marvel seems to have turned its back on.

Fun? Sure, with books like PAD on X-Factor, but there's a reason why that was so good, and that was because every other single book was, and I quote, "mutant, mutant, angst, angst." Including non-mutie books. You had Sue Storm wearing stripper clothes, Black Knight in leather and stubble helping Crystal cheat on Pietro, Cap dying and wearing crappy armor, Punisher killing Nick Fury, the very concept of Terror, Inc... shall I go on?

Oh, and three words: Liefeld on X-Force.

StoneGold

06-08-2007, 12:27 PM

If you want something that's not gritty or dark, you can try She-Hulk. It's like nothing that was around in the nineties, though. It's top quality, though.

Are you saying that the current artist is better than early 90s Byrne or Bryan Hitch?

And as enjoyable as I've found the book, nothing stands up to those first 8 issues Byrne did. If anything, just for the Mile High ad.

jesse_custer

06-08-2007, 12:42 PM

The problem is that single- and two-issue stories have gone by the wayside. Marvel thinks that it needs countless issues to make a good story, when all you need is one or a couple. In a way, you're getting less for your dollar. Instead of paying under ten bucks for a story, you have to pay maybe more than $20 or $30 for one.

Also, I don't guess multiple-issue arcs would be bad if people knew how to do them correctly anymore.

What would be nice is if Marvel would fire a lot of its writers, call up Alan Moore, apologize profusely, and give him full creative control over a few books (X-Men would be really nice).

Lord_Archive

06-08-2007, 12:43 PM

You haven't been following Civil War then have you?

Enough to know that everything they changed will be retconned within the next several months. I believe they're already hinting at making Spider-man's identity a secret again.

Another Captain America will be created.. actually.. I wonder if Marvel will do the old Electric Superman thing and make a Red Captain America and a Blue Captain America (Red State, Blue State).

If they ever need Black Goliath again, he'll be resurrected without a second thought. Its a safe kill for now, just because Marvel can't seem to do anything good with black heroes right now.

The government registration thing wont make a difference in the coming years. It'll just give younger heroes another authority figure to rebel against until it becomes boring and Marvel just ignores it entirely.

As far as Iron Man goes, it look like Marvel is finally turning him into a villain after 30 years of tossing the idea out there through other storylines.

niall mc cann

06-08-2007, 12:44 PM

Are you saying that the current artist is better than early 90s Byrne or Bryan Hitch?

And as enjoyable as I've found the book, nothing stands up to those first 8 issues Byrne did. If anything, just for the Mile High ad.

I think Byrne's best days were gone by the early nineties, but no, i wasn't thinking of She-Hulk now-vs-then specifically.

StoneGold

06-08-2007, 12:48 PM

I think Byrne's best days were gone by the early nineties, but no, i wasn't thinking of She-Hulk now-vs-then specifically.

They were, but he did have one last creative burst in the early 90s. It wasn't until the mid-90s that he started to fall apart. Go read Next Men, you could literally see the quality in both story and art fall apart before your eyes.

Or go read She-Hulk, both the first 8 issues, and when Byrne came back to the book. Tell me there isn't a difference in quality.

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 12:50 PM

Then the whole mess starts over again. Status quo for a while. Status quo gets boring. Change the storyline. Oops, a bunch of whiny fanboys gets pissed. Insert terrible storyline to get back to status quo. Status quo for a while.

This isn't just a Marvel problem. It's an industry problem. Despite recent successes, the industry is still viewed as being on life-support, sustained solely by a long-term hardcore ("fanboys", as you call them") audience. These fans support the industry because they're invested in the characters--they'll be buying Superman next month come hell or high water.

Once in a while either company gets ambitious and takes a few risks to pull in the ever-elusive new readership. Both companies have done in a half-assed way by relying on hype and gimmicks instead of trying to engender real interest in their characters. When you're pursuing a segment of fans who have no invest in the characters, you're only going to sell comics as long as they're A) The "in" thing or B) Really superb stories, with more emphasis on A than B, since you can go to many sources for superb stories. After that, the publishers come crawling back to the tried-and-true hardcore audience (bring in the retcons, folks!)

Strannik

06-08-2007, 12:51 PM

Marvel has always been more about real, social commentary. They're the ones that acknowledged what mutant heroes would be treated like when the civil rights movement was hitting its peak when DC characters were being loved unconditionally by their respective worlds. In the short-term, Marvel has shown great moments of social intuition and presence in the comics industry.

In the long run, Marvel has shown they don't know that the hell they're doing. Oh sure, they have spurts of greatness from time to time, but they just never seem to learn from past mistakes. I don't think they have the ability to acknowledge what those mistakes are.

The main problem is that Marvel listens to whiny fanboys. Letting the customers run the business is like a government that gives in to terrorist demands. Once these toads figure out what they have to do to force a higher-up's hand they'll just keep tapping that resource like a four-year old getting away with a bad parent's negligence.

Now, typically this wouldn't be such a bad thing, but what no one seems to understand is that a comic storyline is a dynamic product involving dynamic characters and not a static product like a frying pan, or a ironing board, or a hat where one size will fit all. A comic has to constantly change or it risks literary stagnation like Family Circus and Garfield after 30+ years, or even worse, Ziggy, where nothing ever happens. But change never comes easily and the other problem is that not every fanboy wants the same thing. So Marvel, after attempting to show progress in their storylines, and finding inevitable failure in trying to please every whiny fanboy simultaneously, eventually retcons everything in some horrible storyline and puts everything back to the way it was. Status quo sans wisdom.

Then the whole mess starts over again. Status quo for a while. Status quo gets boring. Change the storyline. Oops, a bunch of whiny fanboys gets pissed. Insert terrible storyline to get back to status quo. Status quo for a while.

Then, after a few of these loops, the real problems start showing up. Continuity no longer makes sense, too many bad storylines start alienating the non-whiny fanboys and everyone starts remembering (which leads to more whining) older and better character incarnations (Look at the Hulk for a prime example of this crap).

Marvel needs to grow up. Not in terms of their storyline or their characters, but in how they handle their product. They need to stop rewriting their past. Reinterpretation pushes the boundaries, but its hit and miss and they need to learn what works and what doesn't work. Also they need to realize that if they go after a new audience, then they can't be afraid to lose the old audience - the alternative is Ultimates, Earth X, 2099, 1406, etc.

And where Marvel fails, DC is even worse. DC shot themselves in the foot from the word go and never let the wound heal. They didn't create characters, they created static icons and tried to build character over rigid frames.

"What? We have to waste another summer market rebooting the characters again? How did this happen?"

I wonder.

I agree with a significant portion of what you said, except I wouldn't blame the situation entirely on fanboys. For better or for worse, Marvel's vast library of characters is treated as source of potential licensing revenue first and foremost. Given that, they need characters that can be summed up in the nice, neat sales pitch, which, in turn, all but guarantees that they remain stagnant (for simplicity's sake).

For most of it's existence, Marvels' and DC's output came in disposable pamphlets that had a fairly limited shelf life. Because of this, comics operated under assumption that in order to maintain brand awareness, they must keep on publishing comics day in and day out until the end of time. The trade paperback boom has altered the equation - so long as the comic is collected, it has the same shelf life as an average book (potentially infinite). One of the greatest achievements of Marvel's ultimate line is that it can be read from the beginning to it's present point in it's entirety, which can't be said for DC's and Marvel's output (unless you're willing to invest a fortune in back issues).

What I'm trying to get at is that whereas before, DC and Marvel had an incentive to try to keep their characters in circulation for as long as possible, they don't really have to do it anymore. They can have complete story arcs that have beginning, middle and end. Those story arcs would still be there long after they are completed. There will be no need to reboot and revitalize and tinker because they won't have to keep stretching the concept beyond it's shelf life. Heck, they can even retire a concept for a period of time and return to it later, should they choose to.

Of course, so long as there's audience for single issues, comic book companies will continue publishing them. But as trade paperbacks and graphic novels continue to earn profits for decades to come while single issues would languish in storage bins, I suspect the stories those single issues will tell will shift accordingly. They will be more finite and more dynamic, instead of just, you know, padded.

That or we'll keep whining about the status quo for decades to come ;)

This isn't just a Marvel problem. It's an industry problem. Despite recent successes, the industry is still viewed as being on life-support, sustained solely by a long-term hardcore ("fanboys", as you call them") audience. These fans support the industry because they're invested in the characters--they'll be buying Superman next month come hell or high water.

Once in a while either company gets ambitious and takes a few risks to pull in the ever-elusive new readership. Both companies have done in a half-assed way by relying on hype and gimmicks instead of trying to engender real interest in their characters. When you're pursuing a segment of fans who have no invest in the characters, you're only going to sell comics as long as they're A) The "in" thing or B) Really superb stories, with more emphasis on A than B, since you can go to many sources for superb stories. After that, the publishers come crawling back to the tried-and-true hardcore audience (bring in the retcons, folks!)

And then there's that.

Come to think about it, another point I missed from my initial response was that changes are usually, well, half-arsed. I mean, how many changes comic book characters have undergone were truly progressive, worthwhile changes (Spider-Man's marriage, Dick Grayson abandoning the Robin identity, significant portion of PAD's Hulk run) as opposed to cosmetic changes (in this issue, X-Men get new costumes/powers/nemesis/red shirt casualty/etc)? Do to the factors outlined above, most of those changes fall into later camp. So much of DC's and Marvel's mainline continuties is composed of cosmetic alterations that ultimately add up to absolutely nothing. This sort of thing gives continuity a bad name - loads of trivia-obsessive rubbish that reinforce stagnation rather then meaningful developments that actually advance the stories and the characters.

*sigh*

GreatLakesAvenger

06-08-2007, 12:55 PM

Here are my two cents. Consider this an open letter to publishers:

A good publisher...

1. ...keeps dead characters dead. If Jean Grey goes down, she STAYS down. If you want to milk her name for cash later, do stuff like First Class and Hidden Years, exploring the real character that existed, but no retcons. Cap is okay to bring back, because it's a uniform, not an individual. But he's a major exception. If, for example, Hank McCoy bought it tomorrow, I'd be pissed, but in the same way I was pissed when Adriana died on the Sopranos. I'd just appreciate the stories surrounding the character even more.
2. ...is slow to introduce new heroes. I like New X-Men, but at first I got the impression that they were running out of ideas. You've already got plenty to work with. Example: in the 90's we meet Marrow, and we get yet another "Woe is me, I'll never be close to someone" story. It's been done already, with the Thing, Rogue, and others. Spidey's been on the newsstands for many, many years. That's just one guy, with the same old problems. For those of us who are familiar with his 40 plus year history, those problems might get old. But that's the great thing about Spidey. You want to attract new readers? No need to start them fresh with new characters and premises. Just plug them anywhere into Spidey's world. Keep the fresh, world-changing stuff in the miniseries. That might even drive more readers to the special events. Everyone wins.
3. ...is careful to pace the release of world-changing story arcs. DC currently is running Countdown at the same time as Amazons Attack! Marvel is giving us World War Hulk before we've had a chance to cool down from Civil War. Hey Marvel and DC: Don't worry about losing us faithful readers between major events; we'll be here. In the meantime, the slowing of action will give new readers a comfortable jumping-on point. Although it's a Silver Age cliche, I don't think I'd mind an occassional villain-of-the-month issue to show me that my favorite heroes still have a regular gig that only occassionally gets interrupted. If it's a matter of money, there's still plenty to be made in peripheral products. How's this for a rule of thumb: Two out of every three times you think of releasing a crossover, consider instead expanding your merchandising line, compliling a trade paperback or omnibus, or releasing a miniseries completely unrelated to the Marvel universe (Dark Tower: Gunslinger Born is a fine example that's been selling very well). I think someone's on the right track with Classics Illustrated. There's also plenty of room for indie-style drama/comedy, along the lines of American Splendor, Strangers in Paradise, etc. This could expand the non-hero loving reader base.
4. ...makes the differences between continuities easy for new readers to distinguish. Ultimate titles are a great example of this. Anyone can clearly see a difference between an Ultimate title and its 616 counterpart. This should be applied clear across the board. Maybe do something with that "M" in the upper left. RPG publishers do this well. You wanna play in the Forgotten Realms? Just pick anything up that says "Forgotten Realms."

There are some things I do love about the current Marvel system. I really appreciate the printing of "Story Blah Blah Blah, part X of Y" on the cover. This kept me out of Uncanny until the 12-parter just ended last month. Less confusion for me. This doesn't necessarily mean less sales for Marvel, though. If I missed a couple issues of a story I know I like, I know how far back to go when ordering back issues.

I also do think the Initiative has brought a very real-world concept to the Marvel universe. The idea of heroes being threatening as much as they are helpful was already explored in The Boys and Powers long before the events of Civil War were depicted in 616 titles (side note: If you don't read Powers, pick up the trades. They are spectacular). Also, as much as I think you can have too many heroes, Marvels' handling it very well in Avengers: Initiative. The difference between Av:In and New X-Men is that in Av:In only a handful of recruits' stories are being handled at a time, which give readers more time to become emotionally attached to each specific character.

Anyway, there you go. By the way, regarding 90's X-men: I'm currently trying to build an entire run of Adjectiveless back-issues, so I happened to be immersed in it right now. This is when art got very vibrant, but some things, like the multiple-font titles on the covers, are way too over-the-top. As for the stories and characters, eh, nothing beats the Claremont/Romita days.

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 12:56 PM

It's the fans that turned their back on fun, not Marvel. Runaways, Nextwave, She-Hulk, Thing.. probably some others I can't think of right now.. had reputations for being fun books, and none of them sell terribly well. (Runaways is doing pretty good now that Whedon is on) Lots of people love the Marvel Adventures books for being fun, but no one buys them, either.

Regardless of what you think of the main line of books, that's what sells in the direct market right now.

Maybe you're right. But I don't think Marvel has really pushed those books, either. They seem to have a very specific persona they want to represent in most of their books and it seems to be making a typical issue of a superhero comic read like an episode of Law and Order.

niall mc cann

06-08-2007, 01:02 PM

They were, but he did have one last creative burst in the early 90s. It wasn't until the mid-90s that he started to fall apart. Go read Next Men, you could literally see the quality in both story and art fall apart before your eyes.

Or go read She-Hulk, both the first 8 issues, and when Byrne came back to the book. Tell me there isn't a difference in quality.

I'm not doubting you, Byrne did great work in his day. I haven't read it, is all.

I was talking about the nineties as i recall them: an era where Scott Lobdell wrote Uncanny X-Men but called the shots for every book the company published, the decade where the Spidey writers couldn't decide whether or not Peter was a clone; the decade where Iron Man became a traitorous, amoral villain (remember when that happened?). Whereas today (or at least up to, say two, three years ago) there does seem more of a willingness to trust the writer and let a book be its own thing. There's good points and bad points to both eras.

I prefer the modern approach, however.

johnnystl34

06-08-2007, 01:03 PM

Yes, I hate all them pesky high sale numbers!
:confused:

The high sales because of the alternate, hologram, foil embossed cover. trading card included super rare first (and last) appearance of an obscure character in one of about 10 different "almost mainstream" publishing companies (i.e. Malibu and Valiant) that every chump with 10 bucks went out and bought because of the hype of making a few bones in the future? You mean those high sales? Or the super x-over of every companies characters even including making a new character out of 2 pre-existing ones? Oh oh, what about the "milestone" comics DC tried to put out? Let's call a spade a spade and say, "comics that appeal to black kids." Hell, Nova had a mullet!! The 90's rocked harder than Ace of Base.

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 01:03 PM

Fun? Sure, with books like PAD on X-Factor, but there's a reason why that was so good, and that was because every other single book was, and I quote, "mutant, mutant, angst, angst." Including non-mutie books. You had Sue Storm wearing stripper clothes, Black Knight in leather and stubble helping Crystal cheat on Pietro, Cap dying and wearing crappy armor, Punisher killing Nick Fury, the very concept of Terror, Inc... shall I go on?

Oh, and three words: Liefeld on X-Force.

There was grit, sure, but it was still fun. When I say "fun", I'm not talking about bright colors and singing trees--you can have gravity and still have wonder, fantasy and action. Comicbooks are not where I turn for straight-up drama.

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 01:06 PM

Go read Next Men, you could literally see the quality in both story and art fall apart before your eyes.
I know what you mean... it was such a great book to start with and then fell apart.

Wasn't there an actual reason though? Legal issues or a divorce or something?

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 01:12 PM

Ryan Day

06-08-2007, 03:53 PM

Maybe you're right. But I don't think Marvel has really pushed those books, either. They seem to have a very specific persona they want to represent in most of their books and it seems to be making a typical issue of a superhero comic read like an episode of Law and Order.

You're right, to a certain extent: Marvel is much more likely to experiment with the B- and C-level books.

But you know, one thing that Marvel & DC have proven over the last few years is that they're suckers for a trend. If they had any evidence that "fun" books were significant sellers, they'd be all over it.

Quesada mentioned an interesting example a couple years ago, in relation to Spider-Girl. Someone asked him at a convention why Marvel didn't support the book more. Quesada asked the audience if there was anyone who hadn't heard of the book, or who didn't know what it was about, or who hadn't heard good things about it. There was no one - people knew all about the book. They just didn't buy it.

Part of it's habit - it seems like many fans would rather read a bad book about their favourite character than good book about someone else. But the other part is that, ultimately, the fans want what they want, and buy what they want. And Marvel is lightning quick to publish a book if they think there's any demand for it.

Camron Amaya

06-08-2007, 04:29 PM

niall mc cann

06-08-2007, 04:43 PM

Let me put it this way. People who don't like comics, are turned into fans MUCH EASIER with today's comics then any MARVEL comic from the 90's. At least people I know. Personly I despise 80% of the style from the 90's. ALot of the art was so annoying and bad to me. Someone already said what it felt like. Big corny action flicks with big explosions and effects but no story, and then 10 years later you look back and think omfg that was corny. Like a Van Damme or Chuck Norris movie.

Yeah, you said it.

I loved that stuff at the time, but i was 13/14 years old. By the time i was 18, i was reading Sandman and i discovered Watchmen. There's a reason i reread those books and not, say, Fatal Attractions.

The books i was reading back then (X-Men, Spidey) were what got me into comics. I don't dismiss them entirely - there were some bits and pieces in there that were good, and that i can still read and enjoy, but most of it just doesn't hold up. It's overblown in a painfully adolescent way that was impressive to an impressionable 13 year old, but doesn't hold up to an adult inspection.

Now, there's a lot of rubbish still coming out, but i think the hit rate for Marvel today is considerably higher than it was in the days when i got into comics.

Black Atom

06-08-2007, 06:02 PM

You're right, to a certain extent: Marvel is much more likely to experiment with the B- and C-level books.

But you know, one thing that Marvel & DC have proven over the last few years is that they're suckers for a trend. If they had any evidence that "fun" books were significant sellers, they'd be all over it.

Quesada mentioned an interesting example a couple years ago, in relation to Spider-Girl. Someone asked him at a convention why Marvel didn't support the book more. Quesada asked the audience if there was anyone who hadn't heard of the book, or who didn't know what it was about, or who hadn't heard good things about it. There was no one - people knew all about the book. They just didn't buy it.

Part of it's habit - it seems like many fans would rather read a bad book about their favourite character than good book about someone else. But the other part is that, ultimately, the fans want what they want, and buy what they want. And Marvel is lightning quick to publish a book if they think there's any demand for it.

Well, there's a couple of factors there, I think. A big part of it is how creator-driven the market is. People follow creators now more than ever, especially non-traditional fans and Marvel's really pimping certain guys on their line-up. So I don't know if it's a certain type of story fans are following, but certain creators who do certain types of stories. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but you can tell which books are important by who gets to write them. The character are becoming more and more incidental. Put Cho on She-Hulk and get the Marvel hype machine behind it and I'd bet people would gobble it up. So, yeah, while there's definite fan influence, Marvel's shaping a lot of that.

Dusty.

06-08-2007, 06:45 PM

Just made sure that was clear... because you made it sound like some decision by Marvel ;)

Why don't you worry about adding I BELIEVE to your own posts, because you're being a hypocrite.

Monty_Cristo

06-08-2007, 06:57 PM

The Shadow

06-08-2007, 07:37 PM

Why don't you worry about adding I BELIEVE to your own posts, because you're being a hypocrite.

Thanks for playing Dusty!

:rolleyes:

Badfish40oz

06-08-2007, 07:44 PM

I'm usually tired of all the gritty/cynical crap that's popular these days I'm actually enjoying it in Marvel.

The reason being, IMO, the fact that the old Marvel is still shining in there somewhere. Yeah, you had Civil War with hero vs hero and it was gritty and dark but you still had Captain America to look up to. The part (I think it was actually in Amazing Spiderman) where he's telling Spidey about his stance and pretty much sums up in a few short paragraphs why his side was right . . awesome.

Not to mention the fact that this whole "ooooooh how dark and gritty" world is about to get a nice visit from a very angry old school green Marvel character.

Siddon

06-08-2007, 09:37 PM

Brad Barton

06-08-2007, 10:30 PM

Well I think comics have 5 year turns 80-85 was great(comics got very dark), 90-95 was great (everything got big), 00-05 was great(it became more about writing/genre) then you get the expansion and the fans leave comics for a new EIC and direction for the company.

Good observation, I agree with the 5-year stints between '80-'85 and '00-'05, but I think the other 5-year period would be '88-'92, after that Image took over and started selling bazillions of copies of the same played out, Big-artist-but-horrible-story titls that were really a huge part of the reason the comic-market went bust in the late 90's.....The market was saturated with mediocre comic-books, and as with any medium, when the work gets mediocre, you lose fans.

I always said that Image brought down comic-books. Its kind of funny, in the mid 90's the Image line had hit somewhat of a plateau and was on the downslope, and what was Marvel's best idea to take advantage of this?...to give the Image people all of their best titles to f--k up as well, which they subsequently did.

Lord_Archive

06-09-2007, 12:27 AM

I agree with a significant portion of what you said, except I wouldn't blame the situation entirely on fanboys. For better or for worse, Marvel's vast library of characters is treated as source of potential licensing revenue first and foremost. Given that, they need characters that can be summed up in the nice, neat sales pitch, which, in turn, all but guarantees that they remain stagnant (for simplicity's sake).

I didn't say it was ALL the fanboy's fault, its just a major problem. Marvel has gotten better in that when I was still collecting Spider-man, at least they weren't printing letters anymore.

I agree there's a level of iconic simplicity that just makes things easier, but again I have to believe that's just short-term thinking. Also the iconic nature of Marvel Characters exists solely in their origins and their immediate backgrounds and it really shouldn't have anything to do with extended characterization later on down the line. If they can sell the character based on the origin and the environment, then they can expand after the idea is sold.

One of the other major problems is just bad storytelling. I can't remember the last time Marvel told an extended storyline that did anything really special or didn't lead to eventual retconning (Civil War was garbage - The spoofs on Tetsubo Productions made short work of that). Pushing comics in the wrong direction just to see how far they can go. Its like the graphic designer who gets pissed off working as a slave at a newspaper before he inserts a vulgarity or two in the ads section because he can't deal with it anymore.

Another problem is that the mainstream doesn't take the medium seriously. This lack of respect is why its so difficult to find a good comic book movie. I mean, granted, Hollywood barely respects mainstream source material, but what they do with comic books is just asinine. It ends up taking someone like Robert Rodriguez quitting the Director's Guild to show Frank Miller some respect. Of course DC films get better treatment in films but only because WB is part of the same conglomerate and its in their best interest to treat other subsidiaries with a basic respect. Other companies just throw whatever they puke up onto celluloid and somehow believe that it'll drag a $400 million box office figure out of the fanbase.

But the mess just keeps spiraling out of control and each problem latches on and feeds off the other problems.

xarathos

06-09-2007, 01:08 AM

Those high sales numbers were not a direct result of quality. Just because something sells well, does not mean it's any good.

I don't think all the writing today at Marvel is really that great. I never bought people starting up riots for little reason. Right after House of M, there's less mutants in the world (not a great idea to begin with) then theres a bombing then later on the Human Torch was apparently beaten up by a mob or something. I don't think the Human Torch would even come back to the team after that. No way would that happen.

JMS is the worst Spider-man writer of all time. Just imagine Unmasking with Michelinie and Tom Defalco. IT would be the event it should of been. They actually thought about doing that, by the way. Spidey's sales continue to decline. Why didn't they do that instead of 7 more months of CW?

I know a lot of people see quality in CW, but Millar just couldn't hand the series. He would go from A to E in the story and leave out B,C, and D which make 'E' believable.

Hulk seems the only intersting thing going on right now from what I've read.

Cyprusg

06-09-2007, 01:17 AM

Verses the amazing Clone saga (from 13 years ago) where you had the "Peter's really THE CLONE" only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment.

Clone Saga was actually after my time, when I said 13 years really I bought comics less and less for probably 2 or 3 years before that.

Someone asked what comics appealed to me at that time and some that come to mind were Uncanny X-men, particularly from issues I believe 250 to 280. It's always been pretty damn good but there were a couple years that in my mind were phenomenal. In fact I just read issues 274 to 277 last night and they still blow me away. (Yes it dealt with the Skrull clones but it was done in a great way...normally Clone plots are weak) I was also really into Silver Surfer, Captain America, and Punisher.

It's all about the story, I don't think Marvel needs more character reboots or retcons , the characters in Marvel have such a rich history that I absolutely can't stand when it's messed with. One that comes to mind is the change in Captain America's super soldier serum, taking it away from a steroid type drug to some type of virus. It was fine the way it was don't screw with it. I HATE when they do that.

The Shadow

06-09-2007, 04:49 AM

I don't think all the writing today at Marvel is really that great/snip/Hulk seems the only intersting thing going on right now from what I've read.

Just curious but how many Marvel comics are you reading at the moment besides Hulk?

phantom1592

06-09-2007, 05:37 AM

When was the Heroes Reborn? 1996? If so a year or two leading up to that was absolute crap. Cap wore the armor, Iron man was evil... again, Thor was depowered and shirtless, Spidey was a clone etc.

HOWEVER

A little before THAT was my favorite time in comics. Spiderman was Solid, without the need for new powers or origins, New Warriors were just starting, Darkhawk was head and shoulders my favorite character, Daredevil was taking down the Kingpin. Captain America was in a golden run, the midnight sons were taking off. X-men blue and gold teams. I was probably collecting 15-20 books a month.

Right now I think I'm down to what.... Daredevil, Green Lantern, Lone Ranger, Buffy, Astonishing X-men, Ulitimate Spiderman?

That's really depressing.
I've been collecting longer than I can remember, and just this last year I've discovered a sad new feeling. I'm actually getting BORED with comics. Never thought I could say that. It seems like EVERYTHING is getting Dark and Gritty. Your actually depressed after reading one. There is no such thing as a deadline anymore. When the book finally gets here its so decompressed that it feels like nothing happened. Then you have to wait another two or so months to do it all over again.

And to top it all off, they're MORE EXPENSIVE!

Say what you want about the foil covers and Holograms, but for $2.99+ I was getting a book that looked cool enough to hang on a wall in a frame :)

As for not buying "fun" comics like She-hulk, runaways and Spider-girl.... Its because I don't like She-hulk or Spidergirl. I'm not interested in reading about them. I tried Runaways, don't see what people like about them. My favorite part was seeing Darkhawk again, but he was just a guest star.

I like Spiderman, Captain America, Daredevil, etc. I want THEM to be fun. Not a bunch of characters I don't want to read. I can't afford to collect books I don't want to read just to support a genre :rolleyes:

niall mc cann

06-09-2007, 08:19 AM

Clone Saga was actually after my time, when I said 13 years really I bought comics less and less for probably 2 or 3 years before that.

Someone asked what comics appealed to me at that time and some that come to mind were Uncanny X-men, particularly from issues I believe 250 to 280. It's always been pretty damn good but there were a couple years that in my mind were phenomenal. In fact I just read issues 274 to 277 last night and they still blow me away. (Yes it dealt with the Skrull clones but it was done in a great way...normally Clone plots are weak) I was also really into Silver Surfer, Captain America, and Punisher.

That's the heartland of Lee/Claremont X-men, all right. Great stuff that still holds up, imo.

There's a kind of irony in your post, however, in that if you were to go and pick up some recent trades of your favourite characters (Whedon's X-Men, Ennis' Punisher, Brubaker's Cap and Silver Surfer was a major character in Annihiliation, which was fun cosmic hero stuff) you'd find those characters are enjoying pretty solid periods again (frankly, Ennis's Punisher is the best vision of the character ever, imo, though i was never much of a fan of the old Romita Jr era Frank).

You don't have to read Civil War. A friend of mine leant me it, and i didn't like it. To work it relied on certain characters (Tony and Reed, specifically) behaving in seriously ooc ways. I didn't read it. I liked the idea, but felt the execution was handled terribly, so i steered clear. If you feel its too dark and gritty, there's no reason to read it.

Erebus

06-09-2007, 09:40 AM

Just ignore Grant Morrison's X-Men. He's a fantastic writer for DC, but I'm pretty sure he was on drugs when he went to Marvel.

jesse_custer

06-09-2007, 10:08 AM

Many of you are lamenting how ridiculously dark and gritty comics have become. Isn't that what Frank Miller addressed in The Dark Knight Strikes Again?

Brad Barton

06-09-2007, 10:11 AM

Many of you are lamenting how ridiculously dark and gritty comics have become. Isn't that what Frank Miller addressed in The Dark Knight Strikes Again?

Pretty much.

It's not as if this "gritty" thing is anything new. After TDKR pretty much every hero at Marvel or DC took the "grim and gritty" path for awhile.

I'm pretty sure Aunt May went goth for a few months in '88.

HeckBoy

06-09-2007, 10:47 AM

Thanks to when I was born, I'm a product of 90s comics readership, so despite all the grit and angst and shoulderpads and jackets and stuff, I'm still partial to that era. However, looking back, I can see that a lot of the stories really were blah and the art was really derivative with big muscles, guns, anti-heroes being drawn every which way. I like how Marvel is dusting off and polishing some of their older properties (Iron Fist anyone?) and breathing in some new life into their staple series (like Captain America) nowadays. But they're still prone to churn out some over-hyped, mediocre stuff, so I'd have to withhold judgment until a later time.

ultramandingo

06-09-2007, 11:30 AM

..... lucky for me , i started reading/shoplifting marvel when you got bryne n' austin on xmen , miller on dd . didnt pick up anything in the 90s , and only came back to marvel when they started swipeing writers from dc /vertigo .
that image era stuff gives me the hee be gee-bees (sp?)

pc999

06-09-2007, 04:56 PM

What happened to the comics that I grew up with? I've recently had a resurgence of interest in comics, I hadn't made a comic book purchase for probably 13 years. I realize 13 years is a long time, but what the heck happened to Marvel? It all seems to be one big giant mess right now. You have a multitude of different continuities, you have some extremely strange and sometimes just plain dumb plots and stories like Magneto being a character called Xorn but only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment later on. It just seems like as I'm trying to catch up on the years that I've missed so much has not only been changed, but has changed from writer to writer and back again. It's like nobody had control over the Marvel Universe during that time.

Plus it seems like Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence.

I've heard good things about the Civil War books, so that's going to be what I check out next, but I was really hoping for more.

Being in the exact same situation a few months ago I did felt the same and I do agree that many of the things that made comics great in the 90s had just disapeared (eg the sense of family in X-men) and the universe as a whole is just much more confusing (specially X-men).

Anyway I do advice you to ewad some more independt books that, for me at least, still have the "old feling", my sugestions are: Immortal Iron Fist, New and Mighty Avengers, Runaways, Captain America and Daredevil. Also those books does not tie in so much to the MU and/or other books and its continuity is much more simple. Check also the (adjectiveless) X-men and for more Chris Claremont NewExcalibur or Exiles.

Also Wikipedia, Marveldatabase.com, Marvel.com/universe is good to check continuity.

I also miss the 90s comics, overall they are much better, still there is a few good gems here.

Strannik

06-09-2007, 05:14 PM

I like Spiderman, Captain America, Daredevil, etc. I want THEM to be fun. Not a bunch of characters I don't want to read. I can't afford to collect books I don't want to read just to support a genre :rolleyes:

Forgive me for being a smart-alec for a moment, but Daredevil hasn't been "fun" since the early 80s, and, IMNSHO, he's better off for it. He went from being a fairly bland to remarkably multi-dimensional character who you could actually care about. Heck, I would do so far as to say that he's one of the best characters in the mainline Marvel Universe.

Spider-Man practically pioneered the whole superhero angst thing. While the guy's got a healthy sense of humor, but he's also got plenty of pathos and plenty of reasons to be depressed. The character works best when you combine humor and angst in equal doses. While an unyieldingly angsty Spider-Man gets tiresome after a while, playing his solely as the fun character ignores the thing that made him so popular and so compelling in the first place.

As for Captain America, I don't really care about the character one way or another. For one thing, I'm not an American, so I am not invested in what he's supposed to represent. I think any attempt to make him interesting inadvertently conflicts with the whole "I'm the embodiment of American ideal" shtick, which ultimately traps him in mediocrity. so *shrugs*

Finally, I am puzzled by your bemoaning of the fact that you can't read about fun characters you like. You most certainly can - pick up your old comic books, your Essentials collections, etc. Just because something isn't published right now, right this second doesn't mean it suddenly ceases to exist.

niall mc cann

06-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Just ignore Grant Morrison's X-Men. He's a fantastic writer for DC, but I'm pretty sure he was on drugs when he went to Marvel.

Drugs, eh? Grant Morrison? Whatever makes you think that?:confused:

He did do some great work for marvel. Skrull Kill Krew was fun, and Marvel Boy's a downright masterpiece.

Strannik

06-10-2007, 01:50 PM

I agree there's a level of iconic simplicity that just makes things easier, but again I have to believe that's just short-term thinking. Also the iconic nature of Marvel Characters exists solely in their origins and their immediate backgrounds and it really shouldn't have anything to do with extended characterization later on down the line. If they can sell the character based on the origin and the environment, then they can expand after the idea is sold.

They could. However, as I said before, comic book companies' publishing plan are still very much founded on the publication of periodicals, which, as I explained in my earlier post, leads them to the assumption that they must keep their characters in circulation forever and ever in order to maintain brand awareness and to continue to generate profit. The advent of trade paperback market has altered that, as it's existence make it possible to keep the stories in circulation for years, even decades after their initial publication, making it possible for companies to continue making profit long after the stories were originally published. Properties like Watchmen and Sandman, for example, continue to earn profits year after year. However, most of the market has not truly grasped the implications of this paradigm shift. On the long run, trades earn more profit then periodicals - however, so long as periodicals continue to make money, comic book companies have no real incentive to discontinue their publication (though, I suspect that should direct market suddenly collapse, this would change rather quickly. After all, if it wasn't for direct market, most companies would've been out of business by the late 80s, what with newstand sales plummeting and all).

One of the other major problems is just bad storytelling. I can't remember the last time Marvel told an extended storyline that did anything really special or didn't lead to eventual retconning (Civil War was garbage - The spoofs on Tetsubo Productions made short work of that). Pushing comics in the wrong direction just to see how far they can go. Its like the graphic designer who gets pissed off working as a slave at a newspaper before he inserts a vulgarity or two in the ads section because he can't deal with it anymore.

While I don't share your opinion on Civil War, I agree with the crux of your statement - there is a desperate shortage of true, meaningful changes. As I noted in the earlier post, neither Marvel nor DC can allow themselves to create narrative arcs for their characters, since their business model is based on continuous exploitation of their properties. The problem is, of course, that keeping everything the same leads to readers loosing interest. All that half-baked, marginally shocking stuff allows them to sustain reader interest without committing themselves to meaningful changes. As I noted before, this is a flawed model - the advent of trade paperback market, as well as the increasing fan internet presence ensures that all this meaningless backwater continues to accumulate rather then recede from the readers' memories as it did when comic book story lines were serialized in disposable periodicals. This, in turn, facilitates the illusion of the narrative arc (readers can follow characters' adventures over a few decades, or, in case of the Ultimate line, from the getgo) while denying the readers' a pay-off those sorts of arcs should entail. In the coming decades,this problem will become increasingly apperant, and it would probably cause long-term decline in TPB sales - why follow a character if there's never going to be any true development or pay-off? However, at this point, the comic book companies continue to make profit from periodicals and trade paperbacks alike, which gives them no incentive to change their business model.

Another problem is that the mainstream doesn't take the medium seriously. This lack of respect is why its so difficult to find a good comic book movie. I mean, granted, Hollywood barely respects mainstream source material, but what they do with comic books is just asinine. It ends up taking someone like Robert Rodriguez quitting the Director's Guild to show Frank Miller some respect. Of course DC films get better treatment in films but only because WB is part of the same conglomerate and its in their best interest to treat other subsidiaries with a basic respect. Other companies just throw whatever they puke up onto celluloid and somehow believe that it'll drag a $400 million box office figure out of the fanbase.

I honestly don't think that's really much of an issue anymore. Over the past few years Hollywood has embraced comics (be they mainstream or independent) as a potential source of adaptations. We've seen various properties given serious treatment and serious investment. These past few years has seen some of the best comics-based movies to ever grace the big screen. Sure, there were a few stinkers, but that doesn't really prove that Hollywood is somehow prejudiced against comic book based films. Or do you mean to tell me that all the crappy adaptations of various novels mean that Hollywood doesn't respect the novels as a medium?

As for the whole Sin City situation, it had nothing to do with Hollywood "respecting" Frank Miller. Rather, it was due to the fact that having a non-Guild member co-direct with a Guild member was against Guild rules (or something to that effect).

Hombre

06-11-2007, 03:59 AM

Finally, I am puzzled by your bemoaning of the fact that you can't read about fun characters you like. You most certainly can - pick up your old comic books, your Essentials collections, etc. Just because something isn't published right now, right this second doesn't mean it suddenly ceases to exist.

Right... comic books operate in pure Tralfamadorian fashion: you can jump back and forth in time and all moments exist at the same time.

I'm not sure that it is something to be taken for granted but, at any rate, the fact is that Marvel regularly publishes reprints of its older comics in various formats.

My favorite of these are in fact the Essentials. You get a very high page count there, at a reasonable price, and there is a large and constantly increasing number of volumes avaliable. What you get there are stories from the 60s, 70s and 80s that bring to a contemporary readership the work of people that brought the best out of Marvel's beloved characters, and of some that aren't so beloved anymore. Did Gerry Conway and Steve Gerber really write Daredevil as lighthearted comedy back in the early 70s? What was Archie Goodwin's take on Wolverine in the late 80s? What was Len Wein's idea of a fun and engaging Spider Man comic? It's a whole different world to discover, and a chance to experience ideas and values and forms of expression for the medium that, while not necessarily better or worse, were very different from today, and for that alone should prove very interesting.

As for the question whether Marvel is better now or ten years ago... I was reading Marvel in the 90s, and I thought a lot of comics were fun, some were brilliant, and some very bad, though not the ones others would identify as such, probably.

All in all, I think the 90s were worse for them than the previous decades. But, even though I don't care for any of their new comics and truly disliked a lot of what I did read in the last few years, I'm still very much a passionate reader of Marvel circa 1961-2003. That's a lot of comics and a lot of love... and unless one is blessed with 48hr days, I think it's more than enough fun, relaxation and occasional inspiration to last a lifetime.

Hombre

06-11-2007, 04:25 AM

So... don't read what "isn't doing it for you anymore" and try other stuff.

Give Runaways a shot if you haven't or She-Hulk or Ms Marvel... none are gritty.

And Spidey's a mess? Have you been reading Friendly by PAD??? Best Spidey in ages.

One title that I was reading and was still a pretty good comic all around when I stopped collecting it about a year ago was Cable and Deadpool, Fabian Nicieza seemed to be doing good work there.

Badboy_Beavz

06-11-2007, 04:25 AM

90's...Jesus all i can think of is Liefeld polluting the industry. New Mutants, Cap with his terrible proportions in '96. I still can't get over those fucking ankles...

Hombre

06-11-2007, 04:31 AM

phantom1592

06-11-2007, 03:12 PM

Forgive me for being a smart-alec for a moment, but Daredevil hasn't been "fun" since the early 80s, and, IMNSHO, he's better off for it. He went from being a fairly bland to remarkably multi-dimensional character who you could actually care about. Heck, I would do so far as to say that he's one of the best characters in the mainline Marvel Universe..

Forgiven :)

I think we have a different definition of Fun. I considered Daredevil fun up till Bendis took over, with the exeption of the black armor period. It wasn't all lighthearted, but it WAS fun to read. When Bendis took over Murdock spent WAY too much time sitting in his dark office afraid to go outside. He started hiring Luke Cage to do any physical work. Sadly this went on for YEARS. Thankfully Brubaker is making it fun again.

Spider-Man practically pioneered the whole superhero angst thing. While the guy's got a healthy sense of humor, but he's also got plenty of pathos and plenty of reasons to be depressed. The character works best when you combine humor and angst in equal doses. While an unyieldingly angsty Spider-Man gets tiresome after a while, playing his solely as the fun character ignores the thing that made him so popular and so compelling in the first place.
..

Bahhh Spidey never had a reason to be depressed. He has superamazing powers. He has his choice of any 3 drop dead gorgeous women he wants... so what if he can't hold down a job. Just spend a weekend in Vegas, let the spider sense tell whether to hit or stay in blackjack for a while :)

Seriously that was always what made spidey so cool. He had a tragic origin, but He DIDN"T become Batman. he would roll with the punches life gave him and get up again :)

As for Captain America, I don't really care about the character one way or another. For one thing, I'm not an American, so I am not invested in what he's supposed to represent. I think any attempt to make him interesting inadvertently conflicts with the whole "I'm the embodiment of American ideal" shtick, which ultimately traps him in mediocrity. so *shrugs*..

Cap is a really hard person to write. MOST of the time he really sucks to read. he's just to preachy. But I prefer the preachy nobel aspect better than the "dark" version that's been floating around. He IS supposed to be the ideal of what the other heroes look up to. He really isn't that anymore.

Finally, I am puzzled by your bemoaning of the fact that you can't read about fun characters you like. You most certainly can - pick up your old comic books, your Essentials collections, etc. Just because something isn't published right now, right this second doesn't mean it suddenly ceases to exist..

Y'know, I've always HATED that argument. I HAVE the collections, but I would still like to read something new. This same argument suggests that should just stop making new books. I mean everybody HAS books they like.... re-read them! As far as that goes, why make a TV series? The Pilot should be good enough. We don't need anything new if we already have ONE good thing :rolleyes:

I love my old books. I just want to see the story continue.

DDM

06-11-2007, 03:15 PM

Captain America was by far the worst of all four Heroes Reborn titles. They sort of salvaged the whole thing half-way through, and Fantastic Four, Iron Man and especially Avengers ended up being a decent read. Not Cap, though.

In some ways, 1997 was a turning point for the better.

Before Rob Liefeld hijacked Captain America, it was doing rather well under Mark Waid & Ron Garney, but all the momentum was lost when Marvel decided to reboot Captain America for Rob Liefeld's steroid joke for "Heroes Reborn."

DDM

06-11-2007, 03:16 PM

Citizen V

06-11-2007, 06:34 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the 90's were horrible for comics.

Compaired to what they are now,for the most part..the 90`s was the last hurrah.

johnnystl34

06-12-2007, 10:05 AM

Strannik

06-12-2007, 12:51 PM

Forgiven :)

I think we have a different definition of Fun. I considered Daredevil fun up till Bendis took over, with the exeption of the black armor period. It wasn't all lighthearted, but it WAS fun to read. When Bendis took over Murdock spent WAY too much time sitting in his dark office afraid to go outside. He started hiring Luke Cage to do any physical work. Sadly this went on for YEARS. Thankfully Brubaker is making it fun again.

It's not that we have a different definition of fun per say. Rather, we have a definition of what makes an enjoyable story. To me, an enjoyable story has to be interesting, and in order to be interesting, it doesn't have to be fun (though it certainly doesn't hurt). Besides, I would argue that many parts of Bendis' run were fun - the conversation between two cops during the Underboss arc, Luke Cage's and Iron Fist's interrogation of the criminals, Daredevil (jokingly) offering Foggy the Stilt-Man suit, Spider-Man taunting Mister Hyde, the hilarious exchange on the roof between Daredevil's allies shortly after they fought against a bunch of ninjas, etc.

Of course, your opinion may vary. I can respect that.

Bahhh Spidey never had a reason to be depressed. He has superamazing powers. He has his choice of any 3 drop dead gorgeous women he wants... so what if he can't hold down a job. Just spend a weekend in Vegas, let the spider sense tell whether to hit or stay in blackjack for a while :)

Seriously that was always what made spidey so cool. He had a tragic origin, but He DIDN"T become Batman. he would roll with the punches life gave him and get up again

Yes, that's more or less true. However, I would argue that the fact that in spite of everything you stated above, Spidey constantly second-guesses himself, suffers from self-esteem issues, occasionally over-reacts and remains very protective of his loved ones is what makes Spider-Man Spider-Man. While he isn't in the Batman league as far as brooding goes, his life has it's share of pitfalls, and he can't help but feel effected by them. As (I think) I stated before, Spider-Man works best when tragedy and fun are present in equal, balancing doses. To overuse one at the expanse of the other undermines his appeal.

Cap is a really hard person to write. MOST of the time he really sucks to read. he's just to preachy. But I prefer the preachy nobel aspect better than the "dark" version that's been floating around. He IS supposed to be the ideal of what the other heroes look up to. He really isn't that anymore.

No, seeing as how he's dead and all, I don't suppose he is.:)

Thing is, we seem to have a different view of what makes superheroes appealing. My favorite superheroes tended to be the ones who weren't ideal, the ones who made mistakes and who never pretended to be anything more then ordinary human beings placed in extraordinary circumstances. The heroes like Captain America always struck me as removed from humanity, imprisoned by their ideals to truly connect with people they were supposed to inspire.

Of course, your opinion is probably different from mine. I can respect that.

Y'know, I've always HATED that argument. I HAVE the collections, but I would still like to read something new. This same argument suggests that should just stop making new books. I mean everybody HAS books they like.... re-read them! As far as that goes, why make a TV series? The Pilot should be good enough. We don't need anything new if we already have ONE good thing :rolleyes:

I love my old books. I just want to see the story continue.

No, it's more like this. Say you're watching a TV show. It's been pretty good for a few years. Then, around, say, a fifth year, something happens. Maybe the writing took the turn for the worst. Maybe the character you liked was written out. Maybe the show went into a direction you didn't particularly care for. Whatever the reason, you find yourself no longer enjoying the show you used to love. Now, you can moan and bitch about it or you can simply stop watching it and console yourself by watching DVD collections and re-runs of the seasons when the show was still good.

You can extend the analogy to a long-running book series, or a movie franchise, or even a long-running manga series.

As for wanting to see the story continue, I can understand your feelings. However, IMNSHO, there is only so long a story can go on. To return to television examples for a moment, there are plenty of examples of shows that were stretched long past their logical end points just so the studios that financed them could continue to make profits. The results are never good, since the quality always plummets. While I haven't seen Friends myself, from what I've been told, it seems like a perfect example of this phenomenon.

On a personal note...Maybe this is because I was a fan of books, manga and anime before I was a fan of comics, but when I read stories, I like to feel that this is actually going somewhere, that all the developments within it are actually building up towards some kind of conclusion. But that's just me.

Omega Alpha

06-12-2007, 02:20 PM

It's not that we have a different definition of fun per say. Rather, we have a definition of what makes an enjoyable story. To me, an enjoyable story has to be interesting, and in order to be interesting, it doesn't have to be fun (though it certainly doesn't hurt). Besides, I would argue that many parts of Bendis' run were fun - the conversation between two cops during the Underboss arc, Luke Cage's and Iron Fist's interrogation of the criminals, Daredevil (jokingly) offering Foggy the Stilt-Man suit, Spider-Man taunting Mister Hyde, the hilarious exchange on the roof between Daredevil's allies shortly after they fought against a bunch of ninjas, etc.

Agreed. For me Bendis on DD is superior even to Miller. It wasn't all laughs, but what made it great was precisely because all kinds of sh*t that could happen to a superhero happened to Matt.

Thing is, we seem to have a different view of what makes superheroes appealing. My favorite superheroes tended to be the ones who weren't ideal, the ones who made mistakes and who never pretended to be anything more then ordinary human beings placed in extraordinary circumstances. The heroes like Captain America always struck me as removed from humanity, imprisoned by their ideals to truly connect with people they were supposed to inspire.

That's exactly what i feel too, and i find heroes like Cap. America or Superman very unrelatable.

Kid Kamikaze10

06-12-2007, 02:53 PM

Even though I'm angry about the ending of CW and the Death of Cap, things are going very well in comics, both Marvel and DC. Both have an overall direction, which is great for a shared universe. Yes, you can make your side-stories and indepedent storylines, but as long as the universe is going at a certain direction, I'm alright with that.

This is why I didn't like Image when it was a shared universe. Directionless.

And, I really don't agree with the whole "Cap and Supes aren't relatable or inspiring" argument, but that's just me. I mean, I based my college essay on Cap. That's how much the character has had a profound effect on my life. But, it's a different strokes thing.

Just like Powergirl vs Supergirl (I like PG so much more).

bloodyarts

06-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Agreed. For me Bendis on DD is superior even to Miller. It wasn't all laughs, but what made it great was precisely because all kinds of sh*t that could happen to a superhero happened to Matt.

I'm in the '90s were horrible for comics' camp, but I just want to say here that while Bendis was the best thing to happen to DD since... Miller, he still doesn't compare. Bendis' stories were hard-hitting, but they lacked charm. Miller's stories were gritty without being depressing; exciting without being hamfisted; tragic, daring and funny (Turk) at several turns.

Not to mention that Miller's noirish artwork (which was much cleaner back then) fit the stories far more than Maleev's board-stiff stencils.

Of course, these are just my opinions, but the way I see it, the magic Miller Daredevil era of the early-mid '80s has yet to be replicated, and that goes for many of the comics during that time.

Comics are getting better, but I fear they may never reach the heights of the 70s and 80s. Books like Heroes for Hire, She-Hulk, Immortal Iron Fist, Marvel Adventures, Captain America, Invincible, Godland and The Spirit all harken back to that great Golden Age.

Kid Kamikaze10

06-12-2007, 04:21 PM

http://www.brokenfrontier.com/columns/details.php?id=686

I think this article express one of my concerns with current Marvel much better than I could.

Kid Kamikaze10

06-12-2007, 04:21 PM

http://www.brokenfrontier.com/columns/details.php?id=686

I think this article express one of my concerns with current Marvel much better than I could.

Zengei

06-12-2007, 04:29 PM

PastePotPete

06-12-2007, 04:33 PM

What happened to the comics that I grew up with? I've recently had a resurgence of interest in comics, I hadn't made a comic book purchase for probably 13 years. I realize 13 years is a long time, but what the heck happened to Marvel? It all seems to be one big giant mess right now. You have a multitude of different continuities, you have some extremely strange and sometimes just plain dumb plots and stories like Magneto being a character called Xorn but only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment later on. It just seems like as I'm trying to catch up on the years that I've missed so much has not only been changed, but has changed from writer to writer and back again. It's like nobody had control over the Marvel Universe during that time.

Plus it seems like Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence.

I've heard good things about the Civil War books, so that's going to be what I check out next, but I was really hoping for more.

Let's play madlibs.

What happened to comics?!? Back when I started reading them in [insert year] we used to have great storylines like [insert storyline] and [insert storyline]. And the characters used to be great! Now they've messed up all the characters! [insert favorite character] would NEVER do what they have him doing in [insert current popular title or cross-over]!!

Nowadays, all the creators and kids seem to care about is [choose one: a)making things dark and gritty, b) killing off characters! c) packing in lots of sex and violence]!

This shouldn't have happened to comics. Things were much better back when I was [insert life experience from when you were young] and I could still [insert exciting sexual experience]. They should change things back to the way they were when [insert a former Marvel E.I.C.] ran things!

Maybe the mods would like to keep this form and then people can just fill it out anytime they start one of these threads.

Omega Alpha

06-12-2007, 04:41 PM

ultramandingo

06-12-2007, 05:57 PM

I think it has to do with the fact that the audience is getting older...
You old farts!

.......hopefully in about 20/30 years ,the last rain forest will be choped down and used for grant morrisons doom patrol re- re-re-vamp . that ill read on my death bed , wile the ice caps melt and drown all the non comic readers ,who discover global warming was caused by their x-boxes and text mesage-ing

Citizen V

06-12-2007, 07:00 PM

Its basically said,at my dealer..i only see children rarely.Mostly older guys,added to that..comics are not really cheap anymore.How can kids afford it?

Strannik

06-12-2007, 08:07 PM

While everyone here have their own pov's and none of them are wrong, I think that one thing that gets overlooked is the fact that even though we hate it, we're getting older. How many 8 year old KIDS do you see in the store picking up comics? Most of the demographic is 20-30 y/o men. I think that comic writers are getting older too, and feel they should appeal to their original fanbase. I go back and read some of the older issues of X men, and some of the old Image titles, it appealed to me when I was 8-10 years old, but i read them now and I have a hard time relating. I think if you are looking for something great to read, pick something that is as mature as you are now. Nostalgic trips are great, but for week to week reading, understand the new stuff.
I don't think there is anything on the planet, not an institition or an item, that is as good as it "used to be."
Astonishing Xmen is a very gritty title that is doing quite well, I think it has to do with the fact that the audience is getting older...
You old farts!

Hey, I'm only 21. :)

To address your actual post, though... Yes. I agree with your take on comic book nostalgia. As for the new generation of readers... Well, when I got into JMS' Spider-Man, I shared my TPBs with my then-ten-year-old sister. She enjoyed them quite a bit. I could say the same thing about Ultimate Spider-Man, a bunch of CrossGen titles (sigh), Blue Monday, Hopeless Savages, my Nightwing trades, etc. My younger brother (who's the same age as my sister) read Watchmen when he was eleven and it blew his mind. He stayed up until midnight simply because he simply couldn't put it down. These days, they don't read comics quite as much because of their busy schedules, but at least I can say that I know two ten-year-olds who dug comics. :)

Cyprusg

06-12-2007, 10:58 PM

Let's play madlibs.

What happened to comics?!? Back when I started reading them in [insert year] we used to have great storylines like [insert storyline] and [insert storyline]. And the characters used to be great! Now they've messed up all the characters! [insert favorite character] would NEVER do what they have him doing in [insert current popular title or cross-over]!!

Nowadays, all the creators and kids seem to care about is [choose one: a)making things dark and gritty, b) killing off characters! c) packing in lots of sex and violence]!

This shouldn't have happened to comics. Things were much better back when I was [insert life experience from when you were young] and I could still [insert exciting sexual experience]. They should change things back to the way they were when [insert a former Marvel E.I.C.] ran things!

Maybe the mods would like to keep this form and then people can just fill it out anytime they start one of these threads.

This is a discussion, I think it's interesting to read what people have to say about it. If you don't like it, don't post, it's really quite simple.

On a semi-related note, I ordered 80 Uncanny X-men comics on ebay over the weekend... Just to relive the glory days. Although some bastard outbid me on a few lots so the issues are scattered...but I'm excited. My next purchase will probably be the Civil War issues and the Hulk coming back to challenge Tony Stark is really intriguing me. At first I thought "that's pretty stupid, they booted Hulk to another planet???", but if done right it could be pretty interesting.

Jake V

06-12-2007, 11:46 PM

paste pot pete FTW!

The Shadow

06-12-2007, 11:57 PM

This is a discussion, I think it's interesting to read what people have to say about it. If you don't like it, don't post, it's really quite simple

I think it was more to do with the fact that these threads pop up pretty regularly than your post being bad in any way.

Strannik

06-14-2007, 05:16 PM

This is why I didn't like Image when it was a shared universe. Directionless.

I don't think it was so much that it didn't have direction as that each founder had his own direction. Jim Lee and Marc Silvestri had their Cyberdata/Gamorra/IO conspiracy, Erik Larsen had a plan for Savage Dragon, Jim Valentino had a clearly defined storyline with Shadowhawk... only Spawn and Rob Liefeld's titles looked directionless, though Liefeld's characters seem to have popped up everywhere for a while.

Honestly, having Image Universe split into Image Multiverse, Top Cow Universe, Extreme/Awesome/Arcade Universe and Wildstorm Universe may well be the best thing that ever happened to it.

And, I really don't agree with the whole "Cap and Supes aren't relatable or inspiring" argument, but that's just me. I mean, I based my college essay on Cap. That's how much the character has had a profound effect on my life. But, it's a different strokes thing.

Just like Powergirl vs Supergirl (I like PG so much more).

Exactly. I respect your opinion and (hopefully) you respect mine.

opieandy

06-14-2007, 07:32 PM

What happened to the comics that I grew up with? I've recently had a resurgence of interest in comics, I hadn't made a comic book purchase for probably 13 years. I realize 13 years is a long time, but what the heck happened to Marvel? It all seems to be one big giant mess right now. You have a multitude of different continuities, you have some extremely strange and sometimes just plain dumb plots and stories like Magneto being a character called Xorn but only for that to have been changed in an "oops" moment later on. It just seems like as I'm trying to catch up on the years that I've missed so much has not only been changed, but has changed from writer to writer and back again. It's like nobody had control over the Marvel Universe during that time.

Plus it seems like Marvel has made a conscious attempt to make things more real, more gritty, problem is that it appears that all that means is a world filled with more punk teenagers, more attitude, and more violence.

I've heard good things about the Civil War books, so that's going to be what I check out next, but I was really hoping for more.

I'm in the same boat as you, though a little older, I suspect. I grew up with early/mid 70s Spidey, and didn't read much after around '80, but around '98 I bought all Spidey comics (reprints or originals) from '62 forward, with the ambition of catching up to the present (love the first 5 years or so of Spidey - those are classics!). I got to around 1992 (circa Amazing 360 or so), put 'em down, and recently picked 'em back up to revive my goal. I was surprised to see needless profanity in the new titles (even those rated 'A' for all ages, what the #$%^&?), which prevents me from reading these with my 7-year-old (sure, I can change the words as I read it, which is a pain, but he can read himself so he will see the words anyway). There's also more sex/innuendo, plus teen attitude, in these books. I'm not saying the books are all bad. For example, in Ultimate Spider-Man (which I'm starting from #1), it's funny to see the teens talk in the modern vernacular (uhh, like, dude, etc.) instead of perfect comic book English. It's mainly the superfluous, pointless profanity that I dislike, plus just a little too much attitude/edge, which is the opposite of what we teach our kids.

It's not enough to stop me from reading, just disappointing that I don't feel like I can read many titles with my 7-yr-old. As others have noted, many comics apparently aren't targeted towards kids any longer. I just don't find the 'Adventures' versions very well done, though maybe I should give them another shot.

Chris

bloodyarts

06-15-2007, 08:51 AM

I just don't find the 'Adventures' versions very well done, though maybe I should give them another shot.

I have a 6-year old daughter, and I love reading (and acting out!) comics with her, but only Marvel Adventures and other kid-oriented books like the DC toon-based comics, Sonic, Archie, etc.

The only problem with 'Adventures' are they don't seem to have the cohesion of the early Marvel books, where everything feels like it's happening in the same universe. The books feel less connected, but they are fun stories, not full of the angst, profanity and/or ultra violence found in some of today's books.

Of course, I collect some of the other modern mainstream books, too.

You should give Adventures and the others a shot, if not for your own personal enjoyment, then for your kid's.

Strannik

06-18-2007, 06:52 PM

The only problem with 'Adventures' are they don't seem to have the cohesion of the early Marvel books, where everything feels like it's happening in the same universe.

Of course they don't. The comics that kicked off Marvel Universe were all written (or co-written) by the same guy. That wasn't quite the case with Marvel Adventures.

...they are fun stories, not full of the angst, profanity and/or ultra violence found in some of today's books.

Pardon the digression, but what profanity and ultra-violence? Unless you're talking about Marvel's MAX line or, to a lesser extent, the titles that used to fall under Marvel Knights, I'm not sure where this complaint is coming from.

Then again, this might be a generational issue.

Rolltideguy77

06-23-2007, 05:37 AM

Well back in the 90's there was this great need from the publishers apparently to "replace" all their original characters with new ones or new takes on the old title. Superman, Green Arrow/Lantern killed and replaced. Flash is now Wally West, Daredevil got a new costume, the Wasp is changed, Iron Man is killed and replaced by a kid,Punisher hunts spirits and is black, Spidey's a clone, Colossus went bad the list goes on and on. Personally I enjoyed clone saga but hey that's just me. I thought Ben Reilly was a great character that should'nt have been killed off. I loved McFarlane's Spidey run. Valiant comics were great, Highlander, XO, Turok. I even liked Gen 13 then.
As for comics now well I think they are just reflecting the world we live in more accurately. Notice the "war" theme, Civil War, World War Hulk, Countdown, Crisis, Endangered Species, Cap gets offed, the America we know is gone no one is safe. Everything has a "doomsday" plot to it. As for the punk kids, well have you met any kids lately? I am enjoying it personally as I never cared to spend my money on books that were just fluff and dont have any decent contributions to a storyline or continuity.

Isotope

06-23-2007, 05:06 PM

Well I used to subscribe to several books but the clone saga killed my interest. I have continued to read but cosmic Marvel is all I enjoy. I read thru Civil War up to date and found it to be crap on several levels.

1. First of all the shameless expansion to 20 tie-ins monthly is easily seen thru as a money grubbing attempt. Sure its cool to tell things from several viewpoints but when 50%+ of the comic you read is rehashing, and increasingly lazy rehashing at that it is an afront. Why give us the story in 3 titles when you can give it in 6!!!

2. WAY to much talking head crap. There was some thought provoking material in the series and I know of Marvel's history of social stances. However by the 10th Iron Man debate with Spidey/Cap the impact of their stances was lost and it became like watching a groundhog day version of the No Spin zone.

3. Lame resolution. There should have been a notable death that made them realize they were in the wrong, not random douches jumping on Cap. What were these guys just sitting around dodging the super heroes with ease to jump on him? They should have piggy backed the death of Goliath into the closing. Not that he's notable but you get the point.

4. I just don't get the sense of impending doom that cosmic stories give. Infinity Abyss was ten times better in six issues.

Now I know I sound like sour puss here but I have loved Planet Hulk despite not liking Hulk all that much. Just wish the jerks at Marvel could run one cosmic book ongoing (Thanos/Surfer PLEASE) instead of 3 X-men or whatever. The obsession of readers with Wolverine amazes me. BTW don't start with the holier than thou "buy cosmic when its out" stuff I buy anything they put out.

Omega Alpha

06-23-2007, 05:59 PM

Well I used to subscribe to several books but the clone saga killed my interest. I have continued to read but cosmic Marvel is all I enjoy. I read thru Civil War up to date and found it to be crap on several levels.

1. First of all the shameless expansion to 20 tie-ins monthly is easily seen thru as a money grubbing attempt. Sure its cool to tell things from several viewpoints but when 50%+ of the comic you read is rehashing, and increasingly lazy rehashing at that it is an afront. Why give us the story in 3 titles when you can give it in 6!!!

If you don't want to read the tie-ins, you don't have to. That's why this model of crossover is the best.

2. WAY to much talking head crap. There was some thought provoking material in the series and I know of Marvel's history of social stances. However by the 10th Iron Man debate with Spidey/Cap the impact of their stances was lost and it became like watching a groundhog day version of the No Spin zone.

Iron Man and Cap. America only debated one time during the war and one time after.

3. Lame resolution. There should have been a notable death that made them realize they were in the wrong, not random douches jumping on Cap. What were these guys just sitting around dodging the super heroes with ease to jump on him? They should have piggy backed the death of Goliath into the closing. Not that he's notable but you get the point.

The death of Goliath was a turning point, and Millar didn't killed Cap. America or any important character because he's against killing big name characters.

Now I know I sound like sour puss here but I have loved Planet Hulk despite not liking Hulk all that much. Just wish the jerks at Marvel could run one cosmic book ongoing (Thanos/Surfer PLEASE) instead of 3 X-men or whatever. The obsession of readers with Wolverine amazes me. BTW don't start with the holier than thou "buy cosmic when its out" stuff I buy anything they put out.

Well, if people did buyed cosmic comics, there would have been more of them. And there is already one right now, Nova, which is one of the best around, and there's Annihilation coming. And if you don't want to read 3 X-men comics, then don't buy them.

niall mc cann

06-23-2007, 07:29 PM

Now I know I sound like sour puss here but I have loved Planet Hulk despite not liking Hulk all that much. Just wish the jerks at Marvel could run one cosmic book ongoing (Thanos/Surfer PLEASE) instead of 3 X-men or whatever. The obsession of readers with Wolverine amazes me. BTW don't start with the holier than thou "buy cosmic when its out" stuff I buy anything they put out.

Isn't cosmic Marvel in the middle of a bit of a renaissance, at the minute? There's loads of cosmic stuff out there these days, no?

Isotope

06-23-2007, 09:28 PM

If you don't want to read the tie-ins, you don't have to. That's why this model of crossover is the best..

And if you don't read the tie-ins (coughCap#25) you miss tons of the storyline.

Iron Man and Cap. America only debated one time during the war and one time after.

And he also debated with spidey, and then Reed, and then Reed debated with Sue, and then Reed debated with Ben........and they all said the same things trying to top each other in rhetorical skills. We get the issues action and resolution please.

The death of Goliath was a turning point, and Millar didn't killed Cap. America or any important character because he's against killing big name characters.

And how was it a turning point, and why wasn't it used to fulcrum the series instead of how it did end. Your telling me the ending had the visceral feel that it would have if the Goliath kill had done it? This is a clone IM and Reed created and they could have fed that backstory, had it go nuts, and IM/Reed come to their senses or the opposition realizes just how far they are willing to go and gives in at that point.

Well, if people did buyed cosmic comics, there would have been more of them. And there is already one right now, Nova, which is one of the best around, and there's Annihilation coming. And if you don't want to read 3 X-men comics, then don't buy them.

I do buy Nova, and I don't buy the X-men stuff. Note I mentioned that in my first post.

Omega Alpha

06-23-2007, 10:26 PM

And if you don't read the tie-ins (coughCap#25) you miss tons of the storyline.

Cap #25 wasn't a Civil War tie-in. The war was already over with CW#7.

And he also debated with spidey, and then Reed, and then Reed debated with Sue, and then Reed debated with Ben........and they all said the same things trying to top each other in rhetorical skills. We get the issues action and resolution please.

One of the main purposes of the tie-ins was precisely to get the POVs of several different characters, as well as the consequences the events on the main book would have on them.

And how was it a turning point, and why wasn't it used to fulcrum the series instead of how it did end. Your telling me the ending had the visceral feel that it would have if the Goliath kill had done it? This is a clone IM and Reed created and they could have fed that backstory, had it go nuts, and IM/Reed come to their senses or the opposition realizes just how far they are willing to go and gives in at that point.

Goliath's death made the king of one of the most powerful countries in the world to join Cap's side, with his wife, one of the leaders of the X-men, with him, Sue Richards abandon her husband and children to fight, and she ended up helping influence the guy who rules 75% of the world to fight on their side, Spider-Man question if he was on the right side, made the Pro-reg side replace Clor with the new Thunderbolts, who made the Punisher pick a side, and so on.

reddog

06-24-2007, 12:49 AM

I just want to start off saying that i will buy marvel comics until they no longer sell them. I state that because im holding faith for these books to find themselves again. Sales look high when you compare them to other comics in todays market but they do not hold a torch to what they used to.(please investigate your selves before arguing that point) I remember the boom in the 90s that nearly killed comics do to the value collectors. We have a similar thing happening today with the movie goer saturation in the market. What happens when they exit when comics arent cool again. Many of todays books sell on shock value not substance. It takes a hell of a lot more talent to write a story without the kill factor. Many of the writers i see mentioned as greats today use killing characters as a way to write their stories. (BmB) Its really sad in a way how cynical people have become. It seems we enjoy building hero's today just to tear them down so we can build them back up and on and on it goes a vicious and boring cycle. What is wrong with characters doing the right thing because its the right ting to do. I say that because the majority of people tell me cap and superman are corny but batman and wolverine are just the best.(i love all these caharters by the way) I as father just worry about this cynicism be passed down and becoming worse.

BizarroBeachHead

06-24-2007, 01:26 AM

I just want to start off saying that i will buy marvel comics until they no longer sell them. I state that because im holding faith for these books to find themselves again.

If you just support a mediocre product, it's never going to get better.

You know why comics got really good about five years ago?

Because people stopped buying them.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 02:18 AM

Its really sad in a way how cynical people have become. I as father I just worry about how this cynicism is passed down and becoming worse.

Cynicism is a strong part of the long time comic reader, because we have seen everything. It's very hard for writers to be innovative enough to satisfy readers like us, who are cynical of any new plotlines, and it may be a sad indictment on how we, as the readers, drive the storylines that the creators have to deliver to us. But what we readers want to read, that's what we get. The creators know we're cynical, and they tend to alter their perspectives accordingly, and, you are seeing that altered perspective.

I can see your disappointment at not seeing a more carefree, optimistic, writership out there, and unfortunitely, the major readership is the cause of it.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 02:26 AM

If you just support a mediocre product, it's never going to get better.

You know why comics got really good about five years ago?

Because people stopped buying them.

Well, I stopped buying Marvel comics in 2005. But when CW started up, I was so hooked, I bought triple the comics I had been buying, when I was buying.

I think for Marvel, before CW was a very dull time in their books, and I told them so. I wrote them how many books I was getting, and that I wouldn't be buying them anymore, unless I saw specific changes that I outlined. I thought all the marvel characters were old and tired, and nothing happened to them anymore. When I read the Ms Marvel #6-8 issues, my whole opinion had changed.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 02:32 AM

Well I used to subscribe to several books but the clone saga killed my interest. I have continued to read but cosmic Marvel is all I enjoy. I read thru Civil War up to date and found it to be crap on several levels.

I have heard this criticism often, about CW, and I can only surmise that Isotope, and friends, are not into the controversial side of comics, but like the high action, big scale, power-houses, tusselling over the universe, side of things. Much like Star Wars. Just the feeling I get about the criticism.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-24-2007, 03:09 AM

Let's play madlibs.

What happened to comics?!? Back when I started reading them in [insert year] we used to have great storylines like [insert storyline] and [insert storyline]. And the characters used to be great! Now they've messed up all the characters! [insert favorite character] would NEVER do what they have him doing in [insert current popular title or cross-over]!!

Nowadays, all the creators and kids seem to care about is [choose one: a)making things dark and gritty, b) killing off characters! c) packing in lots of sex and violence]!

This shouldn't have happened to comics. Things were much better back when I was [insert life experience from when you were young] and I could still [insert exciting sexual experience]. They should change things back to the way they were when [insert a former Marvel E.I.C.] ran things!

Maybe the mods would like to keep this form and then people can just fill it out anytime they start one of these threads.

What happened to comics?!? Back when I started reading them in 1993 we used to have great storylines like X-Cutioners Song and Maximum Carnage. And the characters used to be great! Now they've messed up all the characters! Speedball would NEVER do what they have him doing in Civil War: Frontline!!

Nowadays, all the creators and kids seem to care about is killing off characters!!

This shouldn't have happened to comics. Things were much better back when I was reading comics with friends at lunch time and I could still masturbate furiously to the picture of Psylocke in a swimsuit that was in a ad for several months*. They should change things back to the way they were when Tom DeFalco ran things!

*The ad is there if you go and look, but I was to young to fiddle my diddle over it.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-24-2007, 03:11 AM

Just ignore Grant Morrison's X-Men. He's a fantastic writer for DC, but I'm pretty sure he was on drugs when he went to Marvel.

Wouldn't you be more concerned he was off drugs?

That said, I second ignoring his run. It actually had a feeling of forward momentum, something X-books should never have.

Cyprusg

06-24-2007, 01:17 PM

Omega Alpha

06-24-2007, 01:43 PM

Comics will go back to selling millions of copies again, but it won't be done because of more "edgy" stories or by introducing more anti-heroes, it won't be done by killing off superheroes, it won't be done by introducing more violence, it won't be done by introducing more gimmicks. It'll happen when you have mix great emotionally involving stories with great art.

Those two things are the heart of comic books and that'll never change. You focus on those two things and those two things only, the fans will come. It happened in 1976 with the Uncanny X-men and it'll happen again.

Nah, it won't. Today, there is too much forms of entertainment and media to go back the old levels, the audience is too disperse among them, specially with internet around. And it's not only comics, you won't have 70 million people on US watching a single TV show, for example, and have the percentage of the population that watched Gone With the Wind or The Birth of a Nation watching a single movie, at least not on the theathers.

Jake V

06-24-2007, 01:49 PM

Isotope

06-24-2007, 02:45 PM

I have heard this criticism often, about CW, and I can only surmise that Isotope, and friends, are not into the controversial side of comics, but like the high action, big scale, power-houses, tusselling over the universe, side of things. Much like Star Wars. Just the feeling I get about the criticism.

Not really like Star Wars but the criticism holds. Amped up humans like Captain America, Daredevil and The Punisher (saved by the dark humor and ambiance of the title but the same type character) bore me. I read all of Civil War and just felt it was to heavy on dialogue and that it was trying to hard to be political commentary and not enough trying to be a comic book. Battles between a bunch of nobody characters that Thor could literally beat half of at once while yawning. Lets be honest the reason they tie every low selling title in the world (Black Panther, Thunderbolts, Ms. Marvel) is because they are trying to hook readers and thats a good business model but they still didn't make me truly care. Of all the characters represented Deadpool was the standout winner and only fleshed out interesting and unique character I read.

Isotope

06-24-2007, 02:48 PM

Comics will go back to selling millions of copies again, but it won't be done because of more "edgy" stories or by introducing more anti-heroes, it won't be done by killing off superheroes, it won't be done by introducing more violence, it won't be done by introducing more gimmicks. It'll happen when you have mix great emotionally involving stories with great art.

Those two things are the heart of comic books and that'll never change. You focus on those two things and those two things only, the fans will come. It happened in 1976 with the Uncanny X-men and it'll happen again.

The epitomy of head in the sand posting. There has been a recently proposed sociological model that the advant of technology is not bringing us closer to a collective pop culture but vastly further away. The internet provides instantaneous access to vast sub-niches in music, movies, art and reading. There is no way a book is going to ever sell the way they did back then, there are so many more entertainment options, and you can play video games not just read them.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 03:52 PM

and that it was trying too hard to be political commentary and not enough trying to be a comic book.

Definition of 'comic book'?

jackolover

06-24-2007, 03:55 PM

Comics will go back to selling millions of copies again, but it won't be done because of more "edgy" stories or by introducing more anti-heroes, it won't be done by killing off superheroes, it won't be done by introducing more violence, it won't be done by introducing more gimmicks. It'll happen when you have mix great emotionally involving stories with great art.

Those two things are the heart of comic books and that'll never change. You focus on those two things and those two things only, the fans will come. It happened in 1976 with the Uncanny X-men and it'll happen again.

I won't neccesarily agree millions of copies, but I think companies will settle for 50,000 copies a title.

But I thought CW delivered on the 'emotionally involving stories', and on the sales numbers, so maybe, if the companies tried to emulate CW more, they could sell more.

xarathos

06-24-2007, 04:05 PM

Two words: Joe Quesada

You think I may be joking, but am I really?

Isotope

06-24-2007, 05:22 PM

Definition of 'comic book'?

Well my idea isn't 23 pages of pseudo-intellectual political ramblings and 3 pages of action is yours? And I won't even talk about the idiotic random poetry depicting superheroes set against those who fought in wars past. Thats both condescending to actual soldiers and massively self indulgent.

Dazzler

06-24-2007, 05:42 PM

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 06:17 PM

Well my idea isn't 23 pages of pseudo-intellectual political ramblings and 3 pages of action is yours? And I won't even talk about the idiotic random poetry depicting superheroes set against those who fought in wars past. Thats both condescending to actual soldiers and massively self indulgent.I think you're all looking too much into this....comics were never meant to be that complex, they're meant to ignite the imagination and entertain you.

I agree with you on the over-politicization of comics these days, though. Any title you read involving Tony Stark anymore feels like you're watching C-SPAN.

Expletive Deleted

06-24-2007, 06:22 PM

I agree with you on the over-politicization of comics these days, though. Any title you read involving Tony Stark anymore feels like you're watching C-SPAN.Yeah, I had real problems with the scene in MILD DISAGREEMENT HULK #1 where Tony and Hulk sat down over a cup of coffee and reached a mutually acceptable compromise.

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 06:33 PM

Yeah, I had real problems with the scene in MILD DISAGREEMENT HULK #1 where Tony and Hulk sat down over a cup of coffee and reached a mutually acceptable compromise.Right, with Latte's (Hulk prefers decaf) and Biscotti.

niall mc cann

06-24-2007, 06:36 PM

I have heard this criticism often, about CW, and I can only surmise that Isotope, and friends, are not into the controversial side of comics, but like the high action, big scale, power-houses, tusselling over the universe, side of things. Much like Star Wars. Just the feeling I get about the criticism.

Seriously, i have no problem with the controversial element of Civil War... i really liked the idea of Civil War, what bugged me was the execution. And i didn't mind the action ratio, either... i just had a problem with how little faith millar obviously had in the premise.

There was a really solid premise that didn't need important and long-established characters to be portrayed in outrageously evil, OTT ways. What's morally ambiguous about what Reed and Tony did to Thor, or then to Clor? What's morally ambiguous with siding with a deranged nazi? There's a good, rational, morally defensible arguement at the heart of the SHRA, but rather than address the issues that the event was founded on, they just randomly picked one side of the arguement and had them act in outrageous, morally indefensible ways.

If the controversy, if the issue, was the heart of the crossover(and i agree with you, it was), then it was completely betrayed; the guys who executed it completely missed the point. In the end, it wasn't about guys fighting honourably for a cause they believed in, it was about amoral fascists doing obscene things in the name of control. Which makes it different to a story where Doom's the bad guy, or Zemo's the bad guy, or the Mandarin's the bad guy, how?

Kid Quick Foots

06-24-2007, 06:52 PM

Imho comics got bad after all the movies like x-men and spider man came out and editors completly swiched around all the characters in the books to look more like there movie counterparts to try and boost sales.

For my money nothing beats the AOA, that was marvels zenith, its gone steadily down hill since then. And spider man has NEVER recovered from the clone saga, which i LIKED actually. Not the stories as a whole, but the concept that Peter Parker wasnt the real spidey, but a clone was some GREAT stuff, i was hoping that it would stick, but of course all the whinney fan boys had to bitch and moan and force marvel to do a 180 and it ruined an otherwise great twist. ah well, not having to buy so many books has kept money in my pockets=) yay!

Cyprusg

06-24-2007, 06:54 PM

The epitomy of head in the sand posting. There has been a recently proposed sociological model that the advant of technology is not bringing us closer to a collective pop culture but vastly further away. The internet provides instantaneous access to vast sub-niches in music, movies, art and reading. There is no way a book is going to ever sell the way they did back then, there are so many more entertainment options, and you can play video games not just read them.

Is that why book sales have been INCREASING? Yes...increasing, which throws everything you just said out the window. The internet has made it easier to get the books you want, but it hasn't replaced the books. You can still walk into a Barnes and Nobles and it'll be filled with 20-somethings who are internet conscious but find the book to be a better medium to read from than looking at a computer screen all day. I think the same applies for comic books. Comic books started to decline in the mid-1990s, well before most of us even knew what the internet was.

What comic books need is legitimacy... Right now there's still this idea that it's for kids or those in the 20s and 30s with comic nostalgia. Y'know, legitimacy may not even come from Marvel or DC, it's already extremely confusing for me being out of it for 15 years, I can't imagine what it's like for somebody that's just starting. You've got this vast world that's already filled to the brim with established characters and stories, I think it can appear daunting to a new reader.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I'm confident comic books will get legitimacy someday but you start with great story telling and great art and build from that. The rest will follow eventually.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 07:11 PM

Seriously, i have no problem with the controversial element of Civil War... i really liked the idea of Civil War, what bugged me was the execution. And i didn't mind the action ratio, either... i just had a problem with how little faith millar obviously had in the premise.

I saw CW as a war. People do things in war they don't do in the normal MU, therefore, you get the Nazi, and morally ambiguous correlations. I couldn't see a problem with how Millar portrayed Reed and Tony, and what they did with Thor cyborg because Tony and Reed had never struck this situation before. It was like tactics each SH has for any heros that go rogue. It will be brutal, because it will take something brutal to overcome a hero.

'Randomly picked one side'. Tonys side was always fate accompli, and I didn't see it as random. If Tony or anybody decided to back the SHRA, that side would win, because it had the force of legislation, which is like a bulldozer. The only way it wouldn't have panned out that way was if SH's never came over to back it, and they did. Fate accompli.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 07:14 PM

Well my idea isn't 23 pages of pseudo-intellectual political ramblings and 3 pages of action is yours?

I loved Frontline. But I agree that the last story in Frontline was not my cup of tea, either.

Also, your definition contained a lot of negatives, so what is the positive definition of comic books? What DOES go into one?

Omega Alpha

06-24-2007, 07:17 PM

I think you're all looking too much into this....comics were never meant to be that complex, they're meant to ignite the imagination and entertain you.

I agree with you on the over-politicization of comics these days, though. Any title you read involving Tony Stark anymore feels like you're watching C-SPAN.

And how comics are different than movies, books, TV, etc, on that aspect? Every work of art reflects the society the artist lives in, and comics are no exception.

Imho comics got bad after all the movies like x-men and spider man came out and editors completly swiched around all the characters in the books to look more like there movie counterparts to try and boost sales.

So, comics in the 90's were fine and it was the movies that made them suck? And how come comics are the sames as movies? In the X-men, first there were millions of mutants and an entire mutant community and now we have (supposedly) 198 and it on the verge of extinction. Xavier is a great patriach there and in the comics he's #1 bastard. Spider-Man is just a teenager, in the comics he's a married adult who happens to be a teacher and has his identity known be the entire public, while Venom is currently a member of a super-hero (?) team.

Daydreamer

06-24-2007, 07:40 PM

times have changed hun, I'm sorry. Marvel and DC just aren't the same anymore. But hey.....I'm a comic pig, so just fill up the troft

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 07:53 PM

And how comics are different than movies, books, TV, etc, on that aspect? Every work of art reflects the society the artist lives in, and comics are no exception.Reflecting reality is one thing, emulating reality is something else.

If you read comics to get a dose of reality, why read comics at all? They're meant to be escapist fun, not a social commentary on the condition of the world.

If you want that, watch CNN.

Dazzler

06-24-2007, 08:15 PM

Reflecting reality is one thing, emulating reality is something else.

If you read comics to get a dose of reality, why read comics at all? They're meant to be escapist fun, not a social commentary on the condition of the world.

If you want that, watch CNN.

Well said. I agree totally.
I do like characters who act naturally and have a realistic edge to them. i just think that idea has gone to the point where it's almost more unrealistic for the characters to live and behave as they do and still be superheroes. what makes these people, who are so unbelieveably miserable and nihilistic, still want to help people? do they ever even really help people anymore? not really. Even Civil War was silly in that it dealt with one side wanting to be able to freely "help others", when actually, they never even really do that anymore.
The best comics out now, in my opinion, are those that play with the idea of upholding superhero ideals, those that buck expectations of those ideals in clever ways or the ones who have no interest in being superheroes at all. Examples include Young Avengers, Runaways, and the Loners just to name a few.
I prefer a healthy does of whimsy in my comics. I like less ambiguity. I don't like to finish reading a comic only to be depressed about how shitty that world is and how mine is too. *Ehn* Guess i'm a dinosaur that way.

--Dazz

Isotope

06-24-2007, 08:49 PM

Well said. I agree totally.
I do like characters who act naturally and have a realistic edge to them. i just think that idea has gone to the point where it's almost more unrealistic for the characters to live and behave as they do and still be superheroes. what makes these people, who are so unbelieveably miserable and nihilistic, still want to help people? do they ever even really help people anymore? not really. Even Civil War was silly in that it dealt with one side wanting to be able to freely "help others", when actually, they never even really do that anymore.
The best comics out now, in my opinion, are those that play with the idea of upholding superhero ideals, those that buck expectations of those ideals in clever ways or the ones who have no interest in being superheroes at all. Examples include Young Avengers, Runaways, and the Loners just to name a few.
I prefer a healthy does of whimsy in my comics. I like less ambiguity. I don't like to finish reading a comic only to be depressed about how shitty that world is and how mine is too. *Ehn* Guess i'm a dinosaur that way.

--Dazz

Indeed what is that target audience that would cause the most growth in monthly subscriptions longterm? It certainly isn't 30+ year old intellectuals with political leanings. One would imagine it would be appealing to the younger people who pick up comics because the movies catch the imagination and become lifelong fans. If that is the case why in the world is THE event of the marvel year such an amazingly depressing arc? What new comic fan is this appealing to? In fact who wants to spend discretionary income on what amounts to 500 page epic tale of depression and societal misgivings? I always thought comics were escapism for most fans.

reddog

06-24-2007, 08:57 PM

Reflecting reality is one thing, emulating reality is something else.

If you read comics to get a dose of reality, why read comics at all? They're meant to be escapist fun, not a social commentary on the condition of the world.

If you want that, watch CNN.

When i was a kid i had an abusive stepfather. I had no real male role model growing up. One day a friend showed me an issue of captain america and i found my escape. Not only did i find my escape but i found out what being a good human being was. Today thanks to that event im in my third year of law school and have to wonderful children. I really don't see that kind of power in comic books today.

jackolover

06-24-2007, 08:57 PM

How about a poll, moderator?

Who wants Whimsy and escapism?

Who wants political leanings and a dose of reality?

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 09:06 PM

reddog

06-24-2007, 09:14 PM

How about a poll, moderator?

Who wants Whimsy and escapism?

Who wants political leanings and a dose of reality?

I second that request

Omega Alpha

06-24-2007, 09:25 PM

Reflecting reality is one thing, emulating reality is something else.

If you read comics to get a dose of reality, why read comics at all? They're meant to be escapist fun, not a social commentary on the condition of the world.

Not necessarily. I don't read comics, books or watch movies for escapism, but for entertainment. Watchmen, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, 1984 and Young Avengers are all entertainment, but i wouldn't call all of them escapism.

Dazzler

06-24-2007, 09:34 PM

Not necessarily. I don't read comics, books or watch movies for escapism, but for entertainment. Watchmen, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, 1984 and Young Avengers are all entertainment, but i wouldn't call all of them escapism.

That's a very true statement as well.
However, I would not call a super-hero comic my first venue for tackling the very real ills in the world, Watchmen aside. I don't think every comic should or can aspire to be a Watchmen.
Something about men and women in bathing suits lifting cars makes me want a little more escapism.
Don't get me wrong. I think dealing with social issues is inherent in the comics medium. I just think these days there's a more of just reflecting problems than actually dealing with them.

--Dazz

jackolover

06-24-2007, 09:50 PM

Exactly. You escaped your abuse by reading comics....escapist fun.

When I was younger I was very quiet. Not shy, really, just introverted. And discovering and reading Peter Davids Incredible Hulk, escaping into the wit and humanity and drama and humor of it really helped shape me as a person...and today I'm married to a wonderful woman who I have two beautiful daughters with, and I'm an extremely sociable guy.

Comics can change a persons life, I completely agree with you there. And I agree that comics today have gone down a path where it's hard to find those kinds of examples that you and I stated...but every now and then, a title comes along that does have that wit and good humor and that spark that affects someone to their core, they're just not as common as they used to be.

Do you and Reddog read Marvel Adventures, or the regular books? Myself, I dislile the MA stuff, because it is pure escapism. I criticised Buckley for bringing them out, but now that there is a market for it, maybe there is a niche for it.

drupgyu

06-24-2007, 09:57 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the 90's were horrible for comics.

I kind of think that was the beginning of the slide into comic book stupidity, i.e.: multiple covers for same issue, bad continuity, insular plots that are unwelcoming to new readers, art over writing(although that tide shifted in the last few years) and huge crossovers demanding you buy every book they put out to get one sentence pertaining to the larger story within the crossover.

I think the days of picking up just any old Marvel and getting a good read are over. There are some good comics Marvel is doing(Iron Fist, Hulk, Astonishing X-men, Captain America, Daredevil) but a lot of what I get is purely out of habit.

DC on the other hand, which just seemed like crap for a number of years has been hitting it out of the park with most of their main titles for a while now.

I know a lot of folks blame Quesada but I don't know. I think Marvel is having some problems but there is good stuff out there so it might not be an editorial-policy problem.

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 11:40 PM

Do you and Reddog read Marvel Adventures, or the regular books? Myself, I dislile the MA stuff, because it is pure escapism. I criticised Buckley for bringing them out, but now that there is a market for it, maybe there is a niche for it.Well, I wouldn't call the Adventures line escapism necessarily, or rather, I wouldn't say those are the only examples of escapism-- they're just the most extreme and forthright examples, but actually they're a line intended for a younger audience.

I think escapist entertainment can be very mature and fulfilling on an emotional level, things like Lord of the Rings, the Blade Movies, V for Vendetta or TV series like Heroes and Lost could all be considered "escapist", even though they all have dark and political elements within them, they're still fantasy.

But no, I don't read the Marvel Adventures line, and since I've never read them I really couldn't say whether I like them or not, but I'm sure politics are played down in them, which is a trait I wish the more mature "616" Universe could inherit...I say let's not mix politics and Superheroes.

Omega Alpha

06-24-2007, 11:45 PM

But no, I don't read the Marvel Adventures line, and since I've never read them I really couldn't say whether I like them or not, but I'm sure politics are played down in them, which is a trait I wish the more mature "616" Universe could inherit...I say let's not mix politics and Superheroes.

As a die-hard fan of the Ultimates, i highly disagree with this idea...

Despite, it's impossible; the very own existence of some characters, teams, and organizations, like SHIELD or X-men, just to name two obvious ones, makes it impossible for politics not be approached eventually.

Dazzler

06-24-2007, 11:46 PM

I think escapist entertainment can be very mature and fulfilling on an emotional level, things like Lord of the Rings, the Blade Movies, V for Vendetta or TV series like Heroes and Lost could all be considered "escapist", even though they all have dark and political elements within them, they're still fantasy.

I'm with ya...but V is almost entirely political minded. I watch it and it's not something I would consider escapist at all. Every time i've read it or watched it, i can't help but be reminded of all the crap that I have to deal with in life and also that if i existed in this universe, i would be rounded up in a camp in the middle of the night. At the same time though, it's a very empowering story, so I look at it different than I look at my mainstream comics.

Plus, i cry like a baby during Valerie's letter everytime. So true in spirit it's not possible to consider it escapist.

BUT anyway, i totally get what you're trying to say and i agree for the most part.

--Dazz

Brad Barton

06-24-2007, 11:57 PM

As a die-hard fan of the Ultimates, i highly disagree with this idea...

Despite, it's impossible; the very own existence of some characters, teams, and organizations, like SHIELD or X-men, just to name two obvious ones, makes it impossible for politics not be approached eventually.I like the Ultimates too, and as you know, they're now severing their ties with the Gov't (aside from probably a relationship with Fury)...so I think the comic is actually tilting toward my view on this. Jeph Loeb's taking over and he likes to focus on the Iconic Hero facets of characters, so you can bet politics will be taking a backseat to adventure stories...

And yeah, there are titles out like Iron Man and old SHIELD titles that worked closely with the Gov't, and I never really liked them at all...they seemed kinda rigid.

And saying a fundamental part of the X-Men series is Gov't would be overstating it. Yes they have ties with the Gov't, usually against their will and completely out of necessity, but they only answer to themselves and would prefer to be completely independent. (which they once were, and probably will be again) When I think of the X-Men, "Government" isn't really the first word that comes to mind...

jackolover

06-25-2007, 12:26 AM

Brad Barton

06-25-2007, 12:39 AM

I can see what you are getting at. The adventure is detaching you from being engaged politically and philosophically. Am I getting this right?I wouldn't say that...look at Lord of the Rings. Throughout his movie you're cronfronted with extremely fantastical elements (Trolls, Hobbits, Ents, Ghosts, Magic...), and yet you're still engaged on a philosophical level with issues like death, evil, righteousness, compassion, bravery and sacrifice, and the plain edicts of good and evil.
Yet you know without a doubt that you're watching something fantastical, something that goes beyond what reality can offer, and this can be considered "escapism".

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 02:47 AM

And saying a fundamental part of the X-Men series is Gov't would be overstating it. Yes they have ties with the Gov't, usually against their will and completely out of necessity, but they only answer to themselves and would prefer to be completely independent. (which they once were, and probably will be again) When I think of the X-Men, "Government" isn't really the first word that comes to mind...

He didn't say government... he was addressing POLITICS.

The original quote was: "but I'm sure politics are played down in them, which is a trait I wish the more mature "616" Universe could inherit...I say let's not mix politics and Superheroes."

The X-Men have been political since the first issue as they were based on the Civil Rights movement during the 60's. There were laws, registrations and witch hunts towards mutants that are a perfect allegory for the real political world and the Marvel one throughout their 40+ year history.

Brad Barton

06-25-2007, 03:13 AM

He didn't say government... he was addressing POLITICS.

The original quote was: "but I'm sure politics are played down in them, which is a trait I wish the more mature "616" Universe could inherit...I say let's not mix politics and Superheroes."

The X-Men have been political since the first issue as they were based on the Civil Rights movement during the 60's. There were laws, registrations and witch hunts towards mutants that are a perfect allegory for the real political world and the Marvel one throughout their 40+ year history.Wow, someone trying to drive home a point? Sheesh...

And you're splitting hairs on the Gov't/Politics issue...Seriously, how many issues of the X-Men series have been based solely on dealing with Politics, which are a direct result of Government (see, I can color my words too!)

If you're just calling me on my grammar- guilty as charged. I'll go peacefully....

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 03:43 AM

Wow, someone trying to drive home a point? Sheesh...
Wow, someone trying to make a big deal out of nothing? Sheesh...

And you're splitting hairs on the Gov't/Politics issue...Seriously, how many issues of the X-Men series have been based solely on dealing with Politics, which are a direct result of Government (see, I can color my words too!)
Well, I've never sat down and actually counted them (you go for it and let me and everyone else know!)... but since the basic premise is related to politics (I can still do it!) I would say it's moot and an exact number doesn't really matter. It's a theme throughout their history more than a definitive number of issues.

I was just trying to make sure you knew you were mis-construing Omega Alpha's post is all. Guilty as charged. I'll go peacefully....

Brad Barton

06-25-2007, 12:22 PM

Wow, someone trying to make a big deal out of nothing? Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you...

Well, I've never sat down and actually counted them (you go for it and let me and everyone else know!)... but since the basic premise is related to politics (I can still do it!) I would say it's moot and an exact number doesn't really matter. It's a theme throughout their history more than a definitive number of issues.It's a theme, but it's not the theme the series is rooted in, which was my point all along...

Guilty as charged. I'll go peacefully....Thanks, please do.

Strannik

06-25-2007, 12:38 PM

When i was a kid i had an abusive stepfather. I had no real male role model growing up. One day a friend showed me an issue of captain america and i found my escape. Not only did i find my escape but i found out what being a good human being was. Today thanks to that event im in my third year of law school and have to wonderful children. I really don't see that kind of power in comic books today.

I was born in Soviet Union. When I was six years old, the whole thing fell apart. All but the most essential food was scarce. Job opportunities dissapeered over night. Millions of retirees lost their pensions. Crime skyrocketed. Corruption prolifirated. Over time, things got better, but it took time.

Now, when I was young, I didn't have access to comics save for Disney and Archie titles. My knowledge of superheroes came primary from movies, and even then, it was fragmented. Most of us couldn't afford to go to the movies, so when one of my classmates was able to see one, he told everyone about what he saw in as vivid of a detail as he or she could manage.

This was how I found out about Superman and Batman. I thought Superman was cool, because, well, he had cool powers. But the hero I related to most was Batman. He fought crime in a corrupt, crime-ridden city. Whereas Superman operated in a fantasy world that was far removed from anything I experienced, Batman operated in a world I could recognize, a world I could relate to. Superman was a spectacle. Batman, on the other hand, gave me hope. He showed that no matter how bad things got, there was always hope.

This is why I have a certain bias towards more realistically grounded superheroes. They offered something I could connect to, something I could apply to everyday life. Characters that were detached from the world I knew were interesting to look for a while, but in the end, they seemed kind of, well, frivolous.

Comics will go back to selling millions of copies again, but it won't be done because of more "edgy" stories or by introducing more anti-heroes, it won't be done by killing off superheroes, it won't be done by introducing more violence, it won't be done by introducing more gimmicks.

Sales figures over the past few years don't support that assertion.

It'll happen when you have mix great emotionally involving stories with great art.

Like Daredevil, Alias, Powers, Supreme Power, Sleeper, Wildcats 3.0, Thunderbolts (the Ellis incarnation), Noble Causes, Desolation Jones, Kabuki, Queen and Country...

But because they're "grim" or "gritty" or "dark" or "pretentious" or whatever, they probably won't count in your book.

Those two things are the heart of comic books and that'll never change. You focus on those two things and those two things only, the fans will come. It happened in 1976 with the Uncanny X-men and it'll happen again.

Because Claremont's Uncanny X-Men was such a fun-filled, escapist reading :)

On the broader note, I would like to address a recurring argument made throughout this thread and other threads of this nature - namely, an idea that if comic books came back to a certain era (be it the 60s, the 70s and the 80s (in other words, whenever the said poster was introduced to comics) the readers will flock to comics and everyone will live happily ever after.

The argument hinges on the assumption that the young readers to be want the same things as the poster did when he or she was their age. Unfortunately, it's a deeply flawed assumption.

First and foremost, each generation comes of age in a different world then the generation that preceded it. Social, political, economic, cultural and technological changes that occur over time introduce each emerging generation to a new set of paradigms. I, for example, grew up on a very different world then my parents, and the kids from the generation succeeding mine are growing up in a world I barely recognize. While in America, the changes may not have been quite as startling, the principle remains the same.

A while back, Newsarama did a story about DC's Impact line. In the comments, one of the participants in the above-mentioned efforts lamented that he and his fellow creators fundamentally misunderstood their audience. They assumed that the kids would like the comics like the ones they grew up with. They were completely unprepared for the success of Image Comics, which told very different kind of stories then the ones they were telling but which nonetheless appealed to the much coveted younger readers. Sure, speculation played a role as well, but what people tend to forget is that many kids and teenagers liked those stories. Granted, this success wasn't sustained, but the fact remained - it worked. Heck, this thread alone is a testament to that. Just look at the posters who got into the comics in the 90s and who enjoyed the kinds of comics that were published at the time.

Now, the comic book creators are trying to attract another generation, the newest generation. Some posters here would have the industry go back to the 60s, 70s or 80s. Heck, given a few years, we'll probably find many posters arguing for the return of the 90s. But that would be a mistake. If the comic book creators are to capture new readers today, they must figure out what appeals to readers today rather then what appealed to readers years and decades ago.

Of course, it's probably a lost battle anyway. Today, the comics kids are reading tend to come from Japan and South Korea. Those titles have the kind of stories that appeal to them. DC made some baby steps towards emulating this success. Unfortunately, do to the nature of the direct market, there are few incentives to change the way the Big Two do business. They would not make the kind of changes that would allow them to truly attract new readers. Just as the readers of the 90s chose Image Comics over Marvel's and DC's dated output, current readers are choosing manga over the comics that continue to pine for the past that shall never return.

niall mc cann

06-25-2007, 01:06 PM

I saw CW as a war.

A war that lasted how long, exactly? It didn't take too many days for Reed and tony to do obscene things out of desperation. Seemed to me more like they immediately reached to the most disgusting, amoral tactics they could.

Hadn't the avengers fought in wars before and resisted such tactics even when the situation was much worse than it was in CW?

People do things in war they don't do in the normal MU, therefore, you get the Nazi, and morally ambiguous correlations. I couldn't see a problem with how Millar portrayed Reed and Tony, and what they did with Thor cyborg because Tony and Reed had never struck this situation before. It was like tactics each SH has for any heros that go rogue. It will be brutal, because it will take something brutal to overcome a hero.

My problem is that they weren't resorting to morally ambiguous tactics; they just immediately resorted to things that were simply wrong. Handing Zemo the keys to an unstable supervillain army is not morally ambiguous, its wrong. Performing invasive brain surgery on a person (cloned or otherwise) without their consent is not morally ambiguous, its wrong, and that's not even touching the fact that the reason for this surgery was to effect a mind-control, brainwashed situation and steal the subject's free will.

They didn't even try to confront the anti-reg side directly; they just immediately did these ridiculously OTT things. And i don't subscribe to the idea that just because they were fighting heroes, what they did was necessary. Victor Von Doom is one of the most brilliant and ruthless men on the planet. He's a genuine threat to global freedom and prosperity; how many close calls has he given Reed over the years, where it would have been so much easier to just sic a brainwashed Thor on him? He never did that before, because it's obscene.

'Randomly picked one side'. Tonys side was always fate accompli, and I didn't see it as random. If Tony or anybody decided to back the SHRA, that side would win, because it had the force of legislation, which is like a bulldozer. The only way it wouldn't have panned out that way was if SH's never came over to back it, and they did. Fate accompli.

Okay. So the pro-reg side was always destined to win? fair enough. I don't see what relevance that has to the actions they took. If anything, it makes it worse, since it simply suggests that they'd have won even without the OOC warcrimes, surely?

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 03:05 PM

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you...
I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems...

It's a theme, but it's not the theme the series is rooted in, which was my point all along...
No, your point was it wasn't government related. ;)

Thanks, please do.
:rolleyes:
I know sometimes people have issues with people pointing out their mistakes, but really, it was all just for clarification. There was nothing sinister about it.

Dazzler

06-25-2007, 03:16 PM

Wow, someone trying to drive home a point? Sheesh...

And you're splitting hairs on the Gov't/Politics issue...Seriously, how many issues of the X-Men series have been based solely on dealing with Politics, which are a direct result of Government (see, I can color my words too!)

If you're just calling me on my grammar- guilty as charged. I'll go peacefully....

Just ignore him. Literally. Put him on your ignore list. I have him on mine.
Whenever he has a legitimate point, he can't help but try to drive it home with a jackhammer. A jackhammer that's laced with explosives. He likes to pick fights and start trouble.

It's your best bet before this blows up into something that will ruin your day.

Just my two cents, dude. :)

--Dazz

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 03:20 PM

Just ignore him. Literally. Put him on your ignore list. I have him on mine.
You have me on your ignore list?

Have we ever interacted?? :confused:

jackolover

06-25-2007, 04:20 PM

A war that lasted how long, exactly? It didn't take too many days for Reed and tony to do obscene things out of desperation. Seemed to me more like they immediately reached to the most disgusting, amoral tactics they could.

Hadn't the avengers fought in wars before and resisted such tactics even when the situation was much worse than it was in CW?

Haven't you ever heard of Auswitz and Dr. Mendel? In war, people resort to the extreme and that's what I think Millar was portraying, not how short a time it took to get there. I think the war only took about 6 weeks by the way.

My problem is that they weren't resorting to morally ambiguous tactics; they just immediately resorted to things that were simply wrong. Handing Zemo the keys to an unstable supervillain army is not morally ambiguous, its wrong. Performing invasive brain surgery on a person (cloned or otherwise) without their consent is not morally ambiguous, its wrong, and that's not even touching the fact that the reason for this surgery was to effect a mind-control, brainwashed situation and steal the subject's free will.

No argument there that Tony and Reed resorted to stuff that was wrong. I just liked that they showed heros behaving like this in pressure situations. Tells you a story, doesn't it.

They didn't even try to confront the anti-reg side directly; they just immediately did these ridiculously OTT things. And i don't subscribe to the idea that just because they were fighting heroes, what they did was necessary. Victor Von Doom is one of the most brilliant and ruthless men on the planet. He's a genuine threat to global freedom and prosperity; how many close calls has he given Reed over the years, where it would have been so much easier to just sic a brainwashed Thor on him? He never did that before, because it's obscene.

I noticed , also, that tactics used against more challenging heros, (versus the lazy Von Doom boredom), would require much more imagination. Doom and the villians fraternity, are a known quantity. Spiderman, on the other hand, Tony and Reed had no idea how to fight.

Okay. So the pro-reg side was always destined to win? fair enough. I don't see what relevance that has to the actions they took. If anything, it makes it worse, since it simply suggests that they'd have won even without the OOC warcrimes, surely?

It brings up a good point about inevitability and fate. What if WW 11 was left to it's own, and the Nazi's and the Japanese were not confronted, would the Western Alliance still have won? Probably not. The same with Tonys side. There had to be a proponant and an opposition, and with those elements, the whole gambit of unsavory tactics were brought out. If you feel the tactics were unwarranted, then I think Millar failed to convey the urgency and ferocity of Captain Americas resistance, and it's threat.

Brad Barton

06-25-2007, 04:24 PM

Just ignore him. Literally. Put him on your ignore list. I have him on mine.
Whenever he has a legitimate point, he can't help but try to drive it home with a jackhammer. A jackhammer that's laced with explosives. He likes to pick fights and start trouble.

It's your best bet before this blows up into something that will ruin your day.

Just my two cents, dude. :)

--DazzAppreciate the suggestion Dazz, but I really don't like putting ppl on ignore unless they're straight up @$$holes....guys like Shadow are mostly civil, they just feel this irresistable urge to be condescending every now and then (as I guess we all do from time to time, some just do it more than most) ....but I can handle that. ;)

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 04:26 PM

guys like Shadow are mostly civil, they just feel this irresistable urge to be condescending every now and then (as I guess we all do from time to time, some just do it more than most...) ....but I can handle that. ;)
*sniffle*

I feel this might be a turning point in our relationship :)

;)

Edit: It's not an urge either... it's a general inability to show humility. One of my great weaknesses I'm afraid.

Brad Barton

06-25-2007, 04:30 PM

*sniffle*

I feel this might be a turning point in our relationship :)

;)

Edit: It's not an urge either... it's a general inability to show humility. One of my great weaknesses I'm afraid.Ditto...though, a man's got to be able to admit he's wrong, or even if he's right, at least be a good sport about it...

And if you say "our relationship" again, I will ignore you....cuz that's just creepy. ;)

rerun

06-25-2007, 04:55 PM

Try the Ultimate line. Outside of The Ultimates, I think they're fun, not-so-serious reads that you may enjoy. But the Ultimates kicks butt 12 ways to Tuesday, so you really should read that as well. :)

Dazzler

06-25-2007, 05:03 PM

Appreciate the suggestion Dazz, but I really don't like putting ppl on ignore unless they're straight up @$$holes....guys like Shadow are mostly civil, they just feel this irresistable urge to be condescending every now and then (as I guess we all do from time to time, some just do it more than most) ....but I can handle that. ;)

I'll trust you in knowing your own limits of tolerance. :)
'Sides, all it takes with me is one conversation where not a single comment was without something snarky and i banish people to my own personal Negative Zone. I try to be gracious, but i don't like being condescended to. At all. In the slightest. lol
Must make you a better man than me. ;) I do have slight touch of evil in me.

Anyhoo. What ever *DID* happen to comics?

--Dazz

Rolltideguy77

06-25-2007, 05:13 PM

Lazy writers who churn out frivilous garbage and publishing companies that had thier balls amputated somewhere along the way, that's what happened to comics.

niall mc cann

06-25-2007, 05:38 PM

Haven't you ever heard of Auswitz and Dr. Mendel? In war, people resort to the extreme and that's what I think Millar was portraying, not how short a time it took to get there. I think the war only took about 6 weeks by the way.

Of course i've heard of Auschwitz and Mengele. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the death camps and Mengele's experiments were borne of some kind of tactic for defeating the allies? Or that they are understandable reactions to conflict?

If Churchill knew about Pearl Harbour and decided not to notify the americans, that's wrong, but there is a morally defensible arguement in favour; to save the world from the fascist threat, he needed america. there is no perspective from which Mengele's activities or The Final Solution are morally acceptable reactions to the conflict (both predate WWII anyway, so I’m not sure how they’re relevant). Neither were Tony or Reed’s actions.

No argument there that Tony and Reed resorted to stuff that was wrong. I just liked that they showed heros behaving like this in pressure situations. Tells you a story, doesn't it.

Not a very good one. They’d been in any amount of pressure situations before. Most of the time I’ve spent reading them, they were in pressure situations. They never ever, not once, ever in all the time I’d read them resorted to anything like the kind of amoral behaviour they display in Civil War. In fact, both men had routinely risked their lives without asking for a penny in return to oppose guys who tried tactics like that (mind control/genetic tampering).

It’s extremely OOC, and closer to my point, adolescent. There’s a valid issue at the heart of Civil War, but the attitude of Millar seemed to be “I can get away without bothering to properly debate the issue if I just make one side evil”. It’s a betrayal of the concept; civil war wasn’t some controversial political rumination, it was one more black hats/white hats fight, it’s just that they had to make some of the good guys be bad guys without explanation to make that work.

I noticed , also, that tactics used against more challenging heros, (versus the lazy Von Doom boredom), would require much more imagination. Doom and the villians fraternity, are a known quantity. Spiderman, on the other hand, Tony and Reed had no idea how to fight.

The FF had fought spidey before, more than once. In fact, didn’t they do that in the very first amazing spider-man ever? The heroes fought each other all the time. Most of them knew each other well.

It brings up a good point about inevitability and fate.

You brought it up. I don’t see it myself.

What if WW 11 was left to it's own, and the Nazi's and the Japanese were not confronted, would the Western Alliance still have won? Probably not. The same with Tonys side.

Well, if they hadn’t fought, by definition they wouldn’t have won.

There had to be a proponant and an opposition, and with those elements, the whole gambit of unsavory tactics were brought out.

There was a subject for debate; should superheroes be registered? Naturally, there would be proponents and opponents. The issue was never really given a chance to be debated, because whether or not you agree with registration, how can you side with people who do the kind of things to innocent people that Tony and Reed did? Ultimately, any morally responsible person would have to oppose the kinds of things that Reed and Tony were responsible for during CW, so the debate, the issue that was supposed to be the heart of the story, takes a background seat to the undeniable crimes they committed.

If you feel the tactics were unwarranted, then I think Millar failed to convey the urgency and ferocity of Captain Americas resistance, and it's threat.
I simply feel that its OOC for Tony’s first reaction to Cap disagreeing with him is to commit the kind of obscenities that he did – and it was his first reaction.

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 06:12 PM

And if you say "our relationship" again, I will ignore you....cuz that's just creepy. ;)

Edited for... effect.

Citizen V

06-25-2007, 07:16 PM

Speking of comics putting across political views.When did this become common?Ive seen it nearly all the time now.

The Shadow

06-25-2007, 07:30 PM

Speking of comics putting across political views.When did this become common?Ive seen it nearly all the time now.

It's always been common.

Sgt Fury and the Howling Commando's was a "Defeat the Fascists" comic (us vs them), while Nick Fury Agent of SHIELD was a cold war inspired comic with political overtones.
As mentioned, the X-Men have had political undertones since the 1960's. Even in real life comics have been political... the drug issues in Amazing in the 70's were an attack on the comics code and policing of material against the governmental body.

Not to exclude DC, but read the old Green Lantern/Green Arrow issues by Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams... they're very left wing (or at least Ollie is) while GL is more right. The messages (drugs, environment and so on) were hot button issues of the day (and still resonate today).

jackolover

06-25-2007, 07:32 PM

Of course i've heard of Auschwitz and Mengele. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the death camps and Mengele's experiments were borne of some kind of tactic for defeating the allies? Or that they are understandable reactions to conflict?

If Churchill knew about Pearl Harbour and decided not to notify the americans, that's wrong, but there is a morally defensible arguement in favour; to save the world from the fascist threat, he needed america. there is no perspective from which Mengele's activities or The Final Solution are morally acceptable reactions to the conflict (both predate WWII anyway, so I’m not sure how they’re relevant). Neither were Tony or Reed’s actions.

Not a very good one. They’d been in any amount of pressure situations before. Most of the time I’ve spent reading them, they were in pressure situations. They never ever, not once, ever in all the time I’d read them resorted to anything like the kind of amoral behaviour they display in Civil War. In fact, both men had routinely risked their lives without asking for a penny in return to oppose guys who tried tactics like that (mind control/genetic tampering).

It’s extremely OOC, and closer to my point, adolescent. There’s a valid issue at the heart of Civil War, but the attitude of Millar seemed to be “I can get away without bothering to properly debate the issue if I just make one side evil”. It’s a betrayal of the concept; civil war wasn’t some controversial political rumination, it was one more black hats/white hats fight, it’s just that they had to make some of the good guys be bad guys without explanation to make that work.

The FF had fought spidey before, more than once. In fact, didn’t they do that in the very first amazing spider-man ever? The heroes fought each other all the time. Most of them knew each other well.

You brought it up. I don’t see it myself.

Well, if they hadn’t fought, by definition they wouldn’t have won.

There was a subject for debate; should superheroes be registered? Naturally, there would be proponents and opponents. The issue was never really given a chance to be debated, because whether or not you agree with registration, how can you side with people who do the kind of things to innocent people that Tony and Reed did? Ultimately, any morally responsible person would have to oppose the kinds of things that Reed and Tony were responsible for during CW, so the debate, the issue that was supposed to be the heart of the story, takes a background seat to the undeniable crimes they committed.

I simply feel that its OOC for Tony’s first reaction to Cap disagreeing with him is to commit the kind of obscenities that he did – and it was his first reaction.

All I can say, niall, is that you had some good points on the treating Allies thing, but we are at odds with Millars treatment. I can live with the brutality involved, because heros have a great deal harder time defeating heros, and on a philosophical level as well. Who would have ever thought that the Marvel creators would ever have to deal with heros being defeated? The whole premise of hero/villian encounters is that heros have to always win, for there to be the next issue. So when Iron Man defeats Captain America, and the whole resistance are the loosers, you are going into unknown territory here.

reddog

06-25-2007, 08:58 PM

Do you and Reddog read Marvel Adventures, or the regular books? Myself, I dislile the MA stuff, because it is pure escapism. I criticised Buckley for bringing them out, but now that there is a market for it, maybe there is a niche for it.

I read the regular books. When it comes to gritty story telling i was thinking the ultimate line was a great place to do that. In the civil war i felt that the characters were way OOC. There were actions in those books that were way over the top and i feel some of them were villiany like none of the other villians would even stoop too. What really bothers me is the death of captain america seems so anticlimatic to me when i read the posts. Its like the whole point of his fight is lost on so many.

jackolover

06-25-2007, 09:42 PM

I read the regular books. When it comes to gritty story telling i was thinking the ultimate line was a great place to do that. In the civil war i felt that the characters were way OOC. There were actions in those books that were way over the top and i feel some of them were villiany like none of the other villians would even stoop too. What really bothers me is the death of captain america seems so anticlimatic to me when i read the posts. Its like the whole point of his fight is lost on so many.

Okay, I have one for you. What if someone other than Millar wrote CW? What if Dan Slott wrote it?

It might have turned into a humorous farce, with heros in sanitised encounters, where nobody wins and nobody got hurt. No Thor cyborg, or the death of Goliath or Cap, but a friendly handshake at the end of it, and everybody's friends again. Now would that have been as good a CW?

(Apologies Dan if I got your style wrong, by the way).

Man In Black

06-26-2007, 12:01 AM

Okay, I have one for you. What if someone other than Millar wrote CW? What if Dan Slott wrote it?

It might have turned into a humorous farce, with heros in sanitised encounters, where nobody wins and nobody got hurt. No Thor cyborg, or the death of Goliath or Cap, but a friendly handshake at the end of it, and everybody's friends again. Now would that have been as good a CW?

(Apologies Dan if I got your style wrong, by the way).A "Humorous
Farce"? You don't give Dan the man much credit...because he adds humor to his titles he's incapabale of substantial storytelling?

jackolover

06-26-2007, 12:24 AM

A "Humorous
Farce"? You don't give Dan the man much credit...because he adds humor to his titles he's incapabale of substantial storytelling?

Okay, I am not that familiar with his work, except for She-Hulk.

MAK15

06-26-2007, 12:31 AM

Okay, I am not that familiar with his work, except for She-Hulk.

he also did the latest thing series, and is working on the Avengers:Initiative title as well.

Dazzler

06-26-2007, 12:44 AM

You have me on your ignore list?

Have we ever interacted?? :confused:

Sorry, I just happened to read this whilst not signed in and thought i would respond.
Yes, you're on my ignore list (well, not at the moment, anyway), and we have interacted before. I found the experience very frustrating and personally offensive. The entire conversation was filled with snide comments and i felt personally attacked (with you questioning my intelligence, etc), so i just decided to engage the ignore.
I don't expect you to remember. Humility may be impossible for you,but it just goes to show that you (in the abstract sense) have an effect on people even when you don't realize it.
But whatevs. Over now. :)

--Dazz

Man In Black

06-26-2007, 02:58 AM

Okay, I am not that familiar with his work, except for She-Hulk.I don't read She-hulk, but I like the initiative title alright, it's not a "comedic farce" by any means, but there are comedic elements in it.

jackolover

06-26-2007, 03:53 AM

I don't read She-hulk, but I like the initiative title alright, it's not a "comedic farce" by any means, but there are comedic elements in it.

Looks like I have read his AV : In, too. And like you, enjoyed it as well as She-Hulk, but a different style.

BizarroBeachHead

06-26-2007, 04:15 AM

Okay, I have one for you. What if someone other than Millar wrote CW?

Not that I want to get in the middle of your guys' conversation, but this comment sparked the idea bulb in my head.

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Millar, and I think the way he wrote Civil War was pretty terrible, he was a fine enough writer for this crossover. Hell, I'd go so far as to say his bombastic, action packed style is perfect for almost any company crossover, particularly an event such as Civil War.

What Civil War needed was some hard nosed editing. What does the SRA actually do? What are going to be the consequences of the SRA becoming law? These are the questions that needed to be answered right away to give the reader some understanding of the stakes of the story. Instead we got a bunch of characters(who were acting pretty out of character, yes) immediately starting fights with each other for ambiguous reasons. And all of that was drowned out by the little mini events happening in the story. Spidey unmasks. Thor returns. Thor is cloned cyborg. Goliath dies. Punisher kills villains, etc. Most of that stuff had little to do with the actual story that was purported to be happening. It was a bunch of unrelated "money shots" to keep people distracted from the lack of story.

But I'm not here to talk about what I thought of Civil War. Whether you liked it or not, editorially it was pretty messy. What did those Fantastic Four Road to Civil War issues have to do with anything? You know, the issues where D.B. goes and gets Thor's hammer. Was the negative zone prison temporary or permanent? Frontline needed an extra issue added on to wrap up it's story. Who in the world thought Reed and Sue's relationship was handled in a sane way? The X-Men were written out of the even for convenience sake. Spider-man unmasking was shoe horned in and had absolutely no bearing on the story being told.

There were lots of places in Civil War where an editor needed to just say, "no."

And that, in turn, is what I think Marvel's biggest problem to date is. There doesn't seem too much editorial control. Or perhaps I should say it's all terribly mismanaged editorial control(see: Quesada forcing Spidey's unmasking). Instead of a crack squad of great creators pumping out their A material, Quesada has set up the the image of a chummy boy's club where any idea is a great idea since it's coming from his buds.

In the specific case of Civil War, somebody needed to step in and say, "the stakes need to be defined at the beginning of the book. Clone Thor is a bad idea. Reed needs a legitimate reason for wanting to imprison his friends" and so on.

Now, don't let this be construed as a "I hate so and so" and "so and so suxxxors!" because I don't think that. I think that everyone working at Marvel today is incredibly talented and deserves the position they have. However, it feels to me that now that they are at their respective positions, they're no longer producing their A material. Frankly, it just feels lazy.

This article (http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=1216) from the now defunct website Ninth Art goes pretty far, but I think it sums up the problems Marvel seems to be having. This quote in particular strikes my fancy:

One can only assume that these former innovators have become lazy and complacent on the acclaim of their loyal fans and the chummy support of an editorial office that relishes having a boy's brigade to go to strip clubs with.

jackolover

06-26-2007, 04:46 AM

Not that I want to get in the middle of your guys' conversation, but this comment sparked the idea bulb in my head.

Although I'm not the biggest fan of Millar, and I think the way he wrote Civil War was pretty terrible, he was a fine enough writer for this crossover. Hell, I'd go so far as to say his bombastic, action packed style is perfect for almost any company crossover, particularly an event such as Civil War.

What Civil War needed was some hard nosed editing. What does the SRA actually do? What are going to be the consequences of the SRA becoming law? These are the questions that needed to be answered right away to give the reader some understanding of the stakes of the story. Instead we got a bunch of characters(who were acting pretty out of character, yes) immediately starting fights with each other for ambiguous reasons. And all of that was drowned out by the little mini events happening in the story. Spidey unmasks. Thor returns. Thor is cloned cyborg. Goliath dies. Punisher kills villains, etc. Most of that stuff had little to do with the actual story that was purported to be happening. It was a bunch of unrelated "money shots" to keep people distracted from the lack of story.

But I'm not here to talk about what I thought of Civil War. Whether you liked it or not, editorially it was pretty messy. What did those Fantastic Four Road to Civil War issues have to do with anything? You know, the issues where D.B. goes and gets Thor's hammer. Was the negative zone prison temporary or permanent? Frontline needed an extra issue added on to wrap up it's story. Who in the world thought Reed and Sue's relationship was handled in a sane way? The X-Men were written out of the even for convenience sake. Spider-man unmasking was shoe horned in and had absolutely no bearing on the story being told.

There were lots of places in Civil War where an editor needed to just say, "no."

And that, in turn, is what I think Marvel's biggest problem to date is. There doesn't seem too much editorial control. Or perhaps I should say it's all terribly mismanaged editorial control(see: Quesada forcing Spidey's unmasking). Instead of a crack squad of great creators pumping out their A material, Quesada has set up the the image of a chummy boy's club where any idea is a great idea since it's coming from his buds.

In the specific case of Civil War, somebody needed to step in and say, "the stakes need to be defined at the beginning of the book. Clone Thor is a bad idea. Reed needs a legitimate reason for wanting to imprison his friends" and so on.

Now, don't let this be construed as a "I hate so and so" and "so and so suxxxors!" because I don't think that. I think that everyone working at Marvel today is incredibly talented and deserves the position they have. However, it feels to me that now that they are at their respective positions, they're no longer producing their A material. Frankly, it just feels lazy.

This article (http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=1216) from the now defunct website Ninth Art goes pretty far, but I think it sums up the problems Marvel seems to be having. This quote in particular strikes my fancy:

Some of your criticisms of Marvel staff , concerning the running of CW, seems pretty familiar, on your part, and unless you have some intimate knowledge of what you are stating, you would just be another fanboy with a point of view. I don't see the Marvel Staff as some kind of mutual adoration society, that gets away with anything. Some staff have their ideas torn asunder by other people, or, other ideas are thrust into their stories from outside, welcome or not.

I also found Millars 7 issues of CW a little thin. I am assuming he did this because all the tie-ins filled in all the blanks, and that's how CW was written.

I am getting that deja vu feeling with Greg Paks WWH main book, too.

Can you add to the comment, BizarroBeachHead, that if someone else wrote CW, what it would be like, or, have you accepted CW was well done accept for the editing?

BizarroBeachHead

06-26-2007, 06:19 AM

Some of your criticisms of Marvel staff , concerning the running of CW, seems pretty familiar, on your part, and unless you have some intimate knowledge of what you are stating, you would just be another fanboy with a point of view. I don't see the Marvel Staff as some kind of mutual adoration society, that gets away with anything. Some staff have their ideas torn asunder by other people, or, other ideas are thrust into their stories from outside, welcome or not.
No, I don't have any intimate knowledge of the inner workings at Marvel, so naturally all I am is a person with a point of view(I object to the term fanboy because it has no actual meaning anymore). To clarify, that's simply the impression I get judging from the interviews and such contrasted with the end product. I'm sure...strike that, I know there are plenty of people who aren't going to get that impression, and that's fine. That's what discussion boards are for(well, that and arguing about who's stronger, Hulk or Thor). I should have gone on to clarify, it's not just the happenings of Civil War that led me to this conclusion, but many different things across the board from diluting their talent pool, to juggling crossovers, to the way they condescend to their readers.

I also found Millars 7 issues of CW a little thin. I am assuming he did this because all the tie-ins filled in all the blanks, and that's how CW was written.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. It was written as a crossover, okay, then there needed to be more editorial control keeping the other books in line. If Millar doesn't want to set up the stakes in his book(which I still think is a bad idea) then SOMEbody should have. As it stood, for the first six months of the crossover, nobody could get a straight answer to the question, "Who does the SRA affect" Or worse, we were getting contradictory answers, "The SRA affects anyone with superpowers" or "The SRA only affects acting superheroes"--which answer do you like best, because nobody knows. That was my biggest gripe over Civil War.

Can you add to the comment, BizarroBeachHead, that if someone else wrote CW, what it would be like, or, have you accepted CW was well done accept for the editing?Well, Civil War was largely written by committee, so all the major plot points would have still happened. But I don't know if I can comment on what it would be like if someone else wrote it, because I honestly don't know. I'm sure it would vary under any writer. Another writer may have focused on different things, like dialog or flow, as opposed to Millars "series of cool moments" style he writes in. Would it be better? Possibly. Would it have been as entertaining to the large audience who enjoyed it? I can't say. Different people look for different things in their entertainment.

jackolover

06-26-2007, 04:26 PM

No, I don't have any intimate knowledge of the inner workings at Marvel, so naturally all I am is a person with a point of view(I object to the term fanboy because it has no actual meaning anymore). To clarify, that's simply the impression I get judging from the interviews and such contrasted with the end product. I'm sure...strike that, I know there are plenty of people who aren't going to get that impression, and that's fine. That's what discussion boards are for(well, that and arguing about who's stronger, Hulk or Thor). I should have gone on to clarify, it's not just the happenings of Civil War that led me to this conclusion, but many different things across the board from diluting their talent pool, to juggling crossovers, to the way they condescend to their readers.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. It was written as a crossover, okay, then there needed to be more editorial control keeping the other books in line. If Millar doesn't want to set up the stakes in his book(which I still think is a bad idea) then SOMEbody should have. As it stood, for the first six months of the crossover, nobody could get a straight answer to the question, "Who does the SRA affect" Or worse, we were getting contradictory answers, "The SRA affects anyone with superpowers" or "The SRA only affects acting superheroes"--which answer do you like best, because nobody knows. That was my biggest gripe over Civil War.

Well, Civil War was largely written by committee, so all the major plot points would have still happened. But I don't know if I can comment on what it would be like if someone else wrote it, because I honestly don't know. I'm sure it would vary under any writer. Another writer may have focused on different things, like dialog or flow, as opposed to Millars "series of cool moments" style he writes in. Would it be better? Possibly. Would it have been as entertaining to the large audience who enjoyed it? I can't say. Different people look for different things in their entertainment.

Thanks for the comments, and your criticisms have merit.