Bad Comics by Great Writters

[igotshoe]

So the other day my friend and I were talking about when this happens. We go over four of them on our show One Shot Presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95B4KV-fo4&feature=channel_page
Anyways, I was just wondering if you guys agree with us or if you had anytime your favorite writers kinda disappointed you with a bad comic?
-tagg

[prismablue]

So the other day my friend and I were talking about when this happens. We go over four of them on our show One Shot Presents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95B4KV-fo4&feature=channel_page
Anyways, I was just wondering if you guys agree with us or if you had anytime your favorite writers kinda disappointed you with a bad comic?
-tagg

I'm always disappointed when the art doesn't fit/enhance the tone of the story. A writer is only as good as the artist who tells the story in comicbook form.

[dancj]

YouTube's running like a dawg for me so all I've seen from your list is the Walking Dead and JSA.

Personally I'd say Geoff Johns often writes boring stuff so JSA fails on the "great writer" part. Walking Dead on the other hand, I'm a couple of TPBs behind on, but so far I'm more than happy with it.

My answers:

Alan Moore: Promethea 32 and that bloody Tarot card issue. First American, Cobweb, Splash Brannigan.

Grant Morrison: Kill your Boyfriend, The Invisibles v3: The Invisible Kingdom

Warren Ellis: JLA New Maps of Hell

Garth Ennis: Dicks

Brian K Vaughan: Swamp Thing

Frank Miller: Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot

Robert Kirkman: Captain America

[Reptisaurus!]

In terms of Mainstream comics?

I can't think of any major writer who hasn't done a half-dozen things I've hated - Or, for that matter, really liked, There's just too many variables, with artists, editors, colorists etc. ON TOP of the fact that all individual artists have their successes and failures.

[igotshoe]

Yeah I guess it could be mainstream or independent comics. I guess there are alot of variables. Also probably a good point that most comic book writers or artists would kinda tell the same story over and over again. Movies are like that. Even with different genres, you can tell if it's a Ron Howard movie, Steven Spielberg etc...

[Nitz the Bloody]

Ultimate Iron Man by Orson Scott Card gets a Lifetime Achievement Award in this category; as much as I liked the Ender books I read, I found this story not just flatly written and conceptually fault, but actually offensive in the way it represented chronic pain ( since this Tony Stark seems so well-adjusted for a person who apparently is constantly in a state of physical suffering; not that he should be a House-type misanthrope, but something to indicate that such a condition isn't just an inconvenience ).

[NickFury90]

YouTube's running like a dawg for me so all I've seen from your list is the Walking Dead and JSA.

Personally I'd say Geoff Johns often writes boring stuff so JSA fails on the "great writer" part. Walking Dead on the other hand, I'm a couple of TPBs behind on, but so far I'm more than happy with it.

My answers:

Alan Moore: Promethea 32 and that bloody Tarot card issue. U S Agent, Cobweb, Splash Brannigan.

Grant Morrison: Kill your Boyfriend, The Invisibles v3: The Invisible Kingdom

Warren Ellis: JLA New Maps of Hell

Garth Ennis: Dicks

Brian K Vaughan: Swamp Thing

Frank Miller: Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot

Robert Kirkman: Captain America




My answers:

Alan Moore: Promethea 32 and that bloody Tarot card issue. U S Agent, Cobweb, Splash Brannigan.

Grant Morrison: Kill your Boyfriend, The Invisibles v3: The Invisible Kingdom

Warren Ellis: JLA New Maps of Hell

Garth Ennis: Dicks

Brian K Vaughan: Swamp Thing

Frank Miller: Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot

Robert Kirkman: Captain America




Grant Morrison: Kill your Boyfriend

wat :confused:

[dancj]

Ultimate Iron Man by Orson Scott Card gets a Lifetime Achievement Award in this category; as much as I liked the Ender books I read, I found this story not just flatly written and conceptually fault, but actually offensive in the way it represented chronic pain ( since this Tony Stark seems so well-adjusted for a person who apparently is constantly in a state of physical suffering; not that he should be a House-type misanthrope, but something to indicate that such a condition isn't just an inconvenience ).
I loved Ultimate Iron Man. For me it's one of the best Ultimate books - possibly only behind The Ultimates.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Grant Morrison - entire X-Men run

[obii]

Peter Milligan's Magneto

[Stantheman23]

Alan Moore- The Killing Joke (don't hurt me)

[jesse_custer]

Alan Moore- The Killing Joke (don't hurt me)

Why would I hurt you for being right?

[Stantheman23]

oh...thank god

[Paiute 1]

Grant Morrison - entire X-Men run

I totaly agree, I quit comics about that time after thirty years because of Morrison, what they were doing to Spiderman and generaly Joe Q.

I am slowly getting back into it.

[Alan2099]

I totaly agree, I quit comics about that time after thirty years because of Morrison, what they were doing to Spiderman and generaly Joe Q.

I am slowly getting back into it.
You too, huh?

I went from a rapid X-men fan to somebody that barely reads anything Marvel when Grant came on board.

[Reptisaurus!]

And I started buying the X-men for the first time since I was ten, and bought more Marvel comics during the Jemas run than I have before or since.

On the other hand: I'm a Phillip K. Dick fan, 'an I'm way more into concepts than characters in superhero books.

[BillR]

You too, huh?

I went from a rapid X-men fan to somebody that barely reads anything Marvel when Grant came on board.

And I went from someone on the verge of giving up comics to becoming an obnoxious comics blogger! Cheers to Grant for writing the only readable X-Men run ever.

[Nitz the Bloody]

I totaly agree, I quit comics about that time after thirty years because of Morrison, what they were doing to Spiderman and generaly Joe Q.

I am slowly getting back into it.


Yeah, I quit movies after seeing the Phantom Menace. Certainly that was a sign there wasn't any other conceivable good film that could be made afterwards.

[Chris N]

Alan Moore: U S Agent

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Michael P]

I totaly agree, I quit comics about that time after thirty years because of Morrison, what they were doing to Spider-Man and generally Joe Q.

I am slowly getting back into it.

What, pulling the books out of a seven-year sales & creative slump?

[NickFury90]

Grant Morrison - entire X-Men run


You too, huh?

I went from a rapid X-men fan to somebody that barely reads anything Marvel when Grant came on board.


I totaly agree, I quit comics about that time after thirty years because of Morrison, what they were doing to Spiderman and generaly Joe Q.

I am slowly getting back into it.


And I went from someone on the verge of giving up comics to becoming an obnoxious comics blogger! Cheers to Grant for writing the only readable X-Men run ever.

Behold, the most polarizing writer in the industry!

[Dard]

Spider-Man/X-Factor by Kurt Busiek.

[Paiute 1]

You too, huh?

I went from a rapid X-men fan to somebody that barely reads anything Marvel when Grant came on board.

That and spending $120.00 a month on stuff I no longer injoyed.

[Reptisaurus!]

Behold, the most polarizing writer in the industry!

Well, it was a big 'ol shift from being soap opera tinged with poorly written science fiction to being science fiction tinged with poorly written soap opera.

[tkitna]

I thought Peter Davids run on Aquamans 'Time And Tide' was pretty boring. I just could not get into it and I really tried.

[Lorendiac]

Well, when I think of stuff that I found horribly disappointing, when compared to the best of certain people's previous storytelling efforts in one medium or another, then I'll go with:

"Sins Past" by JMS.

"X-Men: The Hidden Years" by John Byrne.

Chris Claremont's return to the X-Men on two titles at once, after spending most of the 90s away from them.

"10th Muse" by Marv Wolfman.

"Dark Knight Strikes Again" by Frank Miller. (C'mon, you knew that one was coming! The only reason I don't mention his "All-Star Batman and Robin" is that I've never read any of it! See how careful I am not to mention it?)

At least some of the Detroit Justice League by Gerry Conway, who had previously done much better with the Satellite Era JLA and on other superhero titles as well. (Although I've only read that entire period of his JLA run straight through once, many years ago -- maybe I should refresh my memory?)

"Final Crisis" by Grant Morrison.

Steven Seagle's year-long run on Superman, complete with Whiny Supergirl Cir-El. (I'd quite enjoyed some of Seagle's previous work on other characters.)

That will do for now.

[David O Burcham]

"Dark Knight Strikes Again" by Frank Miller.

I think "Spawn/Batman" was worse. Batman's entire vocabulary was limited to the word "punk."

[BillR]

I legitimately like Dark Knight Strikes Again. Like, a lot.

But I'd have to say that a bad comic by a great writer is Lost Girls by Alan Moore. That's right. I said it.

[Dan Felty]

I had never once been disappointed by Alan Moore, so I thought, "Well, I'll check out Spawn: Blood Feud. It's bound to be at least entertaining."

If anyone wants to trade me, say, some Grant Morrison X-Men for it, I'll be happy to consider it! :biggrin:

[Reptisaurus!]

I legitimately like Dark Knight Strikes Again. Like, a lot.


Oh lord, me too. Superheroes and superheroes fighting across the generation gap using media as a weapon? That's frickin' brilliant!



I had never once been disappointed by Alan Moore, so I thought, "Well, I'll check out Spawn: Blood Feud. It's bound to be at least entertaining."


I missed that one, although I did read Spawn: WildCats and (even worse) the Voodoo mini-series. Dear God, both were completely awful in a "Chris Claremont at his worst" kinda way. And I sincerely like everything else Moore did that was mentioned on this thread.

[Chris N]

What is the opinion on Moore's Judgment Day? I actually thought the idea for the story was cool. It was only hindered by the fact that it centered on characters so bland that not even Moore could bring them to life and that every panel of artwork made you want to gouge your eyes out.

[Reptisaurus!]

I appreciated the novelty of a Moore/Liefeld colabo.

The plot felt a bit like an above-average episode of one of 'em "Boston Legal" style TV shows, plus superheroes. Even without Rob L. it wasn't gonna be a career highlight.

Although I did really enjoy reading Alan Moore and Rob Liefeld call each other names on the internet. So I have a soft spot in my heart for it.

[DubipR]

Morrison's Spawn issues
Milligan's run on Elecktra

[TROUBLEZ]

What is the opinion on Moore's Judgment Day? I actually thought the idea for the story was cool. It was only hindered by the fact that it centered on characters so bland that not even Moore could bring them to life and that every panel of artwork made you want to gouge your eyes out.

I loved it. The only art that wasn't good was the Liefeld portions. Everything else was drawn by Gil Kane, Terry Dodson, Stephen Platt, Chris Sprouse and other greats.

The story was really good. Moore gave these characters more unique personalities when he started writing their solo series (Youngblood, Glory).

[Dan Felty]

What is the opinion on Moore's Judgment Day? I actually thought the idea for the story was cool. It was only hindered by the fact that it centered on characters so bland that not even Moore could bring them to life and that every panel of artwork made you want to gouge your eyes out.

You have to look pretty hard to find something to like about it, but it's in there. There's one short sequence with Glory (a Wonder Woman analogue) and Hermes the god that was excellent. It presaged a lot of the stuff he would cover in Promethea.

Don't pay any money for it, but if it's at the library, give it a look.

[stealthwise]

I legitimately like Dark Knight Strikes Again. Like, a lot.

But I'd have to say that a bad comic by a great writer is Lost Girls by Alan Moore. That's right. I said it.

I don't know how good Dark Knight Strikes Again is, but everyone here is free to like it if they want.

But to say that Lost Girls is a bad comic is a really flawed view, especially without any reason given for that. It's well-drawn and decently written, with a disturbing yet mildly intriguing concept behind it.

That said, I didn't really enjoy it all that much, and doubt I'll read it again for quite some time.

[BillR]

I appreciate Moore's ambition to turn porn into literature, or fine art-- but I don't think he quite succeeded, which leaves it just being really well-drawn and wordy porn.

[stealthwise]

I appreciate Moore's ambition to turn porn into literature, or fine art-- but I don't think he quite succeeded, which leaves it just being really well-drawn and wordy porn.

Agreed, although I don't think that by any means makes it a bad comic.

For a great example of a terrible Moore comic, likely by design, read his Violator mini-series. :)

[Turlast]

"Infinity War" by Jim Starlin

I'm a huge fan of Starlin's style and the way he writes in general--but man, was that the worse of the Infinity saga, ever. I've read worse, but that was terrible.

[dancj]

I actually enjoyed Moore's Violator stuff. Silly lightweight stuff, but quite fun all the same.

[dancj]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
U S Agent was a really unfunny strip in Tomorrow Stories.

[Lorendiac]

U S Agent was a really unfunny strip in Tomorrow Stories.

Speaking as the self-appointed keeper of a list of comic book "flagsuit characters" (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/07/04/lorendiacs-lists-the-master-list-of-us-flagsuit-characters-second-draft/) who wear red-white-and-blue to demonstrate their alleged patriotic loyalty to the USA, I can assure you that your memory is playing tricks on you.

Alan Moore's "flagsuit characters" in "Tomorrow Stories" were a man called "First American" and his female sidekick, "USAngel."

"USAgent" is a Marvel character. The identity was created for John Walker (alias Jack Daniels) after he had served as a substitute Captain America for about a year and a half in the 1980s.

Incidentally, my tradition (two years old and counting!) is to post an update of my Flagsuit Characters list on each Fourth of July. Over the past year I've been making notes on any I missed before, and I really better get working on revising the master list soon, so I can have it ready to go in a couple of weeks!

(P.S. I thought some of the Fighting American stories were hilarious, although I haven't reread any of "Tomorrow Stories" in a few years!)

[Lorendiac]

I think "Spawn/Batman" was worse. Batman's entire vocabulary was limited to the word "punk."

Hey, I kinda liked that one! I admit I would not enjoy seeing a regular Batman title be written and drawn in the same way as that one-shot, month after month for the next ten years, but I had some fun reading that story as a bit of a "change of pace" from the norm! :)

(Which is pretty much the same way I feel about Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" and "Year One," come to think of it!)

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I quit movies after seeing the Phantom Menace. Certainly that was a sign there wasn't any other conceivable good film that could be made afterwards.

while quitting all movies would be extreme, would not an aversion to Lucas future movies by a somewhat understandable reaction, tho?

[Reptisaurus!]

Dangit, replied to the wrong thread.

Ummm...

Shadow of No Towers!

[Dan Felty]

Dangit, replied to the wrong thread.

Ummm...

Shadow of No Towers!

Why? I thought it did a very good job getting its message across, and giving some insight into surviving the Sep. 11 attacks.

[Paiute 1]

If it's not been posted; Claremont's first return to X-men, I still can't get past the Neo.

Never liked Morrison but this stuff was preety bad.

[Shellhead]

"Infinity War" by Jim Starlin

I'm a huge fan of Starlin's style and the way he writes in general--but man, was that the worse of the Infinity saga, ever. I've read worse, but that was terrible.

I found Infinity War tolerable, and even enjoyed the Doctor Doom/Kang team-up a little bit. Infinity War is where I finally drew the line, dropping it after the first three issues.

[spidervenom]

huh, didn't know people hated morrisons run of new x-men so much. whats wrong with it?

[Reptisaurus!]

Why? I thought it did a very good job getting its message across, and giving some insight into surviving the Sep. 11 attacks.

It was, what, ten pages? Not much actual content there, and I thought it was all fairly predictable - Nothing I hadn't heard a hundred other people say before.

It was nice to see Speigs show off his design skills (which he never really got to do in Maus) but I just thought the content was weak, weak, weak.

[GRANT!]

huh, didn't know people hated morrisons run of new x-men so much. whats wrong with it?

It was just too awesome.

[GRANT!]

I actually enjoyed Moore's Violator stuff. Silly lightweight stuff, but quite fun all the same.

This makes a lot of worst lists but I thought it was pretty damn hilarious at the time.

The gun toting guy who scared Violators brothers back into hell was great. I think he was called the Admonisher or something.

[GRANT!]

I missed that one, although I did read Spawn: WildCats and (even worse) the Voodoo mini-series. Dear God, both were completely awful in a "Chris Claremont at his worst" kinda way. And I sincerely like everything else Moore did that was mentioned on this thread.

Yeah those weren't so hot. His WildCATs stuff was okay but not nearly as good as the short James Robinson run.

Nothing is as bad as Badrock/Violator. I keep convincing myself Moore didn't even write that one.

[dancj]

Alan Moore's "flagsuit characters" in "Tomorrow Stories" were a man called "First American" and his female sidekick, "USAngel."

Oops - My bad. I meant First American. Terrible stuff.

I'll edit my original post.

[TROUBLEZ]

So is the Wildstorm TPB of Alan Moore worth getting? Or is the only good story the Majestic one?

[Reptisaurus!]

So is the Wildstorm TPB of Alan Moore worth getting? Or is the only good story the Majestic one?

I thought reading bad Alan Moore was really interesting so I'd say yes. I'm gonna have to track down all those Spawn one-shots; hopefully they're in trade and can be interlibrary loaned.

[GHalecki]

Morrison's X-Men was the worst work I can think of by a really good writer.

However I think that the farthest gap between how GREAT I think someone's best is and how bad their worst is, might be John Byrne's Doom Partol.

He has done what I think to be the definitive work on what I consider the definitive super heroes, with his run on Fantastic Four. I honestly can't say that any work in any comic I have read can beat that run.

But I really was so disappointed with his Doom Partol.

He has done a few projects that I really didn't care for, but his DP I actually disliked strongly.

With Morrison, he has done a lot more that I don't like, than I likes, but the stuff I liked I liked a whole lot. But while his X-Men was absolutely terrible, it was not supprisingly terrible.

[dancj]

It looks like New X-Men was X-Men for people who don't like X-Men.

I liked it!

[Darrell D.]

It looks like New X-Men was X-Men for people who don't like X-Men.

I liked it!

Hey, it got me reading X-men comics for the first time since the late 80's, so I would call it a success in that regard. It was fun.

[jesse_custer]

So is the Wildstorm TPB of Alan Moore worth getting? Or is the only good story the Majestic one?

The Majestic story is the best, and the Deathblow story is interesting.

Everything else blows dogs for quarters, as my friend would say.

Read it, but try to do so without buying it.

[Shellhead]

However I think that the farthest gap between how GREAT I think someone's best is and how bad their worst is, might be John Byrne's Doom Partol.

He has done what I think to be the definitive work on what I consider the definitive super heroes, with his run on Fantastic Four. I honestly can't say that any work in any comic I have read can beat that run.

But I really was so disappointed with his Doom Partol.

He has done a few projects that I really didn't care for, but his DP I actually disliked strongly.


In his early years at Marvel, Byrne did some great work. By the time he got to Fantastic Four, he was still doing great art, but I began to notice that his writing was often very derivative. Specifically, he seemed to want to drag most characters back to the way they were the first time he encountered them in comics. His reversal of the entire history of the Doom Patrol seemed to be a natural extension of that tendency, even as it revealed the total wrongness of that mindset. I'm done with Byrne.

[Omar Karindu]

A couple of questions, not meant as challenges but as actual "tell me where you're coming from" questions:

1) What did Byrne write solo before he wrote FF?

2) What, specifically, made Morrison's New X-Men so bad? Was it just that Cyclops and Magneto behaved in ways that didn't fit existing models for the characters, or was there something conceptually or mechanically flawed about his work on the book?

[jesse_custer]

2) What, specifically, made Morrison's New X-Men so bad? Was it just that Cyclops and Magneto behaved in ways that didn't fit existing models for the characters, or was there something conceptually or mechanically flawed about his work on the book?

Yo, mark me down as the second person who would like an answer to these questions.

[Karl O'Neill]

I thought Morrison's x-men was excellent.

[goRimbaud!]

Peter Milligan's Elektra
So many things from Garth Ennis

[Paiute 1]

A couple of questions, not meant as challenges but as actual "tell me where you're coming from" questions:

1) What did Byrne write solo before he wrote FF?

2) What, specifically, made Morrison's New X-Men so bad? Was it just that Cyclops and Magneto behaved in ways that didn't fit existing models for the characters, or was there something conceptually or mechanically flawed about his work on the book?

I don't think Byrne wrote anything solo before the FF run.

As for me personaly it was not just Cyclops and Magneto chracters but almost everybody else in the book, and his concepts in general were way out there. The book needed a boost from the bad Claremont hangover but for me anyway, fetus's surviving past the womb, mental cheating, thousands of meaningless deaths, all Mutants have to be ugly, the Cat-Beast and other minor details, was to much for me at least.

[Ziggy Stardust]

As for me personaly it was not just Cyclops and Magneto chracters but almost everybody else in the book, and his concepts in general were way out there. The book needed a boost from the bad Claremont hangover but for me anyway, fetus's surviving past the womb, mental cheating, thousands of meaningless deaths, all Mutants have to be ugly, the Cat-Beast and other minor details, was to much for me at least.

Nice summation. You saved me some work. :smile:

[BillR]

I don't think Byrne wrote anything solo before the FF run.

As for me personaly it was not just Cyclops and Magneto chracters but almost everybody else in the book, and his concepts in general were way out there. The book needed a boost from the bad Claremont hangover but for me anyway, fetus's surviving past the womb, mental cheating, thousands of meaningless deaths, all Mutants have to be ugly, the Cat-Beast and other minor details, was to much for me at least.

So what you're saying is that you don't actually like the basic concept of the X-Men.

[Nitz the Bloody]

As for me personaly it was not just Cyclops and Magneto chracters but almost everybody else in the book, and his concepts in general were way out there. The book needed a boost from the bad Claremont hangover but for me anyway, fetus's surviving past the womb, mental cheating, thousands of meaningless deaths, all Mutants have to be ugly, the Cat-Beast and other minor details, was to much for me at least.


As others have noted, " Weird for the sake of weird " isn't a criticism in and of itself. The Cassandra/Mummudrai thing may have been in a category where it didn't fit with the rest of the storyline due to its convoluted mythology, but the others don't qualify in the case where their unusual nature was detrimental to the story structure. For example...

-- Mental cheating is still within the paradigm of X-Men soap operas, albeit in a vehicle that is more cold, detached, and fetishistic than the stereotypes of affairs ( see the way the Jean/Logan thing is being presented in X-Men Forever for said cliches ).

-- Deaths by the thousands are senseless no matter what. " Senseless killing " has been a phrase in circulation long before comics were ever printed, and the lack of sense isn't referring to story structure.

-- Mutants had been overwhelmingly pretty for the forty years prior to Morrison's tenure, excluding villains ( who apparently are " okay " to make hideous ). If there is a mutant culture outside just the characters with X's on their clothes, it would make statistical sense that a large portion of them would have powers that were more like genetic defects than something cool.

-- Cat-Beast is a visual tweak, much in the way making Human Beast into Ape Beast was a visual tweak, or how giving Angel blue skin and metal wings was a visual tweak, or how putting Psylocke's brain in a Japanese ninja body was a visual tweak, etc. etc. Why is Cat Beast treated differently?

[Michael P]

It looks like New X-Men was X-Men for people who don't like X-Men.

I liked it!

No, it's for people who like the X-Men, but aren't so hopelessly obsessed with the way the comic was when they started reading that they can't handle new ideas.

[Ziggy Stardust]

New ideas is fine.

Throwing everything out the fuckin' window for shock value is something entirely different.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Throwing everything out the fuckin' window for shock value is something entirely different.


" Shock value " is another critical word that has too much use and too little content. What makes something an effective story move and what makes it just shock? Was it shock value when Piggy died in Lord of the Flies? When Darth Vader told Luke that he was his father? When the Goblin threw Gwen Stacy off that bridge?

[Paiute 1]

New ideas is fine.

Throwing everything out the fuckin' window for shock value is something entirely different.

Ziggy; your a smart man and not just because we agree on most issues. Shock value and wriiting eveybody out of chracter does not make a good read IMO.
Just because somebody says its good does not make it good.

[jesse_custer]

Moreover, I don't see how one could be shocked at anything that happens in X-Men.

The fucking book doesn't seem to have a status quo at all.

They could do a story about how Cyclops is actually the father of Professor X, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Paiute 1]

Moreover, I don't see how one could be shocked at anything that happens in X-Men.

The fucking book doesn't seem to have a status quo at all.

They could do a story about how Cyclops is actually the father of Professor X, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Good comment; it got to that point for me and I found I was just reading to keep the run going. I woke up one day and said to myself, the $120.00 I spent amonth could be better used and walked away from this "hobby" cold turkey after thirty year's. I didn't even finish "here comes tomorrow".

[Darrell D.]

New ideas is fine.

Throwing everything out the fuckin' window for shock value is something entirely different.

But what was left was the important parts: mutants defending and fighting for people who hate and fear them, blah, blah, blah. The series had been bogged down for a long time in shit.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But what was left was the important parts: mutants defending and fighting for people who hate and fear them, blah, blah, blah. The series had been bogged down for a long time in shit.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Darrell D.]

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Well, it's a good thing that Morrison didn't do that, then.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, it's a good thing that Morrison didn't do that, then.

While I can respect your opinion, I'd have to disagree.

It is true that the series was utter shit for a long time. But, some character development and long standing storylines could have been fixed without Grant doing the things he did. In my opinion, of course.

And frankly, revisiting the Jean/Scott/Logan thing was just unnecessary and worthless. Tossing in a "dark and gritty character" like Emma into the mix was just an epic fail too. Many disagree, I know.

Thing is, this thread asked for our opinions, and I voiced mine. While X-Men certainly wasn't stellar when Grant took it over, it only got worse under his pen, IMO. And after some of Grant's other work, I, for one, was rather disappointed.

[Paiute 1]

While I can respect your opinion, I'd have to disagree.

It is true that the series was utter shit for a long time. But, some character development and long standing storylines could have been fixed without Grant doing the things he did. In my opinion, of course.

And frankly, revisiting the Jean/Scott/Logan thing was just unnecessary and worthless. Tossing in a "dark and gritty character" like Emma into the mix was just an epic fail too. Many disagree, I know.

Thing is, this thread asked for our opinions, and I voiced mine. While X-Men certainly wasn't stellar when Grant took it over, it only got worse under his pen, IMO. And after some of Grant's other work, I, for one, was rather disappointed.

Yes because I realy injoyed his JLA and as stated hated the New X-men.
Of course Uncanny was bad but most of those writers were not considered "great".

[BillR]

Ziggy; your a smart man and not just because we agree on most issues. Shock value and wriiting eveybody out of chracter does not make a good read IMO.
Just because somebody says its good does not make it good.

No, that only happens when I say it's good.

I'd like to know what plot points were only in there for "shock value." Genosha getting blown up? Evil twins from the womb? Xorn's reveal? All of those had purpose within the narrative.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because they had purpose to the narrative does not mean the narrative was good in itself.

It's akin to saying Britney Spears has a great voice because she gets recording contracts.

[Darrell D.]

Because they had purpose to the narrative does not mean the narrative was good in itself.

It's akin to saying Britney Spears has a great voice because she gets recording contracts.

Actually, Bob Dylan would be a more apt analogy. Bob has a great voice for his songs.

[Reptisaurus!]

A couple of questions, not meant as challenges but as actual "tell me where you're coming from" questions:

1) What did Byrne write solo before he wrote FF?


I'm fairly sure that Marvel Two-In-One # 50 was before he started on FF. (Yay! Team-Up book question.) There might have been some stuff for Charlton?


2) What, specifically, made Morrison's New X-Men so bad? Was it just that Cyclops and Magneto behaved in ways that didn't fit existing models for the characters, or was there something conceptually or mechanically flawed about his work on the book?

In general, people who don't like Morrison's stuff are not particularly adept at framing their answers in terms of craft. (Corrina, over on the You'll All Be Sorry board did. But she's the only one I've seen.)

As far as I can tell, most of the answers boil down to "The book used to be about beautiful people having teh angst, and then it wasn't," I'm a school bus driver and all my middle school girls were WAY into these "Twilight" books, and I noticed a lot of X-men paralells. ("I'm lovely and have super magic powers but nobody understands me and when will I find true love!") And I think for years - decades, maybe - the X-men were a vehicle for a similar kind of story. (And I'm sarcastic 'cause this stuff ain't to my taste, but there's nothing really WRONG with it. Any story can be good.) And Morrison's X-men... It was this big sociological metaphor. It was a Phillip K. Dick book. It was a completely different type of story aimed at a completely different audience.

And I do think that, for all his prodigious strengths, Morrison is a flat-out poor soap opera writer, with serious weaknesses in the non-supervillain, non-fight-scene, non-pseudo-scientific-exposition dialog department, and a flat-out refusal to stop the plot for the kind of short, character defining scenes you'd get all the time in Claremont's stuff.

[BillR]

Because they had purpose to the narrative does not mean the narrative was good in itself.

It's akin to saying Britney Spears has a great voice because she gets recording contracts.

... No... No it isn't.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, Bob Dylan would be a more apt analogy. Bob has a great voice for his songs.

Gotta voice a dissenting opinion here too.

I keep hearing he's a great song writer, but for the life of me, 3/4 of the time I cannot understand what he's "singing".

Britney may be a washed-up, trailer trash skank who can't sing, but I at least understand what she's saying.

[jesse_custer]

Wow, just wow.

[Darrell D.]

Gotta voice a dissenting opinion here too.

I keep hearing he's a great song writer, but for the life of me, 3/4 of the time I cannot understand what he's "singing".

Britney may be a washed-up, trailer trash skank who can't sing, but I at least understand what she's saying.

I think you missed the point.

[Ziggy Stardust]

More than likely.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Ziggy; your a smart man and not just because we agree on most issues. Shock value and wriiting eveybody out of chracter does not make a good read IMO.
Just because somebody says its good does not make it good.

If you're trying to do the whole " The Emperor Has No Clothes " bit, then the argument needs more proof behind it. Specific examples are needed; what instances were shock value? Why were they shock value? What value was lacking? What value could have been there? How could that value have been achieved? Why are the characters out of character? Is the way Morrison writes the characters better or worse than your conception, and why?

[GHalecki]

I honestly would not attribute anything Morrison has done to being for shock value. I think you would have to value, or even recognize, the reader's views enough to want to shock them. I don't think he does.

I think he writes stories for their own sake. He writes a story because he sees the story as being needed to be written, not because he wants to write stories that people want (or think they want).

[Omar Karindu]

I tend to think that, by and large, Morrison was taking the idea that the X-Men are an American civil rights allegory at its face and trying things he figured would make the book resemble the civil rights movements and conflicts of the 2000s.

GLTB persons, to use one example, don't have a particularly good present-day analogy to the likes of Magneto, whom the civil rights allegory previously had stand in for the sorts of militancy that existed in 1960s and 1970s activism. Similarly, the question of the mistreatment of Muslims rests on there being a foreign minority of Muslims who launch truly unconscionable attacks: hence Morrison refashions Magneto into, as he put it in interviews, "a mad old terrorist twat"...but only after making Magneto a powerful martyr figure as that analogy might have it.

Basically, mutants started behaving more like contemporary minorities -- they had their own fashions and neighborhoods, they had their own public tragedy to discuss or flog as the case might be with the nuking of Genosha, and so forth. They even got an issue of drug problems, with Kick standing in for amyls or hash or what have you. And Weapon X/Plus/whatever, in turn, becomes a different form of bigotry, with Sentinels disguised as superheroes as its plan, rather like the crass way in which American racists have constructed their own publishing and music industries in which they claim to be saving humanity. The U-Men become the wannabes appropriating minority culture -- violently, of course, as this is a fight comic. I even suspect that the Phoenix weirdness was in part meant to play out as a mutant-specific religion of sorts.

Part of this was also that the X-Men and mutantkind became both more visible and more insular, using a different model of multiculturalism than Martin King, Jr.'s much as real minority groups today don't so much seek integration as they do self-segregate and create parallel arrangements to the majority culture. I don't think Morrison was mocking Magneto and Professor X so much as pointing out that the figures they stand in for really aren't represented in 21st century rights and policy arguments. And the Chinese treat their mutants rather like the Chinese treat their religious and other minorities more generally.

The problems in Morrison's run had more to do with the stuff he was doing that had nothing to do with the X-Men: Cassandra Nova's bizarre status as a creature out of boring Shi'ar myth was awful, and the Sublime/Phoenix plot ended up just sort of hurting the narrative, the readers, and the franchise in the longer run.

And Fantomex was pretty obviously an in-joke that apparently only Morrison was in on but kept insisting on telling anyway, a backhanded slap at his own JLA work (check out that table the Super-Sentinels are meant to sit at while pretending to be ultra-hip marketable superheroes as cover for genocide) and the "ultracool mysterious" sort of Mary Sue that haunts so many comics. (After all, he ends up as Apollyon, at least by heavy implication, just a soulless tool of Sublime after all his over-the-top rebellion.) That's potentially interesting, but Morrison's execution of it spent forever getting to the punchline and, frankly, I think he fell in love with his parody character during the development phase.

I'll also argue that the Xorneto plot was designed to give a later writer an out in terms of explaining Magneto's characterization trainwreck: he's on Kick the whole damn time, and "Here Comes Tomorrow" explains that Kick is just Sublime's method of infecting and mind-controlling mutants.

That's not Magneto, it's Sublime using Magneto to try and screw over mutantkind by discrediting it all over again and humankind by exterminating it in favor of a bridge species like the U-Men which he could continue to mass-possess (unlike mutants, who require Kick dosages to be affected) but with the physical and survival advantages of mutants. Magneto's not in the driver's seat for Planet X, which i suppose makes the Xorn twins retcon rather appropriate after all.

That said, beheading Magneto, forcing the Frost stuff to point out how much he thought things needed updating, and so on...those do fall into your criticism. I always liked Jean and Scott as a couple, though I confess I'm incredibly glad I'll never have to try and write things for them to do. They aren't necessarily dull characters, but they do tend to be excruciatingly predictable in most writers' hands, basically the "straight" characters all the antiheroes and eccentrics and aliens play off of.

Claremont's plan was to give Scott and Jean a happy ending and write them out save for occasional "big reunion" guest roles, and he tried it again with Jean-alike Maddie too...but Scott was always going to keep getting dragged back as a regular character whether or not anyone had good ideas for writing him, so the idea was doomed from the start. Indeed, it's been said by Morrison that, of all things, killing off Jean in Planet X was an editorial request and not his original plan...and all that "White Hot Room" stuff seems like a deliberate backdoor for her resurrection.

It's a mixed run that forgot its own business rather quickly, and suffered anew when it sometimes lurched back towards it. And yeah, the way he killed Magneto off was...well, it was pretty dumb in a continuing franchise, "jokes" like Magneto "always coming back" not being much help there.

But looking at the X-franchise today...well, the X-Men have been updated in terms of their allegory at least twice more, even as Morrison's specific plot elements have been tossed out. The impulse behind the run, and some of the ideas in it, are quite good. The run itself makes a few too many mistakes and tries waaaay too hard near the end, which is largely why I think it's ended up being rejected by the longer-term reader base. Had Planet X spelled out the Sublime stuff instead of the mulch that was "Tomorrow," and had Magneto been allowed to shake Sublime off -- Phoenix disinfection, perhaps? -- and get to play out a moment of clarity rather than being used up as an emblem of terrorism proper, I think it might have even worked as a great little arc about the noble villain being hijacked into monstrosity with some clever subtexts about terrorism, radical chic ("MAGNETO WAS RIGHT" as the Che T-shirt of the Marvel Universe), and so forth.

But it didn't, and it suffers for it, and the run tanks for many fans for it, turning them off of liking the subtext because the text is too problematic and screwed-up.

To more specifically answer matt mash, I don't think that most of the above constitutes contempt or satire; no, it's that Morrison tends to read and write subtext before he writes plain stories, and his stated love of Claremont's X-Men is more accuratley a love of the civil rights/GLTB/South Africa/etc. metaphors he thinks Claremont did (and that's not really inaccurate, so far as it goes).

What he saw himself doing in his run, I think, was writing the next chapter of the allegory or real-world parallel that he thinks is what makes the X-Men great and wonderful and exciting as comics. But I agree that the actual stories were simply not as well-executed as, say, Claremont's golden period on the comic.

And you know, he's right in his way when he calls Magneto a mad terrorist twat. People who use violence to act on their political grievances in the real world ARE terrorists. There's really no other word for it. The issue with Morrison's Magneto is hardly that he sees Magneto as a terrorist than that, for a lot of fans, he let a point he wanted to make about terrorism completely overwrite the Magneto that had been in the comics since Uncanny X-Men #112. I think those aggrieved fans didn't miss Morrison's point so much as they preferred the less direct poilitical allegory that gave them stories about this guy, Magneto, and his very specific ideas and personality and concerns and so forth. Their way isn't only way, or even the only good way, to read or write the X-Men, but it's long been the only way that was done...and so for those readers, it IS the only way to do good X-Men stories.

What I do think Morrison disliked was the tendency in the 1990s to write the X-Men as more of a pessimistic superhero story than a "civil rights with superpowers" kind of story. That stuff probably does take a real beating in his run.

[Paiute 1]

I realy think you did a good job with this. Some of us are not as articulate.

[BillR]

And Omar explains why I love New X-Men so much. Because it's not your dad's X-Men, as it uses-- and purposefully breaks-- all the old tropes, trying to buck the cycle (and, as we've seen, it failed).

[Darrell D.]

And Omar explains why I love New X-Men so much. Because it's not your dad's X-Men, as it uses-- and purposefully breaks-- all the old tropes, trying to buck the cycle (and, as we've seen, it failed).

Yeah, I agree with that.
Morrison tried something different; the introduction of the Mutant Culture was an inspired idea. The idea that not all mutants weren't 'pretty boys' wasn't new of course, you had the Morlocks. Who lived underground. Bringing them out to the forefront, however, reinforced the idea of 'a world that hates and fears them'. Because, really, who would look at Cyclops, or Logan, or Jean Grey and think they were a mutant? 'I fell into a vat of toxic waste as a kid!' 'Well, good, at least you weren't born that way, like a dirty mutant.'
But yeah, the run was flawed, (some bad to mediocre art by Van Sciver and Kordsky, and Perez, oops I mean Jimenez) but the good far outweigh the bad.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I realy think you did a good job with this. Some of us are not as articulate.

I agree. But, while his answer is quite articulate, and those points are ones I share, for me it's simpler than that.

Why did I not like Morrison's run on X-Men? Because it was not to my taste. And while I know some who liked it want me to go point-by-point as to why so they can disagree with me, why should I?

I didn't like it. Me. IMO. Etc.

And when you consider the title of the thread, even though I did not like his run, I still admit to Morrison being a great writer.

I am not as high-browed as some here. I do not need to have a comics story that is written to so many levels so as to cover everything that is wrong in the world. And while I want character development and interaction, I originally started reading comics for escapsim. We may bash where Claremont ended up on the X-Men, but in his prime he balanced drama with action better than almost any writer I've ever read, wherein comics are concerned.

And some of the major character developments/evolutions Chris did, Grant almost seemed to enjoy tearing apart and reverting back to the staus quo of 20 or 30 years ago. Magneto had become a complex, nearly noble villain who did very bad things for what he felt to be good causes. And then he turned into a junkie who needed a drug to do things he used to be able to do without it. And he callously killed Jean? Okaaaaaaaaaaaay. And I care not about why he threw Xorn in there, since we all know his intent was to regress Erik into a Lee-esque madman villain. That he felt the need to give future writers an out just shows he himself likely doubted how his take would be seen.

And, as I stated, there was the whole idiocy of Scott/Jean/Logan AGAIN, even though Claremont made a huge effort to finally tie up that over-used contrived storyline. Mixing in Emma only made the mire of failed soap opera fail more miserably.

And the gang of teen mutants who left the school, roaming the town to show how superior they were? Not bad... except that the elder X-Men were made to look like complete idiots in that story.

ANd Cat-Beast was bad enough, but having someone with human strength nearly kill Hank with a baseball bat?

All of this is in my opinion of course. And here comes the "it's their characters to do with as they please and if it means telling a good story.... balh, blah, blah..."

Yes, they own those characters. and if THEY FELT it was for a good story, and you agree with them, and the comics sold.... KUDOS!

however, I do not share YOUR OPINION. And no matter how you justify Grant's take on the X-Men, I just do not like it.

This forum is called Comics Should Be Good. That drew me in. And in my opinion, Grant's X-Men don't qualify.

[d newton]

And Cat-Beast was bad enough, but having someone with human strength nearly kill Hank with a baseball bat?
He hasn't got the powers of Wolverine or Colossus last time I looked! :tongue:

[GHalecki]

No, but Beast DOES in fact have something of a healing factor, and has always had strength and durability in the super human range. As well as his speed and agility.
So yes, some regular guy even being able to touch Hank is dumb.

[Darrell D.]

No, but Beast DOES in fact have something of a healing factor, and has always had strength and durability in the super human range. As well as his speed and agility.
So yes, some regular guy even being able to touch Hank is dumb.

Yeah, but Cassandra was using her mental powers on him at the time he was being beat in the head with a titanium bat, wasn't she? If I remember correctly, he was unable to say boo at the time.

[Michael P]

Ah, the "pecking order" argument. It never fails to fail to convince me.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Why did I not like Morrison's run on X-Men? Because it was not to my taste. And while I know some who liked it want me to go point-by-point as to why so they can disagree with me, why should I?

I didn't like it. Me. IMO. Etc.


But you say in the same post that it wasn't something you think was good. Taste is entirely subjective, but quality is not; the entire existence of critics and literary criticism hinges upon the idea that there are standards for what does and does not determine a good work. Saying that you don't care for something and saying it sucks are two completely different things; you can not care for something and think it's awful, but they're not necessarily related. I like Invincible a lot, but I'm not going to say it's great art; similarly, I didn't care for Morrison's Seven Soldiers, but I respect the work that went into it.

So is Morrison's New X-Men truly bad from a critical perspective ( and note that this has little to nothing to do with how it handles continuity ), or do you just not care for it?

[Ziggy Stardust]

But you say in the same post that it wasn't something you think was good. Taste is entirely subjective, but quality is not; the entire existence of critics and literary criticism hinges upon the idea that there are standards for what does and does not determine a good work. Saying that you don't care for something and saying it sucks are two completely different things; you can not care for something and think it's awful, but they're not necessarily related. I like Invincible a lot, but I'm not going to say it's great art; similarly, I didn't care for Morrison's Seven Soldiers, but I respect the work that went into it.

So is Morrison's New X-Men truly bad from a critical perspective ( and note that this has little to nothing to do with how it handles continuity ), or do you just not care for it?

I did not like it. And his trends in how he moved the franchise, in many ways, backwards, IMO.

I didn't like it on a personal level and I found his character regression/development annoying.

So, since I did not like it, in my opinion, it was not good. Sorry, that's how I see it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And I should add that Quitely's "art" on the book certainly didn't help me to enjoy it more.

I'm sure Grant put a ton of work and thought into the series, don't get me wrong. It's just his style and direction didn't suit the title.... for me, anyway.

Same for Johns' run on Avengers.

[Dizzy D]

Gaiman: Angela is his only work I've read that I didn't like.

Alan Moore: I've read his Violator-series and yes, it wasn't good, but it was so over-the-top that I was entertained. I also liked most of the stories in American Comics. Things I didn't like: I liked Promothea as a whole, but there were some issues that read like a manual rather than a story. Fire from Heaven wins this one though (though we can probably blame the big bogeyman Editorial Interference for that one).

Morrison: His Authority issues (the whole two of them). His Wildcats-issue at least had some potential.

Ellis: his early Excalibur issues, though in his defense he was just starting out there. Counter X issues I either liked or had co-writers so that would disqualify them for me.

Casey: What little I read of his Hulk-run and the first couple of issues of his Uncanny-run (though I'm one of the few who really loves the rest of his Uncanny X-Men run).

[Nitz the Bloody]

So, since I did not like it, in my opinion, it was not good. Sorry, that's how I see it.


" I don't like it " and " It's not good " are two different things; both can be true, but one being true does not mean the other is. So you've told us why you didn't like it, so why is it, on a critical level, not good?

[Paiute 1]

And I should add that Quitely's "art" on the book certainly didn't help me to enjoy it more.

I'm sure Grant put a ton of work and thought into the series, don't get me wrong. It's just his style and direction didn't suit the title.... for me, anyway.

Same for Johns' run on Avengers.

I had almost forgot how bad Quitely's artwork was and slow, he was supposed to be the next great artist. Another poster remarked that Van Sciver, Jimenez and Kordy were bad, whule I agree with him about Kordy, Van Sciver and Jimenez were about the only thing that made some of those issues half way injoyable.

I'm a huge John's fan but "I just didnt feel him" on the Avengers.

Last post from me on this subject; No I did not like Morrisons work on this title and that should be good enough and I respect the people that did because in the end we are all different.

[dancj]

I had almost forgot how bad Quitely's artwork was and slow, he was supposed to be the next great artist.
He was the next great artist. If All Star Superman and WE3 didn't convince you then nothing will.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm a huge John's fan but "I just didnt feel him" on the Avengers.

Last post from me on this subject; No I did not like Morrisons work on this title and that should be good enough and I respect the people that did because in the end we are all different.

I agree with this.

[Ziggy Stardust]

He was the next great artist. If All Star Superman and WE3 didn't convince you then nothing will.

Then nothing will. And his "art" for Batman that I've seen?

Not doing it for me.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Not doing it for me.


And again, is it not doing it for you because you don't like it, or because it's bad? Because if it's just not to your taste, the snide quotation marks around " art " aren't justified.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're right, I am choosing to be snide.

But, since what is considered art is subjective, I think I'll stick to that stance.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, that's wrong on my part.

Since some folk like his art, I guess it qualifies as art, despite my dislike for it.

[NickFury90]

? Was it shock value when Piggy died in Lord of the Flies? ?

I was READING that book, you jerk :mad:

Also, a thread about Great Writers turns into a Morrison debate. Who woulda thought?

Look at that avatar of mine: Quitely Cyclops does NOT approve

[Dan Felty]

I was READING that book, you jerk :mad:

Also, a thread about Great Writers turns into a Morrison debate. Who woulda thought?

Look at that avatar of mine: Quitely Cyclops does NOT approve

You'll be really shock when it turns out that Piggy's ghost is the beast!!

ooooohh!

[Darrell D.]

I had almost forgot how bad Quitely's artwork was and slow, he was supposed to be the next great artist. Another poster remarked that Van Sciver, Jimenez and Kordy were bad, whule I agree with him about Kordy, Van Sciver and Jimenez were about the only thing that made some of those issues half way injoyable.


Yeah, that was me. While I can give Kordey a pass..he is a good artist when he has time (his X-men issues were done like in two weeks), and his storytelling skills in the issue were good. Van Sciver and Perez, oops, Jimenez was just boring to me.

[dancj]

Yeah, that was me. While I can give Kordey a pass..he is a good artist when he has time (his X-men issues were done like in two weeks), and his storytelling skills in the issue were good. Van Sciver and Perez, oops, Jimenez was just boring to me.
I agree with all of that.

[stealthwise]

I agree with all of that.

Same here.

I wish that Marvel could afford to pay Quitely to redraw everything that wasn't done by him.

[dancj]

Same here.

I wish that Marvel could afford to pay Quitely to redraw everything that wasn't done by him.
It would make for good X-Men comics, but it would also mean we wouldn't get any other new Quitely comics for about 15 years. That's too high a price to pay

[Darrell D.]

It would make for good X-Men comics, but it would also mean we wouldn't get any other new Quitely comics for about 15 years. That's too high a price to pay

Yeah, I think Quitely makes more money doing things other than comics, IIRC.

[NickFury90]

On New X-men, Quitely > Jiminez > Silverstri > Bachelo > Van Sciver > Regular Kordley >>>>>>> dog shit > rushed Kordley

[Omar Karindu]

I doubt anyone here is demanding some objective and Platonically ideal notion of "good art."

The problem is that there are things that can be objectively or quasi-objectively discussed about art, and that there is indeed a difference between an inchoate judgement of taste and a series of statements about the technical qualities of a creative work.

How do we decide which painters hang in the museums and which don't; how do we decide which writers are taught in classrooms and which aren't?

More to the point, if our reactions to art or the qualities of creative works are entirely subjective and therefore impossible to discuss or articulate, let alone make the basis of persuasive or technical discussion, what is really being said is that art is inherently valueless, a thorough crapshoot in which no rational basis for preference is possible.

But we have things like museums, and symphonies, and playhouses, and awards, all of which only work if there's some way to at least discuss merit in art, some way to make persuasive and at least quasi-rational cases about objective or quasi-objective qualities of works of art.

If the cases are extreme enough, anyone can do this. Would anyone in this thread truly be unable to articulate the reasons Ed Wood and Michael Bay are less talented or less meritorious filmmakers than Orson Wells and Stanley Kubrick? Would you genuinely be unable to explain why the latter two -- regardless of whether you personally like watching them on a Friday night -- are superior in skill and talent?

It's the difference between liking something and appreciating it. You can appreciate a work of art without liking it; you can like it without finding much in it to appreciate, as with what people call "guilty pleasures."

We do it all the time. And if we find ourselves unable to have a discussion about what constitutes or merits appreciation rather than simple, inarticulate, knee-jerk reactions of taste...it's because we don't want to think, frankly. Because appreciation seems too hard and we'd rather sleep in.

And that's fine. Sleep in. Don't worry about it. But don't demand that the lazy or unconsidered declarations of taste be given the same attention and respect as thoughtful and reasoned arguments to appreciation. They don't deserve that respect or that attention.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I'll wake up and make the effort....

Someone please explain to me what is good about Quitely's art...... keep it simple, though. My brain's still fuzzy from my nap.

Ditto, can someone easily explain what I should appreciate about grant's X-Men run when it seemed utterly horrible to me, mainly based on how he treated the characters and their characterization?

[stealthwise]

Quite frankly (ohohohoho... sorry), I find Quitely's stuff to be both very broad in scope and yet very detail-oriented at the same time. His technical skills are masterful, as is his storytelling sense in terms of page layouts and action sequences. Some of his work on New X-Men, such as the silent issue with Professor Xavier and Cassandra Nova, are just phenomenal, and definitely lay the groundwork for his expansive epic work on All-Star Superman and masterpiece WE3.

On the flip side, he takes forever to do it and his people often look like mushed-up potato-heads. He's getting much better at that part, but while his ability to draw traditional facial structures is questionable at times, he still has a great sense for anatomy and body language (A*S is a great example of this).

[BillR]

On New X-men, Quitely > Jiminez > Silverstri > Bachelo > Van Sciver > Regular Kordley >>>>>>> dog shit > rushed Kordley

No, no, no, it's Quitely > Bachalo > John Paul Leon > Kordey > Jimenez > Van Sciver > Silvestri.

I also liked Yu's annual. Did I miss anyone? I think Derenick drew half an issue somewhere in there.

[BillR]

It seems to come down to "I don't like how Frank Quitely draws faces, boooo!", which is a silly argument, obviously.

The man's art carries some uncanny dynamism with it; the static images he draws have a greater sense of movement to them than any other artist today. The amazing things he does with page layout redefines comic book storytelling-- just look at We3. It's an artistic masterpiece, unparalleled in today's era. His linework may seem spare, but every detail is important: his characters move like humans, not like mannequins; the clothes he puts on them are actual clothes; the facial expressions show as much boiling under the surface as the finest actors are able to convey.

Conventionally, his style may seem off-putting at first, but an issue or two later those misgivings should dissolve when the reader witnesses the lovely grace of his craft. He's a master at work-- I'm glad the companies, at least, understand this. He's the perfect artist for a Grant Morrison script, no doubt about that. Must be a Scottish thing.

[jesse_custer]

I'm not the biggest fan of his style, but Quitely is a solid storyteller for the most part. The story is easy to follow when he's drawing it.

[Nitz the Bloody]

The reason I like Frank Quitely best ( and there are a lot of them ) is the fact that he puts a lot more content and design into his pages than virtually any other living comic artist. He really creates a sense of place with his backgrounds, not just with the really trippy stuff like the mindscape of Charles Xavier, but with little scenes like Luthor's disorganized basement lab in the first issue of All-Star Superman, the dollhouse montage of Wolverine's life history, or the crowd scenes on the Carrier ( both the celebrity parties and the refugee camps ) in the Authority ). He also draws characters who not only look distinct from each other, but can tweak their appearances from scene to scene ( Jean Grey had several hair alterations, for example ).

This alone would be enough to " make up " for his faces ( which I never found repellent, since it's just a few lines that are a marks of his style that people deem so ugly; perhaps many superhero fans have an adverse reaction to different kinds of art, evidenced as how they'd deem an artist like Ed Benes who idealizes the human face and figure to the point of homogenousness more acceptable ).

[Reptisaurus!]

It seems to come down to "I don't like how Frank Quitely draws faces, boooo!", which is a silly argument, obviously.

The man's art carries some uncanny dynamism with it; the static images he draws have a greater sense of movement to them than any other artist today. The amazing things he does with page layout redefines comic book storytelling-- just look at We3. It's an artistic masterpiece, unparalleled in today's era. His linework may seem spare, but every detail is important: his characters move like humans, not like mannequins; the clothes he puts on them are actual clothes; the facial expressions show as much boiling under the surface as the finest actors are able to convey.

Conventionally, his style may seem off-putting at first, but an issue or two later those misgivings should dissolve when the reader witnesses the lovely grace of his craft. He's a master at work-- I'm glad the companies, at least, understand this. He's the perfect artist for a Grant Morrison script, no doubt about that. Must be a Scottish thing.

On the other hand, I don't like the way he draws human faces.

Seriously - It's a snap aesthetic judgement and it doesn't really change how I look at his work critically, but it's something I'd mention if I'm talking about the guy's work.

They just kinda bug me.

(Unsurprisingly, my favorite Quitely works are WE3 and the Sandman story he did with Neil Gaiman. And, OK, the cover to American Virgin # 1, which is ALL face. Dunno how that works, really.)

[stealthwise]

Good lord... it's been so long since I've read Endless Nights that there's a Quitely story I've forgotten about? This must be rectified immediately!

[Reptisaurus!]

Good lord... it's been so long since I've read Endless Nights that there's a Quitely story I've forgotten about? This must be rectified immediately!

EXCEPT for the art, it's fairly forgettable, really. (But the art is just scary good.)

[pariah-1972]

I love Gail Simone but i never really got into her Atom series even with Byrne doing the first couple of issues.
I don't know if i would call it bad tho.
also the story she did about a retirement home for superhero's was kinda cheesy and i wasn't crazy about the art.

[GregorsReview]

If anyone is interested. I run a popular COMIC BOOK REVIEW website

-New reviews every Tuesday Night, BEFORE your comics hit the shelves.

-Fun and Fast Format for getting reviews without having to read a NOVEL

-Frequent Graphic Novel Reviews

-Comment discussions


To visit "Gregor's Review" click here> http://gregorsreview.blogspot.com/

Thanks =o)

[Reptisaurus!]

I
also the story she did about a retirement home for superhero's was kinda cheesy and i wasn't crazy about the art.

If by "cheesy" you mean "Didn't adhere to the traditional, brainless, superhero cliches like a dairy cow, drooling, clinging to his mother's teat" then you agree.

But in terms of quality: It destroyed, wrecked, and trashed, every other mainstream comic she's ever done.

[dancj]

If by "cheesy" you mean "Didn't adhere to the traditional, brainless, superhero cliches like a dairy cow, drooling, clinging to his mother's teat" then you agree.

But in terms of quality: It destroyed, wrecked, and trashed, every other mainstream comic she's ever done.
Yeah - Welcome to Tranquillity is probably the best thing Gail Simone has ever written

[pariah-1972]

If by "cheesy" you mean "Didn't adhere to the traditional, brainless, superhero cliches like a dairy cow, drooling, clinging to his mother's teat" then you agree.

But in terms of quality: It destroyed, wrecked, and trashed, every other mainstream comic she's ever done.I think you being overly profuse personally i don't remember anyone else saying it was that great before.



And you have to admit the book was very very silly.

[Reptisaurus!]

I think you being overly profuse personally i don't remember anyone else saying it was that great before.


Honestly? I think most people didn't get it or ignored it because it didn't feature corporate characters they were familiar with.


And you have to admit the book was very very silly.

Compared to War and Peace? Sure. Compared to the average superhero comic? Well, I think they're ALL pretty damn silly, really. But this one was aware of it, and placed a lot more attention on building psychologically truthful, rounded characters. It did kinda fall apart in the second volume, though.

[JP Morgan]

Quitely is the reason I came back to read X-Men comics after 10+ years of no interest. Saw the Vol 1 New X-Men HC on sale, browsed through it and was floored with the awesomeness of the Quitely parts. Ended up collecting the series monthly after that.

If you dont like his style, you dont like his style. But regardless of your like/dislike, he is a great storyteller, you may not like what you see, but you can understand the story based off his art alone.

Bad comics by great writers:

Busiek - Trinity
Morrison - Final Crisis
Bendis - Avengers Dissassembled, Ult Power
Carey - Ult FF
Ellis - Starjammers mini
Miller - Allstar Batman
Millar - Trouble
Johns - Infinite Crisis
Kirkman - Ult X-Men
Vaughn - Ult X-Men

[Lorendiac]

Bad comics by great writers:

Busiek - Trinity
Morrison - Final Crisis
Bendis - Avengers Dissassembled, Ult Power
Carey - Ult FF
Ellis - Starjammers mini
Miller - Allstar Batman
Millar - Trouble
Johns - Infinite Crisis
Kirkman - Ult X-Men
Vaughn - Ult X-Men

Just to mention -- I think I've only read 3 of those items on your list. "Final Crisis," "Infinite Crisis," and "Avengers Disassembled." I agree strongly with you about two of them being bad work from writers who sometimes do a lot better, but I'm wavering on "Infinite Crisis." I haven't bothered to reread it lately to refresh my memory, but I think I'm more inclined to put it down as "disappointingly mediocre" instead of calling it downright awful.

[dancj]

I think you being overly profuse personally i don't remember anyone else saying it was that great before.
You must be reading different threads to me then. I bought Welcome to Tranquility specifically because so many people on this board were raving about it.


And you have to admit the book was very very silly.
No

[pariah-1972]

Quitely is the reason I came back to read X-Men comics after 10+ years of no interest. Saw the Vol 1 New X-Men HC on sale, browsed through it and was floored with the awesomeness of the Quitely parts. Ended up collecting the series monthly after that.

If you dont like his style, you dont like his style. But regardless of your like/dislike, he is a great storyteller, you may not like what you see, but you can understand the story based off his art alone.

Bad comics by great writers:

Busiek - Trinity
Morrison - Final Crisis
Bendis - Avengers Dissassembled, Ult Power
Carey - Ult FF
Ellis - Starjammers mini
Miller - Allstar Batman
Millar - Trouble
Johns - Infinite Crisis
Kirkman - Ult X-Men
Vaughn - Ult X-MenWow Vaughn's Ultimate X-men work turned me on to him and i think it was the highlight of the book.


I mean come on Sinister pushing Xavier down a flight of stairs is one of the most loltastic moments ever.