What's the biggest change in opinion you've had upon re-reading a comic?

[stealthwise]

The more I read BKV's stuff, the more I appreciate what he does.

Runaways, Ultimate X-Men, Pride of Baghdad, Y the Last Man, Ex Machina, Spiderman/Doc Ock...

[Gingold]

While I appreciated his drawing, I intially thought Dan Clowes's work was just a bunch of hipster whining. The more I re-read his stuff, I realized there was a lot more to it than that.

I thought the Killing Joke was the best Batman story ever at one point. I really like Bolland's art still, but I think it's the worst thing Moore's ever done. Just nasty and dark for the sake of being nasty and dark.

[Reptisaurus!]

The more I read BKV's stuff, the more I appreciate what he does.

Runaways, Ultimate X-Men, Pride of Baghdad, Y the Last Man, Ex Machina, Spiderman/Doc Ock...

Really? Total opposite here. Pride of Baghdad was good. Hope he keeps doin' stories of that length. I can't work around the obvious not-quite-all-there-ness of the narrative structure in his longer works.

(Except for Runaways. Which was great.)

I thought the Killing Joke was the best Batman story ever at one point. I really like Bolland's art still, but I think it's the worst thing Moore's ever done. Just nasty and dark for the sake of being nasty and dark.

I'd agree with worst of Moore's major works. (I still kinda like it, though. It's well plotted and developed nasty and dark with STYLE.) But Moore had a lotta crap when he was workin' with Image. I strongly reccomend never reading that Voodoo miniseries, ferinstance.

[suedenim]

Essentially the opposite reaction to the 'decompression' thing Dan mentioned. I look at 70's books and I'm much more appreciative of how tightly crafted they are, how even books from a long arc are more self-contained than today, setting up characters and conflict and getting everyone caught up to speed by the end of page two. I also prefer the density of storytelling style, of getting more on a page.

But those are general things. Specifically, I find I'm much more interested in the non-superhero books from that time now than I was then. I never would have given Jonah Hex or the Haunted Tank a second look in the 70's. But I snapped those new Showcases up the second they hit the stands and enjoyed them more than anything new I bought that month.

Comics from back then pretty much *all* had a default level of basic craftsmanship that you very well might not find today. For example, you would never, ever see a "team-up" that didn't introduce all the new characters by name and give you a short explanation of who they are and what they can do. But this week's Supergirl, to take just a fresh-in-memory example, seems to assume every reader is intimately familiar with the current lineup of The Outsiders. I think half of them are never even called by name during the story.

[dancj]

But this week's Supergirl, to take just a fresh-in-memory example, seems to assume every reader is intimately familiar with the current lineup of The Outsiders. I think half of them are never even called by name during the story.

I haven't read that Supergirl, but as a rule I prefer the new way. If I don't need to know the names of individual members of The Outsiders, then don't slow down the story to tell me them

[riftt]

this is kind of a sad example, but: The X-tinction Agenda.

When I was young I thought this was the holy grail of crossovers, the most awesome of awesome x-men yarns ever.

Picking it up two years ago and re-reading it I was mortified in regard to how horrible the art was, how bad the dialogue was with a completely corny storyline. Reading them back-to-back it actually made Xecutioner's Song good.

[stealthwise]

Really? Total opposite here. Pride of Baghdad was good. Hope he keeps doin' stories of that length. I can't work around the obvious not-quite-all-there-ness of the narrative structure in his longer works.

(Except for Runaways. Which was great.)

Even Ex Machina? Because that series is frigging brilliant. I understand your complaints about Y, even though I dig that series about 95% of the time, but Ex Machina is just bloody great.

[Dan Apodaca]

I must have been really high or something, I dunno. But when I read the first issue of The Brotherhood the first time, I thought it was the most exciting, bad-ass shit to go down in the Marvel universe in decades.

I bought the next issue and it stank to high heaven. So, I went back and re-read the first one. I thought someone must have switched it out for the comic I loved, 'cause this was clearly a piece of shit.

No, turns out I just managed to miss the stink somehow, the first time around.

[BizarroBeachHead]

I must have been really high or something, I dunno. But when I read the first issue of The Brotherhood the first time, I thought it was the most exciting, bad-ass shit to go down in the Marvel universe in decades.

Hmmmm, I did the same thing, except that I never got the second issue. I was looking through my random comics the other month, debating whether or not I should hunt down back issues and I couldn't believe how bad it was. I can't even understand why I bought it in the first place. Guess I dodged a bullet there!

[TheLazy]

I don't know if this contributes to the thread properly, but I can't seem to re-read things. Once I know the narrative conclusion its like a chore to re-live the process. Im the same with movies and books, and once I've heard a song enough times, the same with music.

A good example would be Infinity Gauntlet. I've tried to re-read it on several occassions, due to the fact that I was just getting into comics when I read it I didn't get half the refferences and knew of even fewer characters. But when I try to read it I end up forcing my self to skip to the end.

Does anyone else get this?

It's a shame because I read Sandman up until Fables and reflections, then I stopped reading for some reason and picked up about six months later, but I couldn't seem to get myself to go back and refresh my memory on the earlier trades before continuing with the series.

[Nitz the Bloody]

I see what you mean. Preacher doesn't really work on that kind of literary-ish level. And I think it's overall inferior to the Ennis stuff that DOES; Unknown Soldier, the end of Fury, Born....

I'd be curious to know why you think that, because I think that Preacher works very well on a literary level-- there's a lot of depth and weight to the characters and issues discussed admist the plunges into sick humor.

As for stories I've changed my opinion on, put Ultimate X-Men by Mark Millar and the Kuberts in that category; I thought the issues were total crap when I first read them as a 15-year-old fanboy punk, but after a closer look, considered them to be pretty good ( and still do ).

[Reptisaurus!]

I'd be curious to know why you think that, because I think that Preacher works very well on a literary level-- there's a lot of depth and weight to the characters and issues discussed admist the plunges into sick humor.

Specific examples? There was some solid characterization, (And the occasional sequence where the PACING floored we with it's execution) but the theologic core of Preacher reads t'me, like, "I dropped out of Catholic School in eight grade. I'm still pissed, and still Thinking about religion on as an annoyed eight grader. God is teh Suxxxors! Do you hear that father Jimmy? SUXXORS! Also Ass, poot, bum."

Compare that to the end of Fury, where Ennis is dealin' with really important, really BIG questions; How we define our own personal identity and how we're unable to discard our ideas about ourselves, even when those ideas can get us killed. Heavy shit. Much more intelligent and better thought out than anything in Preacher.

[Nitz the Bloody]

Specific examples? There was some solid characterization, (And the occasional sequence where the PACING floored we with it's execution) but the theologic core of Preacher reads t'me, like, "I dropped out of Catholic School in eight grade. I'm still pissed, and still Thinking about religion on as an annoyed eight grader. God is teh Suxxxors! Do you hear that father Jimmy? SUXXORS! Also Ass, poot, bum."

With al due respect, that's not a specific example. I felt that Preacher had a lot of nuance in its handling of God-- the portrayal of God wasn't as an outright villain, but a rather pathetic figure, a needy little man desperately seeking approval and doing whatever it takes to get it. The set-up in the second book where God lets Tulip die then ressurects her to prove a point is the first indication of this; he wants Jesse and Genesis to love him, but goes about it the complete wrong way ( creating a life-and-death scenario for the cast and then " saving " them, a faulty redemption method also used by Yellowjacket and Astro City's El Hombre ).

My one complaint about Preacher is that we didn't see enough of God, as Ennis and Dillon spent more time on the characters themselves ( though given how masterfully he did that, it's hard to fault him for it ). But what we did see of the Preacher God was very interesting, and a far cry from an angsty teenager's anti-religious rantings.

[Reptisaurus!]

It all just strikes me as being really, REALLY angry. And not all that well thought out... Just another one note joke, like, well MOST of the characters in Preacher.

In fact, I can't think of any characters 'cept for the main three who can't be (A) either summed up in either one or two character traits, or (B) can be completely summed up in one or two character traits plus one specific character trait intended for shock value or (C) were just there to hork the plot along. Like God. "God's a pussy." That's his whole character. There's no character development of added nuance provided after you figure that out. It's a character that you understand completely behaving in an expected way throughout the rest of his appearances.

I guess I can kinda see the Loony Tunes style appeal of that, but it just wasn't manic or clever enough to hold my attention.

And, like I said, this wasn't true of the three leads. But stickin' three round characters in a world full of cardboard cut-outs really hurt the consistency of the world and flat-out yanked me outta the story.

Reads other thread: Although the ending WAS really good. I'd forgotten that.

[Nitz the Bloody]

It all just strikes me as being really, REALLY angry. And not all that well thought out... Just another one note joke, like, well MOST of the characters in Preacher.

In fact, I can't think of any characters 'cept for the main three who can't be (A) either summed up in either one or two character traits, or (B) can be completely summed up in one or two character traits plus one specific character trait intended for shock value or (C) were just there to hork the plot along. Like God. "God's a pussy." That's his whole character. There's no character development of added nuance provided after you figure that out. It's a character that you understand completely behaving in an expected way throughout the rest of his appearances.

I guess I can kinda see the Loony Tunes style appeal of that, but it just wasn't manic or clever enough to hold my attention.

And, like I said, this wasn't true of the three leads. But stickin' three round characters in a world full of cardboard cut-outs really hurt the consistency of the world and flat-out yanked me outta the story.

Reads other thread: Although the ending WAS really good. I'd forgotten that.

Forgive me if I sound a bit agitated in this thread, but Preacher is pretty close to me because it was the first Vertigo, nay, first non-superhero comic book series I followed with any regularity. Maybe it's nostalgia, but I credit the work of Ennis and Dillon as what opened me up as a reader, writer, and thinker to a whole realm of new possibilities in comics. It's still my favorite comic to this day; I've read works that are more sophisticated, but none that hit all the right notes of both entertainment and ideology. ( Though Transmetropolitan and the Grant Morrison X-Men come very close ).

But even though the supporting characters ( i.e. those who aren't Jesse, Tulip, or Cassidy ) behave according to type, a lot of nuance was added to their rules. The second trio of important characters-- The Saint of Killers, Arseface, and Herr Starr-- were all great characters, especially in their tie-in one-shots. They have their specific roles ( serious villain, comedy sidekick, comedy villain ), but behind them is a lot of depth honed by the pain all three have been through; the Saint as a good family man before becoming the Angel of Death, Arseface's time as a kid living under an abusive father, and Starr's childhood trauma and cynicism. A lot of little details were added to the characters, and not just shock traits ( like Starr's increasing sexual deviance as he gets raped and mutilated more and more ). I could say the same for supporting characters like Amy, Hoover, Featherstone, Jesse's mother, etc. as well as minor villains like the Good Ol' Boys and Allfather D'Aronique. They all seemed like deep people despite the absurdity of their worlds.

Yes their personalities can be summed up in a few traits, but you can do that for a lot of characters ( Romeo and Juliet= angsty, passionate teenagers, Willy Loman= depressed failiure, etc. ). What matters is that they were written with a lot of care despite their specific roles, and felt real, even if they weren't.